as we know them today, never existed even as late as the New Testament;
only collections of mythmaking."
don't pretend to be an expert on every history and historian I have quoted,
or on ones a particular reader suggested, but I can speak more confidently
of the Egyptians. Many of their accounts of wars, famines, politics, etc.
are well-recorded, and are not inseparable from their religion. I do not
have a book reference as this comes from an Egyptologist who happens to
be my father, who has worked with the American Research Center in Egypt,
and was asked to speak at this year's ARCE gathering of Egyptologists. Indiana
Jones he's not (sorry Dad), but well-researched he is. The history of recording
history is not, or not always, an impossible amalgamation of mythology.
that might be uncovered as untrustworthy would be just that - untrustworthy.
However it would be incredibly fallacious to reason that, because of that,
all histories are untrustworthy (guilt by association).
the other hand, one can't even read yesterday's news without scrutiny. Cautious
reading is always a sane strategy. "Ah-ha!
So the idea of the Bible as all true must still be dismissed!?"
the Bible is not dismissed on account of careful reading - it is
accepted on account of careful reading. Careful reading is what
reveals the Bible to be true, and resolves what can appear to some to be
contradictions. I won't be so arrogant as to say that in 2,000 years
the Bible's critics have finally found all the so-called contradictions
they're ever going to find, but I do say it always seems to be the same
one hundred or so wherever I look. More careful reading or study would probably
answer all these.
example, careful reading resolves the two provided lineages of Christ, or
James Usher's attempt to add up all the generations in the Bible to come
up with the age of the Earth. Usher arrived at 4004 BC. However, he made
one scholarly mistake (if not many more). He assumed the genealogy was complete;
a father-son listing of every generation that had lived. Had he used less
math and more bible study, he would have caught that numerous genealogies
in the Bible are representative listings, not a sequential biblical census.
example: Jesus is sometimes called the Son of David. "Ah-ha! He
was the son of Joseph, no? Another contradiction!"
he's the Son of David in the sense that David was greatly revered, and Jesus
was worthy enough to be identified with that greatness. In ancient Hebrew,
"son of" is or can be equivalent to "descended from". Jesus was also descended
from David; so the "Son of David" title would again be correct. The ancient
Egyptians used the very same representative system in their recording of
genealogies which further corroborates this textual practice (fact, not
Introduction to investigating
Does archaeology confirm
or deny the claims of the Bible?