Oswalt: Chapter Summary And Analysis

603 Words3 Pages
The author tell if removing the historical section of the Bible we would still have a good portion left to support that it is the word of God, which the author sees clearly that they enter twain with each to prove history. Here is Oswalt concluding observation to the second question- does it matter in the end whether these accounts are historical or not? “The answer to the question is “no.” The conclusion with the scripture of Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 15:13-17, speaks very clearly about if Jesus Christ be not raised from the dead then believing of the gospel is in vain. That God did raise Christ from the dead and we whom have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior are still in sin, if there be no resurrection. Oswalt left the readers…show more content…
The first writer is John Van Seter who wrote the book “Abraham in History and Tradition”, disagreeing that no conclusive proof existed to support the historical being of Abraham and the other Biblical Patriarchs or the ancient consistency of their origins in Mesopotamia and their achievements and travels as depicted in the book of book of Genesis. Another writer found his work to have been falsified materials to support his work, thus leaving evidence to prove Pentateuch. The second writer: Frank Cross, believes the Pentateuch were rewriting of poetic epic. He support this belief by giving example of Russian and Spanish moving in same direction from epic to prose chronicles. The third author; William Dever, argues that the occurrence in Israel history never occurred and that data do not support the existence of state Israel. He does argues of the explanation of “Israel existence and nature.” Dever believes that Bible is idealist, viewing what the elite wants you to believe and worship, thus creating a god. Oswalt defends the Bible history with a serious of question that will leave the reader to take a second look at what this book written by Dever, he completely destroy his theology on Israel
Open Document