BIBLE
Out of context: Reply #286
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
sorry discipler this bit should go above what cybo said to read logically:
First of all, you call into question the authority of Encylopedia’s. Using the word “mainstream”, in a derogatory fashion. Well Britannica, Encarta, Wikipedia are not instituions upon themselves. Their entire credibility is based upon the wider academic community. If their presupposition on Bible History is that large parts of it are myth – then it is only because the wider academic community believes it is so. If this wasn’t the case, the whole purpose of the Encyclopedia would become obsolete, and, as the Britannica website claims, it would not be respected by such institutions as the US Supreme Court. Objectivity comes as standard. If the Encyclopedia Britannica quantifies Rohl and James’ position as being marginal; then it is safe to assume that the wider Egyptologist community agrees with this position. On the other hand, if Christian writers from your Christian websites (and other Christian’s that happen to have a PhD), hail Rohl as the saviour of bible truth; then reason will lead me to believe that there is an agenda there. This by the mere fact that they don’t also state that Rohl’s position is far from widely accepted, as is the case. An example of the contrived and immensely selective arguments your sources put forward. It is telling that you constantly present a conspiracy theory of “secularists” that are out to discredit Christianity. May I remind you, academia does not have an agenda, and the leading academics of history have had their own beliefs and presumptions challenged by academic enquiry (as Galileo found out to his cost). Statements such as “their sources are liberal/skeptical “experts” who are prejudiced against the Bible” that you “liberally” make, are derisive allegations.