I wonder who of us care more about Christmas time; devout, Bible-believing Christians, or God-hating, cynical Academics, posing as "experts" in the field of Biblical History? Because they erroneously attach the word "history" to their pompous title, these "experts" seem to give credence to their opinions concerning the credibility of various stories of the Bible that are clearly meant to edify the faith of those who are truly interested in learning the true nature of God, throughout the Old Testament; and the power, and mercy of the salvation of Jesus Christ in the New. It simply boggles the mind to try and understand why anyone on the History Channel, or the Washington Post ( to name only two sources that promote anti-Biblical cynicism, especially at Christmas time) would think that Bible believing Christians would be interested in reading, or listening to some pseudo-intellectual cynic expound on what amounts to their own baseless opinions, wrapped around some somewhat-relevant historical facts that they laboriously try to weave into a reasonably believable argument explaining why the particular account in the Bible must not be accurate. Close examination of their viewpoints invariably reveal that their basis for stating their opinions stand upon nothing firmer that the fact that they simply can't believe the Bible is true!...EXCUSE ME???...Can't the History Channel executives manage to find any Bible Historians in all of Academia that actually believe in the Bible, and use their faith to help them discern between relevant facts that add to our understanding of various biblical stories, and those facts that are obviously irrelevant? There are Bible Colleges, and Seminaries all across the country that have plenty of such qualified Academics, but it seems that expressing opinions that show they believe in the truth of the Bible is a disqualifying attribute, rather than a recommendation for their programs. Of course, the History Channel grabs our interest by titling their shows with names like, "Mysteries of The Bible", when the only "mystery" they leave us with is "where the heck did they get these belligerent cynics" that they audaciously use for the "expert" information?
To date, I have seen several shows that labor fruitlessly to try and convince me that God never parted the Red Sea. These cynics would rather believe that Moses led the Children of Israel due east from the land of Goshen, in Egypt, across a marshy area where a strong northerly wind would dry the mud sufficiently to keep the Isrealite's sandals clean, rather than swallow the Biblical account of God's leading them three days' journey into the desert ( which would necessarily be to the southeast), where He caused the wind to blow strongly enough to cause the waters of the Red Sea to stand up like a wall on both sides as they walked through "dryshod". The whole debate here centers on the fact that these selected "experts" simply choose not to believe the Biblical account, and they wish to trivialize the truth in order to discourage others from believing that which they are unable to accept. Shame on them for expressing their opinions in ways that seem to be irrefutable facts, and shame on the History Channel executives for obviously seeking out these cynical historians who are clearly expressing the History Channel's own collective cynicism, while giving them deniability that they don't deserve. This is obvious by the overwhelming air-time given to those who express their "Bible-debunking" cynical opinions, versus those who expound the Biblical accounts credibly. One must wonder how the History Channel's ratings would fare if they titled their shows more honestly like, "Mysteries Of The Cynical Bufoons", or "Worthless Crap Intended to Confuse The Ignorant"?
No comments:
Post a Comment