HISTORY Tells Us SO, so the Bible can't be TRUE!
How did/do most people come to the understanding they have? Well, isn't it from reading and/or listening to someone else? From parent to "scholar"? What other source do you have, except possibly your own imaginations?
Ultimately, it all comes down to "history". The study of "history" according to the academics and others, tells us there is no real record of the history of Israel, or other Bible events, as recorded in that book. And, it is to these "historical facts" that ultimately influence those who denigrate the Scriptures as a source of any reality.
Yet, this book, of all books, claims to be true, claims to be inspired by a higher power, claims to tell actual history, claims to give us the origin of man, the earth and the heavens. It claims to tell us how to have a never ending life with unbelievable abundance, prosperity and happiness in a future kingdom that rules the universe. It claims to have the secrets to success, etc. etc. etc. Yet, "history" and science tells us, no way. The book cannot be true.
Well, then, if "history" tells us all that, and science, what if we ask the opposite question. And, for this post, let's just stick with history. We can discuss science in the future.
Everyone seems to think history as given in our history books, and taught on the academic campuses of the world are free from prejudice, distortion, exaggeration, and personal bias. Yet, is that true? Just think about this, IF it isn't true, then HOW can "history" as we have it given to us be qualified to judge the Scriptures? Is history just man's folly? Let's see.
Columbia University, I suppose, is a reputable university. Wouldn't you say so? And, it has a press, just as the University of Arizona, here in Tucson, has a press. And, these presses of universities are the respected sources of accurate material for academics and, of course, the public, right? Good. Then, let's check out how the historians of a respected university, in a respected university press book, handles this question.
An Introduction to the History of History is book number IV of a series entitled: RECORDS OF CIVILIZATION, Sources and Studies. The series is "edited under the auspices of the Dept. of History, Columbia University. The editor, associate editors and advisory board are all Drs., as in Litt. D, Ph.D., LL.D. Now, that should give some credence to the book, don't you think. Now then ...
Let's look at the historians par excellence, and see what they say to give us the confidence that historical works have a right to "judge" the Scriptures as being untrue.
"This double aspect of history -- the one no older than Ionia, the other reaching back to the dawn of Time -- has apparently puzzled a good many who write about it. There are those who try to prove that history is either a science or an art, when, as a matter of fact, it contains the elements of both.... But without entering into that problem yet, we may for the present, with a view to clarity, frankly divide our subject into two: the research which is science and the narration which is art." "The history of these two divisions runs in different channels, and has always done so. History, the art, flourishes with the arts. It is mainly the creature of IMAGINATION and LITERARY style. It depends upon expression, upon VIVID PAINTING, sympathy, grace and elegance, elevated sentiments or torrential power. The picture may be PARTIAL or INCORRECT -- like Carlyle's description of revolutionary France; sympathies may warp the truth, as in Froude's Henry VIII or Macaulay's History of England; elegance of style may carry even Gibbon beyond the data in his sources, and the passionate eloquence of Michelet ride down the restrictions of sober fact. But in the art of history narration these are magnificent even if they are not true. Indeed the art in history seems to run, with most perverse intent, in the opposite direction to the science." "...The master of research is generally but a poor artist, and his uncolored picture of the past will never rank in literature beside the splend distortions which glow in the pages of a Michelet or a Macaulay,..." pps. 7-8 [all emphasis mine]
Well, there you have it. One out of hundreds of quotes and experiences to tell us that "history is not always what it seems". Or, is it, "history is always what it seems to be to historians with the creative art of IMAGINATION"?
