One must understand that the goal of many of these scholars has never really been scholarship and truth; rather, it has been to undermine belief in the Bible and, consequently, the faith of Christians and Jews. You might think this a rather strident opinion, but the evidence is clear. For example, based on their writings many critical-historical scholars believe that there really was no historical David, certainly not as he is depicted in the Old Testament. And yet just consider the amount of documentation on David's life included in Scripture. For any non-Biblical ancient personality, this amount of documentation would be considered an historical treasure trove, especially when there exist snippets of corroborating references in other ancient documents. But not when it comes to David -- or, for that matter, Abraham or Moses -- because he was a religious figure, a person important to the faith of today's Christians and Jews. These same scholars would not even think to question the existence of some obscure potentate whose name might appear only in one or two vague references.
I bring this up because of something I recently came across -- a reference to a find in 2007 that I expect didn't make headlines in the US mainstream media. A researcher in the British
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c968/4c9687836f7dc3900e706e436d50f8b9671710aa" alt=""
A wonderful book on the subject of the Old Testament and its validity as a historical document was written recently by K. A. Kitchen, one of the world's foremost scholars on ancient Egypt and the Near East: On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Eerdmans (2003).
How good of God to bless us with the knowledge and ability to uncover these little pieces of history that increasingly prove to us the truth that is His Word.
No comments:
Post a Comment