Have you ever asked yourself, "What would Chewy Do?"  (This question is often confused with "What would Chuck Norris do?  Rest assured they are different, slightly.)  This question could be posed to all sorts of problems: Intergalactic Warfare, Global Warming, Paper or Plastic?  All sorts of things.  What about Wikipedia?  Would Chewy use it?  I do use Wikis.  I do like Wookies.  They aren't related... I think.  They both share one thing in common though: both need a good bit of imagination if they are to be used academically.  To aid this understanding, for further proof that there is absolutely no reason to trust Wikipedia just take a look at the following image:



     The image speaks (ironically) more than a thousand words (but does it verify more than six thousand years?  A billion years?  Nope.  It verifies nothing--trick question!  It's Wikipedia not the Bible!)  Even a Wookie could tell there is something fishy about the reliability of Wikipedia.  Take note students!  Next time you think about what site you may use, ask "What Would Chewy Do?"  Would he use this site as a reliable source for research?  For study?  "RRRAAAAAWWWWGGGGGUHHHH!"  (That is "no" in Wookie)  No, no he most definitely would not.

(For link credit, know that I bounced to this through Nathan Williams over at the Pulpit Magazine and he bounced from Tim Challies.)

As has been stated by betters before:  Denying the historical accuracy of Scripture is not only complete foolishness but must leave those who will not acknowledge the plain truth in an agnostic limbo.  If one denies a record that is so overwhelmingly accurate and meets so many standards (in fact, makes them--it truly is in a league of its own) then what does one do with all of the historical records that fall beneath the standard Scripture carries?  To be consistent the (inconsistent) historian must deny the ability to even know that anything else is true.  This disturbing trend is exactly where much of history is going.  It is most lamentable in reference to the pulpits of our churches. The regular denial that one can even know history but, that it is just a manipulated record of biases and differing points of view condemns any historian, anyone to a total inability to say anything ever happened and moves us all towards a past of mythologies and guesses--a lost history. 

     This is the lost history that Francis Schaeffer (Bio)(L'Abri) used to warn against.  It is the history that does not expect to "rub the cross and get a splinter."  History must be "rubbed," it is real.  You would have received a splinter. You would need tweezers to get it out.  A Christian should not fall prey to relativism or the false agnosticism of the secular historian.  We have and know of the Primary Source:  God's Word!  Since it is true we can know truth!  In fact, once we have used tweezers with the cross, armed with these little tools we can extract the truth from other sources too.  Especially History.  History is true and can be trusted can be judged as anyone would judge empirical data.  It did happen and was recorded.  If it does not stand the test of the objective truth then it is not history, that is myth, that is guesses and manipulations.  The truthfulness of all accounts (aside from Scripture) can be measured and weighed, not because there isn't truthful history but because there is!  I would be interested in any historian or student explaining to me just how they would go about judging history that they themselves stand in at this very moment without first assuming it is really happening!  Or, trying to do it without some standard of real history by which to "mark twaine" by.  With that said, the tools are available, especially in a digital age far more than ever before to gather and compare sources to a Biblical World View of History. 

     The repositories of primary sources and reliable accounts are growing every day as the digital powers of the Borg, I mean Google, grow.  But Google isn't the only place I have gone before.  To encourage this scientific and reasonable endeavor, students should try looking places like the Internet History Sourcebook.  I would especially encourage this as a source for students concerned with European History and US History, although it is much broader!  Just be sure the finding begins with the right perspective on history!  Tweeze on!

     For the student that wants a little bit more on Hellenism the following video (follow the links that pop up when it finishes for more.)  Hellenism as a study of history is not unimportant.  In fact, the student that takes care to search out the different religions and philosophies popular during the time of Christ and the Apostles (the New Testament) will find that most of them spring in their common forms during the Age of Hellenism;  the numerous "gnostic religions" and the philosophies of the Epicureans and Stoics are a few examples.



History Channel - The fabulous centers of Hellenism 1/3

     Recently, some students did a project in which they interviewed some individuals in the public about history, metanarratives, biblical world views, etc. (Clips to be posted soon!) One of the most interesting responses the students received for whether history could be trusted or not was "no, because, look at the Bible." Implication: History can't be trusted and the Bible is a good example of that. I am surprised at how many Christians sacrifice the historicity of the Scriptures as well. Making the Bible a collection of Myths, allegories and fables flies into many of its own claims (2 Peter 1:16) thereby condemning all of it if it is false. Nevertheless, it is done from Evolution to Archaeology as if waiting for its confirmation is a matter of popularity. It seems to be popular with at least one person: Christ--making him a liar too, if he is wrong. (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17) A while ago I ran into the following video segment that does a good job demonstrating just how trustworthy Scripture is compared to other "historical" records, I wonder what scientific method could be employed to find a source of greater dependability?

      I heard a while ago that someone smirked at the idea that young men and women would actually want to show up and gather for a conference that didn't involve anything but preaching (read: no "camp", no "camp games", definitely no broom hockey). Like Scripture changes people without dunk tanks. Come on. The Resolved conference in California is billed for just such a crowd. Does anyone show up?