Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[discipulus]

I miss your point. Maybe you can elaborate?

Well, guys from history writing about another guy who they could not possibly have met because he died before they were born isn't exactly compelling evidence for the existence of that guy, is it? People today are doing that about Christ; just the fact that it happened slightly closer to his time of life doesn't change the fact that it didn't get written while he was alive.

I have spoken with a gentleman in the past regarding this point. He essentially said the same thing you have said i.e. that since none of the people who wrote about Jesus wrote what they did while He was alive that therefore the accounts we do have cannot be regarded as reliable.

Is this a good argument. No it is not. For it assumes that in order for an account of a person's life to be reliable the account must be written while the person is alive.

I am not aware of any historian who holds this view. It would be great if we did have an account of Christ written by someone while Christ was alive but we do not. If historians made this the sole prerequisite in determining the reliabilty of an account of a person's life then a great many historical accounts of other people would also have to be deemed unreliable.

I suggest you study the historical method and the various means utilized in historiography.

---

Blame the men and women who desire to be called Christians but do not obey Christ's teachings.

Would you count yourself among that category? Remember, when you point the finger at other people, you have four fingers pointing at yourself.

Many times in the past I confess that I have failed to obey Christ's teachings. I have no one to blame for this failure but myself.