do you trust history books?

Question

daniel- that's exactly what i was getting at.

mrglass08- good call. the new testament has more manuscript support than any other text known to man. well said.

Answer 1

If it has primary evidence and can be verified. yes.

Answer 2

The challenge for the historian is that if he or she isn't 99.9 percent on the mark and factual, he will be found out almost at once in this age of global communication. The whole entire world would know about it: thus go book sales. Too, very nearly every history book is reviewed by the author's fellow historians, his peers, often by a specialist on the topic at hand. Other aspects are at play but these perhaps cast a bit of light on the matter. Do I trust history books? Now I do, yes.

Answer 3

Only as far as they can be verified. I know that most ancient history is based off of books that were written hundreds of years after the fact and we really do not have all that many copies of the books and even less originals.

What I find hilarious is that the most recorded and verifiable book of antiquity, the New Testament, is constantly being called into question for its supposed error in translation when in reality we know for a fact that at least 95% of the book is pure in its original form.

If you mean modern history books, only so far as it matches up to its sources and I know what biases it is going to use so I know where to not put as much faith in those "facts". All history books, just like everything else printed or said in public, has its own agenda for the creators and as long as you realize that it is just a propaganda tool and know what side it is pushing you will be fine.

Answer 4

I do not trust then for accuracy. I do however try to understand the general view on history. The Cherokee have a very different telling of how America was founded. World War II vets have told me different versions of famous battles. Same with Vietnam vets, Panama Vets, And Gulf War vets. History is a wonderful thing. It can be very far from the truth though.

Answer 5

It's not rational to throw all history book away. That's like banging your head against the wall to perish your brain just because you can not recall a friend's name and think that your brain is of no use any more!

Adding your agenda and interpretation to observations is a part of your nature and you can not get rid of that. So what, since people including me have agenda you should ignore them? I think this is not the solution.

The rational thing is dialectic listening and reading. You gotta try hard to figure out the narrator's agenda and based on that you can decode the lesson that history has for you.

Answer 6

Not if they're 2000+ years old, chipped into a rock by a goat herder.

A history book should be written by someone living during the generation of the event. It ain't a history book if someone told someone who told someone who told someone else who told the writer, a couple of hundred years after the fact. That's legend and myth, NOT history.

.

Answer 7

technology is testable, repeatable and provable!! no longer so the Bible!! there is not any longer one single point out of Jesus interior the comprehensive Roman record - it quite is optimal - no longer one!!! on an identical time as he replaced into meant to have been around there have been countless Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are nicely recorded!! there is not any longer a single cutting-edge record from any source or perhaps the bible mentions of him like countless different references weren't written until some years after his meant dying!! He replaced into meant to have been a extensive subject to the Romans and produced magnificent miracles yet nevertheless no longer one cutting-edge record? Even the bible mentions of him like countless different references weren't written until some years after his meant dying!! Pilate is recorded interior the Roman record as a particularly lack luster guy yet no point out of a Jesus, a tribulation or crucifixion that could easily have been used to make him look brighter!! At ultimate he replaced into an amalgam of those others!! The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he replaced right into a pagan no longer god!!! He additionally prepared Christianity into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! no longer in Israel or any of the countries of meant commencing place yet completely ITALIAN!! no longer one know it extremely is cutting-edge with the era and replaced into no longer written until countless hundred years after the era the story is desperate in!! How did the apostles write their books extra beneficial than a hundred years while they might have been lifeless? What a ask your self comprehensive disinformation and deception campaign he waged against his Christian enemies - so good in fact that Christians are nevertheless following the deception to in the present day!!!

Answer 8

Serious historians do not write al that they know.Modern history text books on ancient history is mostly more directed than natural.

Answer 9

For the most part, yes. What else do we have to go on? For all we know, everything before our grandparents could be made up. Books are what we have to tell us what has happened for the last 3,000 years.

Answer 10

Not really no all history has been altered by those who won the war or wanted history to support their hypothesis. Just look at the bible as a perfect example, there is some history but it is so clouded as to be undecipherable.

That doesn't mean I reject all history but other sources would be a big plus.

Answer 11

As far as I can throw them. no. I think they are true up to a point. Scholars can only dig so deep into the past to understand how events actually happened or if they even happened at all.