Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>]

Ron wrote:-

> I have not idea about what specific dates you have in mind, but when secular
> history does not match the Bible, why in the world would a believer in Jesus
> Christ opt for secular history?  Why is it that when there is a conflict 
> with
> chronolgy, that the knee-jerk reaction of many is to find problems with the
> biblical record?  Secular history must be reviewed in light of the biblical
> chronoloy if one deems the text to be inspired, inerrant, etc.  Why would 
> the
> Egyptians record the most devastating event in all their national history?
> Would they not have great motive to eliminate references to Joseph, Moses, 
> and
> the Exodus?  Further, what modern secular historians believe does not affect
> the biblical record in any way... "modern historians" at one time thought 
> the
> world was flat, "modern science" thought that scurvy was a virus or a
> bacteria.  

This is a methodological issue. The question is whether one allows outside
evidence to assist in understanding the text. There should be no reason to
exclude outside evidence no matter what faith a person might hold. While to
the best of my recollection Jim hasn't stated his faith he seems to have a
high regard for the accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives albeit from his
own viewpoint. 

Its not a simple case of accepting the text at face value or rejecting it.
The reason that people of faith ought to take some interest in subjects like
history and archaeology is that they provide new insights into the text
including some words whose meanings are obscure. An example is in 2 Samuel
5:8. For a long time it wasn't clear how David's men got into the city of
the Jebusites. 


Bill Rea Ph.D., ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                       </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332               /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                           (/'