[papertyger]

If all other examples of "histories" from the ancient world are slanted and exaggerated, why shouldn't one assume the same of Jewish history until evidence bears out differently?

You're kidding, right?

A) evidence *has* borne out differently as with the previously mentioned Babylonian court. B) Equating Holy Writ with 'histories' is the equivalent of equating slips of paper with 'cash'. No one structured a society or founded a religion that survives to this day based on the writings of Josephus. C) Ancient Jews intended to be different from their neighbours. Why presume that's not the casse here? D) because no one has yet provided a definitive example of such exaggeration.

[Junior]

The evidence hasn't borne out in regards to the sequence, or even the reality of the Exodus, for instance. As for Scripture being "holy writ" and different from other accounts, it is only considered such by those who believe it to be so. Indeed, there is no evidence that Scripture really is the Word of God, and lots of evidence it isn't (for example, equating bats with birds -- something a human writer would be expected to do, but which a diety would be expected to get right).

So, I reiterate, why should the OT get the benefit of the doubt when contemporary writings from co-located cultures do not?

[Elsie]

Junior...

What are you doing in a CONSERVATIVE forum??

If all other examples of "histories" from the ancient world are slanted and exaggerated, why shouldn't one assume the same of Jewish history until evidence bears out differently?

Guilty until proven innocent indeed!