Bible shouldn't be exempt from historical scrutiny

Editor,

In response to Andres Saenz's letter published in the Daily Lobo on Wednesday concerning the historical relevance of the Bible, I want to ask him for evidence. Do you remember learning about the time the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews? How about when the sea supposedly parted and hundreds of thousands of Hebrews traversed the length of the Red Sea? And what about the 40 years they spent wandering the desert? You don't remember learning any of this in a public school history class? Right, because there is no evidence that any of this actually took place.

The same is true with many tales beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Because this collection of stories was written at a time when not everyone really understood their surroundings, it is very likely that these events actually took place - just not in the context people presume they did. The Trojan War was also the subject of an epic tale, but the war probably did not last as long as the story says it did. Achilles was not invincible, save for his ankle. This is understood by most rational historians by now.

So why is it that the Bible is exempt from historical and scientific scrutiny as other tales are? If, in the Bible, there is a chapter that says two entire cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone, there should first be evidence of these two cities with layers of ash and brimstone. Then, one would have to find out where this brimstone came from. If it seemingly appeared out of nowhere, it would require another explanation. If, however, there is a nearby volcano, there is a better chance that the cities were in a bad position to begin with. Since we now know that there are entirely natural reasons for volcanic eruptions, you would have to prove to the world that it was really the product of God's wrath, and even then, you cannot prove whether or not it was the God of the Bible. There's no evidence of God writing anything. Using the reasoning that God says he exists based on information from the Bible is circular reasoning.

The same is true with Jesus. Most historians even question the historicity of Jesus Christ. The historians cited most often as mentioning Jesus have either very vague references or they were later forged by scribes with an agenda. There is considerable evidence for both of these claims. All of this, of course, boils down to faith. But according to Mark Twain, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." This is true because anyone who has faith in the Bible is believing without evidence. In any other situation in our lives, we would and should ask for evidence. Maybe, people should look at their faith a little more closely before lecturing us on the historicity of it.

David Gonzalez

CNM student