Les--

Depends what you mean by "historical." There are sections of the OT--and why stop there; throw in the NT and both apocryphas--which scientists might challenge. The fact that the Genesis author(s) wrote about a universal flood does not mean a universal flood necessarily occurred. It does mean that when that book was written, someone believed there had been a universal flood, or at least wished to use that idea to promote the omnipotence of YHWH. I am therefore entitled, as an historian, to deduce that such belief is datable to the time at which that part of Genesis was written.

Lemme use an example from a totally different context. "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is not historical in the sense that it records actual Jewish thought. It is completely historical in the sense that it reflects the mood of Russian anti-Semitism at the time it was written.

If the KJV translators accurately translated "pesanterin" as dulcimer, that would be >>historical<< evidence for the existence of such an instrument at the time the "Daniel" was written. If they did not accurately translate it as such, it would not be historical evidence.

Why do I have to be catechized on the reality of the Genesis account before I can draw a legitimate logical conclusion from the translation of Daniel 3? Does any of this have to do with SELAH?

CC