Articles
Biased History
Biased History
It is said by some — and believed by many — that the winners of wars get to write the history. But that is not always true. The reality is, history gets written by whoever gets the opportunity to write. Certainly, many historical records must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt because the writers are, not surprisingly, under the influence of the ruler who charged them with writing their history. Few would dare write a negative account of a battle, or explain in detail his king's loss in battle. Though there are few records that speak of it, some historians no doubt tried to write the truth with no regard to the ruling power's agenda or personal feelings, but were removed and prevented from writing. Many more, too, were probably removed from the land of the living altogether because they dared to write the truth.
A brief look at the tablets, monuments, and statuary recording some countries' battles will show us the reality that, almost exclusively, only victories were recorded. It seems that no king or kingdom ever lost a battle, if we were to believe the surviving records. Even some of the records of actual victories do not mention anything about any setbacks, defeats, or numbers killed. As humans tend to do, our 'memory' of even great and significant events is clouded by optimistic, wishful thinking that makes us dwell on only the positives and 'overlook' and plainly omit the parts that make us feel bad, or at least not quite as triumphant.
Our own country is not immune to this thinking, either. Many people old enough to remember the era of segregation seem to pass over the injustices shown toward people of color, and remember those times only as 'the good old days.' [Sort of like Israel looking back on Egypt fondly, 'remembering' “the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic” (Num. 11:5). They forgot about the slavery and overworking to the point of near-death, and they forgot about Pharaoh ordering all their males children be killed. All they could 'remember' was the good things — if those things ever even happened.] Many people still claim there is no such thing as racism, and that those who complain about it are 'just making it up' because 'I never saw any.' What we fail to realize is, we think things like that only when we have heard one view of history and are led to believe it is the only view of history. While things may have been good for many, some did suffer some pretty horrible things during that same period, and some were treated as something less than human. Someone did record those sad events and the inhumane treatment, but the majority of the population didn't even know those records existed and, as a result, did not get a different viewpoint of the same time period to see that not all was "Ozzie and Harriett" peace and happiness. Those in control of the textbooks made sure the positive side of the nation's history was emphasized, with little said about those 'trivial' matters and no testimony from those who suffered the injustices.
What we speak of in this is the tendency for man to write biased historical accounts. This has relevance to every believer and unbeliever today because the Bible is a book of history, and its accuracy is of immense importance. If the record tends to be biased towards one viewpoint, the reader would be naturally and reasonably skeptical of the events and the people contained within that record. If the record exaggerated one's accomplishments or omitted facts and events that would tell the full and true story, one might reject it as unreliable. But is the Bible biased history?
Consider the fact the Bible, as a historical record, does not whitewash bad behavior of even its best people. David was a man held in high esteem by God (cf. 1 Sam. 13:14), yet the story of his sin with Bathsheba and the subsequent schemes to cover it up are there for all the world to see (2 Sam. 11, 12). Abraham was called a friend of God (Jas. 2:23), but we can read of his deception with the king of Gerar regarding Sarah (Gen. 20). We know the Israelites as the people of God, yet the Old Testament is filled with story after story of their failures and sometimes abominable behavior.
In the New Testament, we see Peter as one personally chosen by Jesus to be one of the closest disciples, yet the Bible record also shows Peter's ethnic bias and discrimination against the Gentile disciples in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-17). The New Testament speaks of Christians as God's people and how they are blessed by God, but it also speaks of those who made some serious mistakes (Simon, Acts 8:18ff) and warns the faithful against having a heart of unbelief (Heb. 3:12).
In all these case, and many more, God's word — the Bible — does not cover up the sinful behavior of those who were called righteous, and does not omit stories of massive failures and bad behavior on the part of those who should have been living much differently than the rest of the world. The Bible, being God's word, is a record of God's dealing with man and is the truth. If it makes the claim [and it does, John 17:17], then everything recorded must be true, and the overall picture it leaves us must not mislead us or infer a reality that did not or could not exist.
So, when we look at the Bible, what would we see? What we would see is unvarnished truth, and a telling of the story with all the relevant facts, giving the reader a factual account of people, places, and events as they then were and as they actually happened. There is no 'fudging' of data, no omission of unpleasant events or attitudes or people, and no unrealistic picture of the nature and habits of mankind.
If the Bible was all positive and did not record the atrocities carried out by men, the pervasive sinful attitudes of men, the failures of even the best men, or the defeats of God's people, one might skeptically look at it as a biased record and, as a result, discount the record as insufficient to persuade one it is truthful. That would result in rejection of the Bible altogether, meaning a consequential rejection of the plan for man's salvation, and it likely would have faded into history long ago as something unreliable and untrustworthy.
But yet it stands.
It stands because it has been proven to be reliable quite often by those who have discovered long-lost cities and people, artifacts testifying to the age and date of certain people and cities and kingdoms otherwise unknown outside the Bible record, and the written record itself has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be free of alteration, outside influences and pollutions, and opinions of mere men. Anyone who today claims the Bible has been changed, with some words, phrases, and entire records of certain people or places or events being omitted over time must furnish the proof of such claims because the existing manuscripts prove otherwise.
The Bible has been shown to be a reliable historical record. That being true, we may trust that the rest is likewise reliable, and we would do well to investigate what it tells us about sin, forgiveness, and salvation. God gave us this book, the Bible, that we may know His will, obey it, and benefit from His promised blessings.
—— Steven Harper
