Aronil - Truth is questioned in History?

I haven’t blogged for a while all thanks to assignments and just more assignments.

This partically entry isyet again related with one of the subjects but more so a question my lecturer had posed to us which has rather shaken, if you will, if not made me a little uncomfortable.

History is considered to be made up of many stories all happening at once. Whatever thought, action, event that has happened is past and has become history. We are all ourselves part of that history, whatever it may deemed to be. So now it just so happens most of the time the history that we read now, is a compilation of the ‘victors’ of history or if not probably people who have made a define mark in the timeline. So if history is made up of many stories all happening at once, which in the end is the real story? Which in the end is the real truth?

Our bible is history itself. I can believe that it is dejure (by right) to be truth. But the question which given, has somehow blurred that understanding. Everything is a history and so is the bible and we know it is truth, so how does one as a Christian defend that statement. The bible is history but it is the ultimate truth.

Now this has gotten me shaken, as the thought maybe just scares me a little. But i’m willing and very much eager to hear other people’s thoughts on this.

If you liked that post, then try these...

Pirates of the Carribean - At World’s End

Potter All Grown Up

Charice Pempengco beautiful voice

Black Eyed Peas In Genting 2007

Man United Tip to Malaysia cancelled!

Share and Enjoy:

Viewing 5 Comments

Peter 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

fikri,

Acknowledging that history was written by victors does not necessarily makes one a Postmodernist (PoMo). Any sincere historian will inevitably believe that often time than not, the affairs of time were put down to paper to the compliment of triumphant rulers/nations/parties.

Your so-called "balanced approach" however is PoMo. If the you believed in the "death of the author" of the PoMo, the Quran, then cannot make much sense to you literally. You'll have to read between the lines and possibly believe that Muhammad s.a.w (or, horror of horrors, the angel of God)did not consciously meant what was written, but there were subconsciously other meanings which the modern (or postmoder..hehehehe) readers have to dig up for themselves. Is that consistent with Islamic theology? It may not be, but embracing BOTH contradicting philosophies is definitely consistent with PoModernism.

While on the other hand, I agree that there are certain ideas in PoModernism that can be very attractive and I do absorb some of these, I am very careful not too fall into the pit of PoModernism, one vital one being their disillusionment of modernism and thereafter their radical response against it.

Peter

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

Fikri 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Well, simply put, postmodernists believe that there's always two sides to every story (which has its merits). It doesn't question the Bible (or the Qur'an, or the Torah, or other religious texts) per se, but I suppose in principle you can make it so.

In my case, I take a balanced approach. I can be post-modernist in some aspects (I acknowledge that history can be and usually is written by victors), but as far as God goes...well, I truly believe in Islam and most of its principles (that's another story :>). You don't have to be completely one or the other, for fanaticism is self-defeating.

Hope this helps.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

Peter 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

In fact you are right to say that some historical narrations are only ONE story. The bible was not meant to tell us so many things that happened in the time in which the events in the biblical narrations occured. But if you mean to say that biblical accounts contradict historical facts, that's another "story" :). If we ever meet, we'll discuss on how to engage history properly, without the bias of postmodernism or the fanaticism of religous-fundamentalism.

Peter the Magnificent

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

Peter 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

These postmodern ppl sometimes are unbearable. And esp so for those who accept postmodernism uncritically. What's wrong with trusting history? They say it's bias. But they do believe in history, only their reconstructed history. The question here is "Is there such thing as Dispassionate History?". If there such thing as objectivity when preceiving events in time? To me, the fly-on-the-wall is a myth, it's an attempt to look at things from, to quote NT Wright, "almost a God's-eyeview".

"The fact is (!) that you can't write about anything from a 'neutral' point of view. There is no such thing. Every telling of every event involves selection; and when you select you interpret." (Who Was Jesus, NT Wright)

Peter

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

Anonymous 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

recommend you these books:
1. The Case For Christ

2. The Case For Faith

by Lee Strobel.

Hope it helps to strengthen your Faith :)

-enn@j

reply edit reblog flag record video comment