I just heard Dennis Prager make a very interesting argument on his radio show today. He was talking about an upcoming NOVA episode on PBS television concerning the Bible. He said it claims to "debunk" the Old Testament as a factual history of the Jews, using the latest and best archaeological findings and knowledge.
But Prager insisted that he isn't swayed by archaeology. Archaeology can't trump his faith, he said. His main argument was that the Old Testament is the only historical record he knows of that paints the origin of its own people in such uncomplimentary terms. The "histories" or mythologies of other peoples make them out to be brave and noble creations or descendants of the gods, whereas the earliest Jews are depicted in the OT as "ignoble" slaves and savages. Therefore, argues Prager, the Old Testament history of the Jews must be true, and archaeology be damned.
I don't know if Prager is correct in claiming that only the Jews have constructed such an unflattering history of themselves. But whether he is or isn't, does he make a good argument for disregarding scientific evidence about the historicity of his faith?
What Does a $450M DaVinci Tell Us About Markets? - In Search of Market Signals in the $450 Million Da Vinci Price contains information, but how much does an outlier art sale say about stocks or the econom...
3 hours ago