To gain a proper understanding of the challenge we face it is good to examine our presuppositions. It's a given that not everyone will embrace all of these. For the purposes of this study, this is our position.
Inerrancy of Scripture
The Scriptures, in their original autographs, were completely inerrant in all details of history, geography, science and, of course, spiritual matters. If we can’t start here in agreement, then further effort to gain understanding of the truth is always built upon the foundation of, and therefore subject to, our personal inerrancy.
Diverse Calendars
People in other lands date events and time lines under the same criteria we do. This is obviously not the case, as can be attested by the Jewish day beginning and ending in the evening, and their use of a lunar calendar. We must also be aware that their calendars did not start in January, as our present one does. As many scholars have pointed out, there were differing “New Year’s” according to the kingdom and time period. Much has to be considered in this area of study, as it will have a tremendous impact on our conclusions.
Diverse Recordings of Accession Years
Some may conclude that when one king began ruling, the other’s rule must have ceased. This is not true and, as with number two above, will have bearing on our discussion as well. Sometimes there was co-regency. Also, during certain times in each kingdom, both the year of death and the year of accession were counted in the years of the king’s reign, causing the record to appear to have an extra year when the rule of the kingdom changed hands (at least to our western understanding).
Not All The Facts Are Available
We do not have all the facts before us. The “fact” is, new historical discoveries are being made every day through archeological work throughout the Near East. On top of that, it can take years before the data from these discoveries are translated, compiled and made available for research. It is well known that there is an abundance of material that has yet to be given much attention; material that may give us further insight to the challenge before us.
We Are Not Infallible
We are able to discern and compile all the evidence before us accurately. This is a dangerous assumption. One of the repercussions of the fall is that we are not infallible, as much as we’d like to think we are at times.
We Can Still Mess Up Perfect Data
Then, even if we did have all the data and compile it accurately, can we be sure that the conclusions we draw are accurate? We are liable to make conclusions based on assumptions regarding our data that are not entirely accurate. It is a challenge for us to deal with these things by examining ourselves as scrupulously as our sources and accepting God’s testimony as true in all that it claims.
Summary
So, in light of these considerations, it may seem to us a futile effort to reconcile the apparent contradictions within the Bible itself, and between the biblical record and the secular historical record. At this point in time it may be presumptuous for us to claim, incontrovertibly, that we can figure this out, beyond doubt. However, as will be shown, we do have evidence today that, when compiled and compared, seems to give us a chronology that we can be reasonably sure is, at the very least, extremely close to the actual events.
We will attempt to approach the data as objectively as possible, searching for the truth of the matter. In the end perhaps it is better to simply know that this information is indeed reconcilable, rather than being 100% certain that we have arrived at the correct conclusions.[1]
Steemin' on,
Another Joe
Email notifications
AJ Facebook
AJ Twitter
[1] Dogmatism in this area may, in the long run, prove to be worse than ignorance. In other words, it’s better to be ignorant, admitting you don’t know, than to claim or think that you know something, proclaiming it as a fact, only to be proven wrong. Such was the case with the Pharisees who watched so dogmatically for a conquering king to deliver them from the oppression of Rome, only to miss the Lamb of God when He came to deliver them from the oppression of their own depravity and sin.
~ Introduction ~
The fact that 99% of the world are unaware of the discoveries of the Real Indiana Jones, Ron Wyatt, is disheartening.
I agree that this should be our consensus #1 and the authenticity of Ron's discoveries be #2.
Thank you.
Most folks don't realize how much has been stored in warehouses awaiting significant study. Sometimes these sit for many years before someone pulls them out. The last scene where the Ark is put in that warehouse is more true than not. And more than one archaeologist has been caught hiding evidence that went against his/her position, so it's not without its own politics and intrigue. Evidence of King David was "buried" for years after being discovered, while the secular archaeology world continued denying that he ever existed.
For those interested, you can read a tribute to Wyatt here - https://www.wyattmuseum.com/ronwyatt.htm.
While I am not certain, it's possible that some of the data I refer to later will be a result of his efforts.
The aim is to be objective about the interpretation of the findings. We as humans tend to build stories how we understand the world and then interpret findings according to our understanding of life.
Thanks for the article. I also love history.
This is going to be a fascinating ride - thank you for beginning it. It is an area that I have at often dipped my toe into, but invariably pulled back on, given the breadth of the scholarship available that requires mastery, and the heat of the exchanges between scholars.
In these areas, in fact in all areas, I share your warning against dogmatism.
I think your predicates are well stated. They mean that we cannot be certain and our findings of necessity must be tentative. Why do we do it then? There is the pure pleasure of it, of course; but I can’t wait to understand your motivations, which I shall await the conclusion of the series to appreciate.
Strapped in and ready to go!!
@vuyusile!! I was hoping you'd peek in. :)
The main motivation is really to show that it CAN be done. In my intro I share how some react, which can diminish their faith. It's a proud reaction, but understandable. And it was prompted by a real letter to one of my professors.
While the first point up is our anchor, the apologetics value of these sorts of things, IMO, is priceless. We don't need to know for certain if our conclusions are 100% accurate. But we are encouraged in that the entire record we've been given is indeed irreconcilable, and in fact quite logical once we have the information needed.