So, if you're going to throw out historical sourcing on the basis of an appeal to deity,
guess what? Now we don't know anything about the ancient Near East.
Congratulations!
What about God in your story?
Oh, here we go. Throwing religion into it. Throwing God into this.
What if you credit causation either directly or providentially of events to God?
Well, that can't be history. We can't count that as history.
Because God's reality cannot be known objectively.
I.e., put under a microscope and proven with the tools of science. Okay.
So, God's reality cannot be known objectively, therefore, neither can his activity.
So, bye God! Bye.
What about God, divine activity? Here's where we get to the Ramesses issue.
What did you notice when you read the account of Ramesses at the Battle of Qadesh?
What does Ramesses do more than once in his recounting of the battle,
or his ascribe, you know, either way, what does he do?
He does, he's got an ego. Who does he credit success to?
The comment was Ramesses attributes victory to himself,
in all the elements of the battle.
Who does Ramses credit with the victory other than himself?
His god.
Several times he's point blank, you know, "Ra did this and that the other thing,
and it all turned out right, you know."
Deity, deity, deity, deity, deity.
Just pick the deity and there we go.
Well, why is it that ancient historians say that the battle of Qadesh Stela
is legitimate historiographical data?
We can't accept that because it has God in it, or the gods.
How can it be a reliable source? Here's the better question:
If it's okay for the battle of Qadesh Stela, why is it not okay for the Hebrew Bible?
Why? By what standard?
Now, this book here in the front; History and the Gods, this is a very small book,
by Bertil Albrektson.
An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations
in the Ancient Near East and Israel.
You know what the book is about?
The book is about the fact that basically all the historical stuff
in ancient Mesopotamia and Israel has God or the gods as part of the equation.
So, if you're going to throw out historical sourcing on the basis of an appeal to deity,
guess what? Now we don't know anything about the ancient Near East.
Congratulations!
You know what, I'll accept that, if you publicly repent and recant from accepting
these sources for centuries in the first place, then I'm good with you.
But that ain't gonna happen.
You know, Albrektson is not an Evangelical, okay?
He's got no axe to grind in this. He was an Assyriologist.
It's just you can't read anything in this material without bumping into a deity.
That's just the way it is.
So again, if it's good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?
It's completely inconsistent.