Gummary,
Do modern day historians do the same......lie and make shit up to suit their emotions and beliefs?
My point was that modern historiography has developed a consistent methodology -- cross-checking, source criticism, etc. -- which limits the possibility of "making up". We consider "history" and "historical fiction" as distinct genres, whereas those were mixed to a very large extent in ancient historiography. Iow, in our professional-moral code, "inventing" is bad within the discipline we call "history". It is lie, fraud, etc. But we can't simply retroject this moral judgement on the past, when "history" did not mean exactly the same thing. Well, of course we can, but then we're missing something.
Still, the way even real events are narrated now -- emphasised or toned down, explained by one cause rather than another -- always reflects the subjective perspective of the historians. Take history books written under, say, Nazi Germany, Stalinian USSR, USA during the Vietnam War or Netherlands in the past 20 years and you will feel the difference of perspective and meaning on the same events.
If this is the case....and god KNEW this was the case, then WHY did he chose to have these fallacious, emotional, lying men......record a book for all mankind to live by.....KNOWING full well it would be full of error?
Well, I'm not a theist anymore, but not all theists consider "God" as the great puppet-master pulling or dropping the strings...
