My wife always asks me why I watch these biblical history shows on the History Channel. It is refreshing to know that you know a lot more than the so-called experts on an issue and fun to be able to spot the presuppositions made by the History Channel that are demonstrably false. When there is a scholarly consensus on an issue, they ignore the consensus and trot out an expert that espouses views that no reputable scholar would ever defend. No doubt this is because strange theories make for better television, as far as they are concerned, and for more controversy which might increase ratings. Even when they convince reputable scholars to participate, they usually have them articulate the truth and then go about making it look wrong or at least trying to introduce “reasonable doubt.”
Having seen a number of these shows, here are some rants about one Biblical Disasters that are representative of the approach of the History Channel:
1. There are a few stated objectives: The first is to find evidence that supports the biblical account. This sounds innocuous enough at first. Another is to “help us cope with catastrophe now.” Very interesting. So the History Channel does not simply want to chronicle the past and tell us the brute facts (as if there were such a thing) proving or disproving the Scriptural account, but they actually want to provide answers for dealing with disaster today (the question of relevance). They have moved very quickly into philosophy and quasi-religion. In other words, they are setting forward a world-view that is not the biblical world-view and attempting to make sense of the past and make prescription for the present. They assume this worldview…it is there presupposition with god as chance. Picture a world-view as a circle and the point at the top is the god “chance.” At this point we are just two minutes into the program…so let’s see if my interpretation of their project holds up (I had earlier watched several minutes, so I do know what is coming).
2. To answer the first objective they examine archeology, the texts of ancient civilizations and Scripture itself. They are asking whether the biblical disaster accounts can be shown to be actual historical events. This skeptical approach is not working with brute facts however. Instead, all facts are created and correctly interpreted by God. So what the history channel will do is to interpret archaeological finds, interpret the texts of ancient civilizations and interpret the Scriptures. And these interpretations are not bound to think God’s thoughts after Him. These interpretations are not to describe what God was doing in accord with how He interpreted to His people what He was doing. Instead, they will interpret these three sources from their own worldview. They say that the accounts in the Bible are inseparable from the agenda of Scripture (Christians believe Scripture to be fully the Word of God, so it is God’s agenda). Here is the problem – all historical writing does the same. Their project is capable of the same critique that they make of Scripture but they pretend to be objective and have no justification for doing so. To be objective it must be the correct interpretation (which only God can give) so they are setting themselves up as gods and saying that god is chance. They say that the authors of Scripture are consumed with God’s role in disasters…the history channel is likewise consumed with the role of chance in disasters. They say that the focus on God as the one who made disasters “may have distracted them from another possibility” – most disasters are the result of people (where they choose to live, for example). Moreover, the problem the History Channel has with the Christian faith is that it is not their faith – they believe and trust in chance (as if chance were trustworthy).
4. Ancient peoples did not have the assistance available during the aftermath of a disaster that we have today. Therefore, the History Channel says, “Only the lucky or the self-reliant survive, left to search for meaning.” Hmmm…their god is chance and their philosophy is Darwinian (survival of the fittest). This interpretation of survival is very revealing of the History Channel’s theological and philosophical presuppositions. Moreover, the History Channel is on a quest for meaning – they are trying to articulate why things happen and what our purpose is – apart from God’s revelation.
5. Looking at the plagues of Exodus: They fail to see the miraculous in the timing of the plagues and in the discrimination of the plagues between Egyptians and the Hebrews. They acknowledge that the tenth plague could only be explained supernaturally (well, actually they put it less strongly than this: “seems to arise from the realm of the supernatural”). Then they go about explaining the first six plagues as a bacteria in the water – anthrax on algae. This makes the water look red (red algae), the anthrax kills the fish, no predator for the frogs (the fish are dead) so they multiply and exhaust the food supply and die in vast numbers, this leads to gnats and flies appearing because of the dead animals, the cattle perish because they have been bitten by anthrax infected insects that cause boils on the skin. Such explanations are nothing new…others have tried to do similar things before. I will not add to the volumes of commentary on this line of reasoning.
6. Looking at the Exodus event the History Channel accurately conveys that though traditionally translated the Red Sea, it is more accurate to translate the Hebrew as “Sea of Reeds.” Again they interpret this event as requiring nothing supernatural. The objective is to make the god of chance a plausible alternative to the God of Scripture. It takes a great deal of faith in the god of chance to believe that these conditions they describe would be timed so perfectly for the Hebrew people to escape. As they say, “A moderate wind blowing constantly for ten hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop ten feet, this would temporarily create dry land in the sea bed until the winds died down and the water suddenly came flooding back.”
7. Sodom and Gomorrah: they ask two questions-“Did it actually occur?” and “If so, what fiery force of nature is responsible?” Again, the worldview of the History Channel does not permit the God of the Scriptures to operate supernaturally. They find two places that might be these towns – both destroyed by fire and dated to the right time frame. The first theory is that an earthquake might have ignited the tar present that would have made a storm of fire. Then they tell us an even more controversial theory – a comet exploded. A third proposal is that perhaps it was a volcano. And a fourth is that it was lightening. The theories are less important than the goal – to make the god of chance plausible. A Christian might do such reflection on Scripture, but they do so from a different worldview where the supernatural is possible, where God is in control, and where the interpretation of the events in Scripture is the right interpretation of what took place. When someone who worships chance does such reflection on Scripture they assume that only the natural is possible, everything happens by chance, and the interpretation of Scripture might not be right (perhaps it was not God punishing Sodom and Gomorrah for its sin (that God does not exist) but simply a natural event).
8. The Flood: Here they note that peoples all over the world have “eerily similar” stories about a universal flood. This account shows the limitations of archeology – trying to interpret very little that survives and wondering if local floods might be the universal flood mentioned in these stories. They do not know enough to make any conclusions whatsoever.
9. They try to explain the plague on the Philistines for taking the ark as the bubonic plague.
10. And etc.
Archaeology and history try to describe what has happened. Science tries to describe what happens. None of these fields of study can avoid interpretation – by definition they are interpreting what God has done. You may have read some of the History Channel’s theories and it might have introduced “reasonable doubt” in your mind. But this doubt they are trying to raise is not reasonable. The interpretation of the events is crucial, and here I am not talking about whether it was lightening or tar ignited by an earthquake or something else because these theories cannot prove what they assert, but whether it was a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Christ (for pre-Christ disasters) and the final judgment for everyone else or it is just something that happened by chance and there will be no final judgment and therefore all that matters is here and now. The lesson that the History Channel would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that humans are responsible for their own fate – you should not live in certain places and should heed the warnings of earthquakes. Also they say that you should learn to lean on one another from disasters. Certainly Christians should keep these things in mind, but this pales in comparison with the weightier questions.
The lesson that Scripture would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that the end is coming and we need to be ready at any time. For example, Jesus says, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:6-14, ESV). The destruction of Jerusalem was coming in AD 70 and points forward to the final judgment. Likewise, we should be reminded of the end when any catastrophe comes. The one who endures to the end will be saved. The key is faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in chance does not save.
These are just a few thoughts…suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Recent Comments