Your bias is showing

Anytime you hear some one speak you should ask yourself ‘What is there bias?’ Every speaker has one, every writer has one, every listener has one. The one thing you can know for sure is when someone says they are presenting something to with an “unbiased viewpoint” they are either lying or they are blind to their bias. Now on to the rest of this.

Is there anything more fun at the holiday season than sitting down with your spare time and reading one of the magazine or newspaper stories that is debunking some claim of the Bible. It’s become one of our great American Christmas traditions.

And National Geographic delivers on the annual seasonal debunking of religion in favor of science. National Geographic dismisses the Bible as a valid historical source without stating a reason or giving us an argument. It’s as if we're all supposed to know that it's a given that the Bible doesn't give us facts.

The first paragraph of the article tells us that "Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime" of the slaughter of the infant boys because "there is no report apart from Matthew's account." However, the piece goes on immediately to admit he murdered his own sons, wife, mother-in-law, and members of his court, cruel, evil acts in complete harmony with the slaughter of babies. It's just that that account is found only in the Bible, which apparently doesn't count as history.

But the fact that only one ancient writer mentioning an event can't be a reason to dismiss it according to National Geographic's standards because the article goes on to name historical events found only in Roman historian Josephus' history. Josephus is a contemporary of Matthew the Biblical writer, so the only reason for dismissing Matthew's account is that it's in the Bible and we all know that doesn't count.

Even if you take the Bible simply as a book by men and set aside the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the eyewitnesses and historical claims should be taken seriously, not dismissed out of hand. There are good reasons for and scholars widely accept the early dating of the Gospels. And Matthew, a Jew and native of the country, surely would have been aware of such a bloody act. The heinous killing of so many children in a small country would have been widely known. So Matthew, even as the only source, should be taken seriously until an argument is given to discredit his claims.

Religion is myth and feeling; science is fact and knowledge. There's no argument beyond that assumption. You will see this kind of thing in the seasonal specials on the History Channel, Discovery Channel and the like. This assumption often runs through stories of this nature. I know many Christians who love watching these programs and reading these articles. I just wish up front they would state their bias upfront.