Is the Bible God Inspired or just the History of Israel?
This is an interesting question, and one that causes many people to enter into heated debate. A more interesting question however, would be, 'Are the ancient documents in the Bible reliable?'
When it comes to matters Biblical, there is a whole section of the Christian community that 'worships' the Bible like an idol, insisting that each and every word was virtually 'G-d dictated', or inspired to such an extent, that IT CAN CONTAIN NO ERRORS! They say this despite the very plainly obvious errors, such as 1 Samuel 13:1 "Saul was one year old when he commenced to reign and reigned two years". Their explanations for these types of occurrences ultimately contradict their basic premise, that there can be no errors in the Bible.
On the other hand, modern 'liberal' academics are just as fanatically evangelical in their rejection of the 'reliability' of the Biblical documents. For the one, the Bible is sacrosanct, and for the other, a second rate piece of historical fiction.
But when it comes to Biblical chronology, there can be no denying that there are a great number of problems within it. In touting their agendas, both the Academic and the Bible worshiper will indulge in 'arrogant' arguments designed to deceive the naive, and feed the ignorance of the listener.
My personal opinion is that if G-d did have such a powerful, lasting and personal hand in 'each and every word' recorded in the Bible, then he is fairly incompetent at delivering his message with clarity.
This does not mean however that I absolutely 'reject' the concept of Divine Biblical inspiration. I fully accept that the Biblical documents are a true historical record of Israel's national and religious history. I do not for one moment believe that these records are contrived or second rate, and nor do I believe that they were recorded and passed on by ignorant people. It is the contrary which I believe to be true.
Whether we believe the Biblical record to be G-d inspired or not, that the record as we have received it contains human errors of fact, is beyond all reasonable doubt. And why should they not contain some errors? The writings were collected and collated hundreds of years after the events that they record. The books of Kings and Chronicles plainly state that they are a collation of other works.
As for chronological errors, some are merely and clearly, 'transcription errors', whilst others obviously result from mathematical miscalculations.
But beyond these, there is a greater problem in understanding Biblical chronology.
Because the academic world cannot understand Biblical chronology, particularly the synchronous chronology of the Divided Kingdom period, they assume that the fault lies with the record, when in fact, the true fault lies with their simple inability to understand that chronological record.
The 'King's Calendar' contention is that the Biblical chronological details are not recorded in any system currently used or recognised. It is a system that has a specific origin, and that it was a very deliberate intent on the part of the ancients, to 'change or conceal' the true chronological history of Israel, substituting it with an 'artificial calendar'.
This concept is clearly beyond the ability of the Bible worshipers to entertain, because of its' heretical nature, and academic arrogance, being what that is, means that most modern Academics similarly react. So sure are they of the 'things that they do not know', that to even entertain such an idea, is truly beyond them.
Nevertheless, the reality of the proposition is demonstrably true.
Perhaps instead of arguing over whether the Bible is or is not, 'Infallible' or 'Inspired', we should be asking ourselves why it is that modern academics give less credence to the Bible's Chronological details than to other ancient documents.
If one believes that the Bible is G-d inspired, then it ought to be an obvious conclusion, that non-alignment between the Biblical Chronological information and History, results from either failure to correctly apply that information, or because our current knowledge of history is Erroneous.
On the other hand, if one does not believe that the Bible is G-d inspired, but that it contains the history of a nation and its people, written and compiled by qualified authors, commentators and redactors, then we ought to be able to conclude that the chronological information contained within it ought to be as trustworthy as any other ancient record, and its failure to synchronise with known history, results from either Our failure to correctly apply that information, or because our current knowledge of History is erroneous.
Both premises require us to conclude, that the academics have failed in their work. Either they don't understand the data, and so should not be sprouting off as though they do, or the things they tell us about ancient history are wrong.
If on the other hand we do not wish to dispense with the academic understanding of history, that is to say, if generally speaking, we accept that the academics are reasonably 'spot on' in their reconstruction of history, then we must conclude, that their failure to synchronise the Biblical chronological information with that history, results from their failure to apply the Biblical data correctly.
With this in mind, let me state quite clearly, that it is not only hypocritical, but deceitful for Academics to 'quote and otherwise use' the Bible, to support any of their findings.
Let me just put this another way for you. Ask yourself; "Was the information that now appears as 'the Bible', meant to be factually representative?"
If your answer is 'No!', then the Bible was not meant to be factually representative, and so Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they use Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions.
On the other hand, if your answer is 'Yes!", and the Bible was meant to be factually representative, then we must conclude that it either is still correct, or that it is not still correct.
If it is still in fact correct, then Academics who propose schemes that differ from Biblical Chronological projections, are just plain wrong and we can conclude that current historical perception and research is not reliable since it clearly conflicts with Biblical Chronology.
In this case archaeologists and historians are highly suspect in their research methods.
If the material was meant to be correct and still is, then Chronological conflict arises between the Bible and history, because the academics have failed to apply the Biblical Chronological information correctly, and we should be wary of listening to them.
If however, the information is no longer correct (for whatever reason), then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public. No matter how you look at it, Modern Academics are playing a 'self interested and self promoting' game, when they try to beguile readers by quoting from the Bible to support their findings.
Of course there is another proposition, which is that the Biblical data has become so corrupt through the transcription and transmission process, that while originally correct, the data today is no longer correct. If this were the case, it would be pointless for academics to jump on their soapboxes and quote the scriptures as 'proof' of this or that assertion.
Ultimately, we have to face the fact, that modern academics are involved in a deliberately deceptive manipulation of Biblical Texts, in order to get the gullible and the ignorant to accept their findings. If the Bible is a piece of 'rubbish' then academics should stop trying to manipulate people's religious beliefs, by quoting from it.
We need to ask and answer the question, 'Was the data meant to be correct, and is it still correct?' If we conclude that it is, 'despite all the indication to the contrary', then we must conclude that nobody understands the way the data is presented.
If this is our conclusion, then we must admit that the reason we don't understand it, derives from either our lack of knowledge concerning ancient Jewish Calendars and chronological recordings, or that the chronological information contained within the Historical Books has been presented in some 'unfamiliar' fashion.
Either way, Academics who use the Scriptures to 'prove' or back up their particular theories, are suspect to say the least, for logic dictates that you cannot use an 'unknown or not understood' system of mathematics, to prove anything.
If the academics have failed to understand ancient Jewish Calendars and Chronological recordings properly, then criticism of those records by Academics is unwarranted, and contradiction of them is unfounded. Criticism and use of such information is unscientific and demonstrates gross ignorance.
If on the other hand, the data has been presented in some unknown or unrecognised format, then Criticism and use of such information in its un-deciphered form is also unscientific and demonstrates gross ignorance.
However, if the Biblical data has been presented in an 'heretofore unknown' manner, which is to say, in some 'cypher', then it is logical to assume that what has been encrypted, ought to be able to be deciphered and understood, and any claim to have achieved such a 'deciphering or decoding', ought to be reviewed and subjected to scientific methods of testing.
It is the claim of the 'King's Calendar', that the Biblical Data as it appears, is not understood because it was recorded in a 'coded' form, and it has been our failure to understand this that has prevented us from discovering the truth. We have been presumptuous in believing that the Biblical redactors were obliged to record data in a way that fits our own perceptions of what is 'Rational' and 'Logical'.
As Davies (1992, The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster p.225) points out, our concept of rational explanation is subjective, and even in its most refined and formalised sense, in mathematics, there is paradox and uncertainty (probability). 'There will always be', he says, 'truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self consistent explanation for everything is doomed to failure
The most fundamental operational procedure of the 'King's Calendar', has been to ignore both the 'logical and illogical', both the 'apparent and real', and to investigate the outcomes of a mathematical hypothesis.
It is from this perspective then, that the 'King's Calendar' can declare, 'We now have the keys to understanding Biblical Chronology!', and it is why the 'King's Calendar' can also say with confidence, that 'scientific testing of this mathematical hypothesis' can definitively prove or disprove its' validity.
When the academics finally do 'validate' the King's Calendar hypothesis, the next question will then be, how many more pet theories can be foisted on the ignorant and unsuspecting public?
These 3 Articles especially demonstrate how Academics Deceive when it comes to Biblical Chronology.
End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.
Values are:
'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
'Y' = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
To reverse the process by hand:
'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
