Should we totally ignore extra biblical history?
No.
Then why does your website criticize David Daniels for using extra biblical history?
When making an argument about what Scripture says, it's not right to rely on extra biblical sources.
But the book was criticizing Roman Catholicism.
So?
So what's the problem with examining history?
The problem comes when you use extra biblical history as a sole source when making a point about Scripture.
So do we know that the extra biblical history actually happened?
I don't know that.
So we cannot use history to help us interpret the Bible?
From our article on "Babylon Religion:"
First, from this book, it is evident Chick and Daniels do not understand that extra-biblical ancient history has no certain truth to it. They write as if it does, but it does not. As Ecclesiastes 1:11 says,
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Newspapers at one day old can contain lies and inaccuracies. How much more extra-biblical ancient history. Such writings and records are nothing to bank on. They are nothing to trust. As Paul warned in Colossians 2:8,
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
He goes on to ask:
So we can never use it, or we can use it sometimes?
It's okay to use so long as you don't say it is certainly true.
Does David Daniels say that it is certainly true?
From the back cover of Daniels' book:
Combining research from anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, art history, mythology and even occultic sources, you will see, in plain language, how Satan's ancient religion of Babylon still lives today as modern Roman Catholicism - the most powerful religious and secular force on the planet.
And he continues:
But you guys are against Catholicism too right?
Yes, and we show how Catholicism is wrong without relying on extra biblical sources. We compare their teachings with Scripture.
Do you have any opinion on whether Roman Catholicism is a repackaged Babylon religion?
It seems to be a sound notion that Catholicism adopted many practices from pagan religions, but I don't know for sure if that's really the case.
So you do not think that David Daniels' main idea is TOTALLY false?
I don't know.
[...] Nobody alive today was alive back then. Nobody alive today was either there at the writing of the New Testament books to know, nor have they spoken to those who wrote them. It is pure presumption. [...]
[...] How can you know anything outside of the Bible is even true? [...]
[...] We resemble Scripture rather than your supposed history. [...]
[...] Indeed Christ made a church, but that is not your church. I know this because you teach "otherwise," and you have no way to prove historical heritage since "there is no remembrance of former things." [...]
[...] "If it's not in the Bible, there's no reason to believe it's true?" Correct. [...]
[...] God changes state from our point of view as mortal men experiencing time in a particular way. He "became flesh." To God, "a thousand years" "are like yesterday." He is "slain from the foundation of the world," although this was observed by men at an uncertain time in history. [...]
[...] "Obviously the culture has changed since the ancient Hebrew culture." How can this be known? [...]