History of the World in Christian Perspective...

[DifferentGurl]

...At least what the book considers to be "Christian".

Anyways, in this thread, I'm going to be going through a history textbook that I used in the 7th grade. Note that my family didn't come from a fundie background and they probably had no idea about all the crazy stuff mentioned in this book. My family only used a Christian curriculum because when we first started homeschooling, we had previously been enrolled in a Christian school. We were desperate to find a good homeschool curriculum.

But anyways, without further ado, here's first chapter of "History of the World in Christian Perspective"!

The first chapter is about the "Beginning". You know, the stuff mentioned in Genesis.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is the most reliable source for what we need to know about the beginning of world history. If you have read it, you have already begun to study history.

It goes on to mention how special man is because God created us in his image. "Remember Man's special characteristics while studying history", the book says. We are different from animals and plants and have a special relationship with God that no other creature can enjoy.

These special characteristics include (1) Language and thought, (2) awareness of the difference between right and wrong, and (3) freedom to make choices.

Um, there are plenty of animals other than humans that have their own languages and can think. Also, I'm no biologist but I think some animals ( at least with primates ) that know the difference between right and wrong to some degree. Finally, am I the only one that thinks its ironic that they included "freedom to make choices"?

The book talks abut Adam and Eve and how they were super smart because of their relationship with God. Their relationship was that of equals. Once again, oh how the irony considering how wives were treated in the Bible. God put man in charge of the earth to develop for the benefit of mankind and not to waste or destroy. Wonder why a lot of fundies keep forgetting this...

Finally, we get to the part where Satan tempts Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

To quote the book:

God could not turn His back on what had happened. As a just God - and as we will see, a loving God - He punished the man and the woman.

Once more, oh how the irony! They mention that he's a loving God and proceed to tell how he punished Adam and Eve. One interesting note: they said that because of Original Sin, husband would rule his wife. Um...why can't man continue to treat woman like an equal when out of the garden. The tree gave you knowledge of good! Isn't it good to treat your wife equally?!

The chapter gets to the part about Evolution's stance about the Beginning. Oh boy...

The extreme of man's rebellion against God is the denial of the Bible's teaching that God is the Creator of man.

It then does a brief explanation of evolution, followed by saying that the idea has weakness because it doesn't explain the beginning of world history and that it gives a false impression of man.

First, argues that Creation had to have happened between us humans have thought and language and no other animal has that. Um, like I said, there are other animals that are capable of language and thought. It mentions that we also have society, which is unique. Isn't there some kind of semblance of society in some animal species? I'm not an animal expert but I thought I saw something on TV about small societies of chimps.

The book goes on to attack evolutionists, saying that they are attacking man's special characteristics. How evolutionists are wrong in pointing out that other animals are capable of language and thought. How evolutionists are wrong in saying that the knowledge of right and wrong is something we learn. How evolutionists are wrong in saying that man's freedom of choice is just an illusion ( do evolutionists really believe this? )? Evolutionists lack no logic, the book says. They reduce man to nothing more than animals and machines.

The book makes an insult at humanism, saying that it's about placing man of or above God's place. Humanism hurts man and is a result in rebelling against God. The Bible is better than humanism because it raises the value of man but not at the expense of God.

Isn't there such a thing as religious humanism? Heck, did they even look up more about what humanism really is? Also, what really is wrong with humanism?

The book explains the story of Cain and Abel and the culture of Cain. According to the book, the most important part of culture is how people relate to God. I know quite a few people that would argue otherwise.

After the story of Cain and Abel comes the story of Noah and the ark. Once again, I find it ironic that it mentioned that in his Justice, God decided to mankind. After the flood, God created the death penalty so man can understand the sanctity of life. Isn't there a better way to teach man the importance of life without the death penalty? Shouldn't man already know the importance of life without the threat of the death penalty looming over their heads?

Man had another chance to build a culture in submission to God.

So says the book. Man once again went rebellious resulting in the disaster that was the tower of Babel. God made men speak different languages and everyone went their separate ways.

The chapter ends with saying that it was a good thing Man restricted the growth of human power. Without the separation of men into different nations, nothing would have been impossible for us. Yea...world unity. Such a bad thing...

Jeez, this is just the first chapter and already my head hurts. Stay tuned for chapter two! Feel free to comment on these chapters.

[Rebelwife]

Thanks for taking one for the team! I can't wait to hear their take on non Judea-Christian cultures. :roll:

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

I think I physically felt my IQ drop after reading the small parts you posted.... You are my new hero for reading the entire thing and not only keeping your intelligence but staying sane... :worship:

[Toothfairy]

:wtf:

[PennySycamore]

DifferentGurl, there is so much ignorance here that I hardly know where to begin. Chimps do indeed live in societies in the wild as so many other species. Wolves form packs and IIRC, pair-bond for life. (Weird isn't it that "wolf is slang for some very unwolflike behavior?) Elephants families are very nurturing of their young. Bee society is also highly developed. Bobobos, a species of chimpanzee, are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity. Like the other great apes, they also exhibit mirror self-recognition which indicates self-awareness. Several bonobos in the lab have learned more than 500 words. They also can form same sex pair bonds,

[louisa05]

Is this from A Beka?? I taught from the tenth grade edition published in 1982. It had a section on the hierarchy of the races (which I'm pretty sure were defined as "red, yellow, black and white").

And I so wish I had made that up.

[DifferentGurl]

Thank you for all of your responses so far! I especially thank PennySycamore. I knew some animals had language, culture, and societies, but I couldn't think of any specifics.

Anyways, here's the second chapter.

The second chapter begins with this quote:

Man's rebellion during the earliest times, from the fall into sin to the tower of Babel, did not cause God to stop loving the creatures he made in His image. God planned to save man from sin and its consequences. God's plan for mankind provides a thread to follow through history.

According to the book, we need this guidance because of the dispersion of mankind complicates studying world history.

By focusing on God's plan, we see how history leads to Jesus Christ. God first chose a special nation out of which Christ would come.

And by "special nation", it means Israel of course.

The book then starts to *gasp* provide valuable information on World History. Believe it or not, this book can actually be educational, just as long as it doesn't start lecturing about "how to be a good Christian" and "how evolutionists and humanists all have it wrong" and such.

The textbook gives information about the fertile crescent, what B.C. and A.D. mean in a little boxed area on the page, shows an elegantly painted map of the fertile crescent, information on Mesopotamia, and a brief history of the Sumerians. It's hard to believe that a textbook that started off with that "wonderful" first chapter could actually have some valuable information.

Then it starts to explain the beliefs of the Sumerians...oh boy...

However impressive Sumerian culture might have been, the Sumerians had not learned the lessons of the Flood or of the tower of Babel. They had lost the knowledge of the one true God and His purposes. When God called Abraham out of the land of Sumer, it was summons to separate from the many false beliefs of the Sumerians.

They do a brief explanation of what polytheist and monotheist means. They then say that they forget that God created everything nature and personified nature.

Also, the Sumerians are more evil because they were humanists, making men into gods. Are they implying that all humanists turn men into gods...because humanists really don't...

Abraham believe that men were created in the image of God by God, but the Sumerian gods were created in the image of men by men.

The Sumerians not only made their gods look like men, but also act like men.

Unlike Abraham's God of infinite perfection and power, the Sumerian gods displayed petty jealousy, envy, and fear.

Doesn't God sometimes have anger issues?

They do a brief explanation of the gods of the Sumerians, followed by once again proclaiming that their beliefs were false and that they had a powerful influence on their lives.

More information the Sumerians like their cities and ziggurats, government influences by their religion, commerce, and the struggle between cities.

The Sumerians' vain efforts to elevate themselves by building a society without God was one of history's many repetitions of the mistake made at the tower of Babel.

But from Sumer came Abraham. From him, a new nation would be formed. The new nation would provide a new alternative to Sumer's pattern of rebellion against God.

The book then starts to get educational again, explaining Mesopotamia and Hammurabi. It explained both the good and the bad. The book is quick to point out that Hammurabi's laws were not as great as the Ten Commandments God gave Moses centuries later.

God always makes the punishment fit the crime, but Hammurabi did not.

So it was fit to have forty kids get mauled by bears just because they called the prophet names? Or to stone prostitutes? Or cut your wife's hand off if she accidental touched your junk while trying to break up a fight?... Just saying.

The book explains the gods that existed when Hammurabi was around. When this one god named Marduk was declared the king of the many gods, it elevated Babylon in the eyes of the people. To oppose Babylon and Hammurabi was to opposed Marduk.

A brief explanation of the fall of Hammurabi's Babylon and we're onto the Patriarchs of Canaan. Abraham, Issac, and Jacob were the founding fathers of Israel, the most unusual and important nation in world history. How was Israel unusual? Also, whether they were the more important nation in history can be debated.

A brief summary of the people of Canaan that weren't the Patriarchs. They were diverse, but the one thing they had in common was their "false" beliefs. Their gods were worse than the ones Abraham left in Sumer and Mesopotamia. Baal, the chief god of the Canaanites, was associated with storms ( not all storms are bad, you know? ) and *gasp!* sex. "Worship" ( yes, the book actually put quotation marks around worship ) included wild dances rituals and human sacrifice. Yea, I admit it was crazy that they sacrificed human beings, but to call it "false" was ridiculous.

When the Israelites returned from Egypt, God would, with full justice, take the land away from the evil Canaanites and give it to His chosen people.

So because they had a different religion, they were evil? I can understand if it was because of the human sacrifice, but what about the groups of people in Canaan that didn't use human sacrifice?

A few paragraphs are dedicated to how SPECIAL the Patriarchs are because of their godliness. Because they recognized the one true God, they stood out from the Canaanites. Everyone they ran into saw they were special and that there were not to be messed with. For example, Abraham used only a few hundred men to defeat armies. Um, I think this had more to do with military strategy than God.

A brief mention of how the Patriarchs were imperfect humans followed by a brief mention of Joseph. The chapter finally ends by saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were some of the most important men in history. They were important not because of achievements like Hammurabi's but for their godly lives and their special legacy of mankind through Israel. They were shining examples of faith in world rebellious against God.

This chapter may have not been as bad as the first, but it's still bleh...

Maybe if I'm not so busy with schoolwork, I can add in one more chapter. I think the third chapter was not as bad as this one.

[DifferentGurl]

Is this from A Beka?? I taught from the tenth grade edition published in 1982. It had a section on the hierarchy of the races (which I'm pretty sure were defined as "red, yellow, black and white").

And I so wish I had made that up.

Yes, this is from A Beka.

[DifferentGurl]

Ok...it seems like I'll be able to do the third chapter. Luckily, this chapter isn't as ad as the first two. Why? Because they're mostly educational! Yes, there is still some the Chrsitian stuff, but other than that, this is a breath of fresh air.

This chapter is about Egyptian history. It really is interesting, apart from the "The Israelites were special because of their relationship with God" stuff.

The chapter starts with a brief synopsis about how the Egyptians were different from the other groups of people so far because they were one people, followed by stuff about Herodotus. Then we get to the story of Joseph and then the beginning of the story of Moses.

The educational stuff continues for a couple of pages until we get to the part about the religion of the ancient Egyptians. The book calls this section "Egypt's confusion". The part about their beliefs about creation is called "False beliefs about Creation".

The ancient Egyptians confused nature with God.

The Egyptians' belief in false gods prevented them from seeing nature as it really is.

They did not see that nature operates according to laws of matter and energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Israelites thought that too. This is ancient times! Of course they didn't realize that there were scientific laws that explained all this!

The next part is called "Results of Egypt's Confusion". They mention how great the Egyptian doctors were. But they are quick to point out that they also used magic and believed that evil spirits caused diseases and this was all because of their belief that the powers of nature are gods. Um, I wouldn't have been surprised if some of the Israelites thought this too.

They then compliment the art of ancient Egypt before saying that the artists were hindered because of their belief in natural cycles. Change was not acceptable, making the art very much alike. I'm not an expert in Egypt or art, but wasn't there some variety in Egyptian art? And isn't art a lot of the times in this "Christian age" very much alike?

They explain more about the gods of ancient Egypt, followed by this quote:

In a sense, Egyptian beliefs lowered men to the level of animals and elevated animals to the level of gods.

Finally we get past the lecturing about "how the ancient Egyptian's beliefs were stupid compared to the Israelites!" and get to the educational stuff. There's stuff about the Egyptian's beliefs in the afterlife and surprisingly, there's not any mocking of how the Egyptian's version of the afterlife was stupid. We read more about some of the pharaohs of Egypt, the building projects, the peak of Egyptian power, and Egyptian society.

Then we get back to the story of Moses. It's pretty much the basic story of Moses that we all know. It doesn't bash Egypt's religion during this. One quote that stands out the most is...

These plagues demonstrated the ridiculousness of the Egyptian religion.

Ridiculousness?! Ridiculousness?! Their religion was not ridiculous! Just because a faith is not yours does not make it ridiculous! Argh!

Anyways, the book says God turned the thing that the Egyptians worshiped against them and that His power has no limits!

The chapter ends with the part about Moses and the Israelites crossing the sea.

Overall, this chapter really was relief. Yea, it had its moments but for the most part it act like a history book.

I can't say the same about the next chapter. The next chapter is called "Israel in Its Land". I have a bad feeling about this...

[docmom]

So nothing about "pre-history", early African societies, spread of humans to other parts of the world?? History did not start in Mesopotamia, actually. I went to an evil secular public school in a liberal state but must confess that I knew next to nothing of non-Western history until I went to college.

[nomoxian]

I went to an evil secular public school in a liberal state but must confess that I knew next to nothing of non-Western history until I went to college.

Same here, except it was a province and not a state.

I can only imagine how much more ignorant someone from SOTDRT must be!

[louisa05]

So nothing about "pre-history", early African societies, spread of humans to other parts of the world?? History did not start in Mesopotamia, actually. I went to an evil secular public school in a liberal state but must confess that I knew next to nothing of non-Western history until I went to college.

This is seventh grade.

The tenth grade level book I taught with included these topics and addressed Asian and African history, albeit much more briefly than Western history. The details were, however, incredibly warped given that it is A Beka. For example, colonialism in Africa was glorified for bringing Christianity and Apartheid was defined as something only objected to by "so-called 'humanitarians'" (and they indeed put the word "humanitarians" in quotation marks) and it was explained that it was important to maintain it to keep Communism out of Africa. My favorite part of that section was that it called Apartheid South Africa a "bastion of democracy".

[Hane]

UU describes itself as "religious humanists."

[Black Aliss]

Is this from A Beka?? I taught from the tenth grade edition published in 1982. It had a section on the hierarchy of the races (which I'm pretty sure were defined as "red, yellow, black and white").

And I so wish I had made that up.

And I know you didn't because wonkette.com did a 24-part review of World History and Cultures In Christian Perspective a year or so ago in their "Sundays with the Christianists" series. A great snark binge, for those who aren't familiar with wonkette.

[louisa05]

And I know you didn't because wonkette.com did a 24-part review of World History and Cultures In Christian Perspective a year or so ago in their "Sundays with the Christianists" series. A great snark binge, for those who aren't familiar with wonkette.

I heard about that series. I did not read it. Could not bear to after four years of teaching out of that miserable excuse for a history textbook. I got in a lot of trouble for not using the book enough. After a year, I taught almost entirely from outside sources. To shut up admins, the kids had to do vocabulary words from the book. I gave open notes quizzes on those and tested them over the other material.

[DifferentGurl]

Time for the fourth chapter!

It begins with the Israelites wondering through the Sinai Peninsula, eventually making it to Mt.Sinai. The book brags about how Israel became the first nation in the world to be formed under God.

Earlier peoples had based their cultures on mistaken basic beliefs.

How was their basic beliefs horrible? Just because their religion was different? If so, that's no excuse to call their beliefs "mistaken".

God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. Once again, the book points out how the Ten Commandments were better than Hammurabi's laws because these laws valued people more and that there was equal punishment for all who commit a particular crime. God's laws are perfect and just, proclaims the book! He knows the true principles of morality!

It was a great moment in world history when God revealed the true principles of morality, at first to the Israelites but eventually to all men through the Bible.

The book also mentions JOY, kinda. It says that having the right relationship to God is the key to good relationships with others and for overall happiness.

We then follow the Israelites through the wilderness to the southern borders of Canaan. The Israelites are quite nervous when they see all the huge cities and decide to go back to Egypt. Instead of just comforting them and encouraging them, God makes them wander in the desert for 40 years. Then after 40 years, they take over most of Canaan.

But oh no! They failed to drive the Canaanites completely out of the land! They became exposed to the Canaanites' wicked culture! Because they start worshiping the Canaanites' gods and doing they thought was right instead of obeying God, God has enemies harass them. The Israelites plea for help, God answers, and God appoints leaders to help them.

First there are judges to help the Israelites, but then the Israelites demand for the king to rule them. God warns them of the consequences of having a king, but the Israelites don't care. God gives them Saul, who at first was a nice guy but then started disobeying God. The book fails to mention the genocide that happened under Saul's command. Next comes David, who according to the book was one of the greatest earthly kinds ever! The book fails to mention David defeating the giant, his issues with Saul, how he started getting a bit lazy when he was king, and the scandal involving Bathsheba. Finally, there is Solomon. Solomon is also a great king until his projects started requiring thousands of laborers and heavy taxation. Oh, and Solomon also started to worship false gods. The textbook fails to mention Solomon's many wives. After Solomon's death, Israel is split into the Northern Kingdom ( Israel ) and the Southern Kingdom ( called Judah ).

The textbook then says that it was at this time that the Bible was starting to be written. Note that the textbook said that God inspired the writers. This proves that some parts of the Bible is not to be taken to heart because men have had a history of not listening to God.

Also, it mentions that Israel was the first nation to have a complete written account of their history. Is this true? If it is, please let me know.

Then we get to a breath of fresh air in the book...when they start talking about other people besides the Israelites. We first read about their neighbors the Phoenicians and then about their other neighbors the Hittites. Both had great culture but they were all about their material wealth and not about their religion! Gasp! Also, the Hittites produced nothing new in world history, at least that's what the book said, because they borrowed from other cultures and how their art took no original approach or form.

We then great a brief synopsis of how the Phoenicians and Hittites fell. The chapter ends with saying the new empires of the ancient world simply helped prepare the world for Jesus.

The end of chapter 4 is also the end of Unit 1. There's a summary at the end that is a dump for the book's beliefs ( though they do actually summary some of the stuff that was learned in the unit ). Calling the other ancient groups' gods false. Bashing humanistic beliefs. Mentioning the good stuff ( if there is any ) of the non-Israelite cultures before bashing them for their "false" beliefs. That kind of stuff.

Phew! This one was hard. Hopefully the other one won't be...hopefully...

[Arete]

So, this is the flower of homeschooling ciriculum and also used in Protestant religious school?

And people wonder why I support the idea of a common ciriculum in the US.

[louisa05]

So, this is the flower of homeschooling ciriculum and also used in Protestant religious school?

And people wonder why I support the idea of a common ciriculum in the US.

It doesn't matter if there were a common curriculum or not, private schools and homeschoolers would not be obligated to abide by it.

The Christian school I taught at was state approved which made the kids' diplomas official. It was not accredited. Accreditation is of the devil or something. They had to abide by state graduation requirements for credits and coursework to be approved and employ certified teachers for everything but "Bible" classes. They did not have to abide by state curriculum standards and had there been state testing here, they would not have been required to do it.

I later taught in Catholic school. The school was accredited and VOLUNTARILY abided by state curriculum standards as well as standards created by the local Archdiocese which (in my two areas, I can't speak for others as I never really looked at them...but I assume they were the same) were basically the state standards with different numbers. They used regular textbooks as well, many of them acquired via textbook loan from the local public school district. They did not have to participate in mandatory state testing, though. Which is probably a good thing as they are not obligated to spend two or three weeks preparing kids for tests--the high school math room I subbed in at public school last week had this month's class calendar on the wall. All the kids are doing is reviewing for and practicing for the upcoming state tests for three solid weeks.

I don't see any scenario where a private school or homeschoolers could be forced to use Common Core or any other standard curriculum.

Also...don't underestimate the power of renegade teachers in Christian schools. I would say that 75% of the teachers at the high school level in my school used outside materials to teach more than the A Beka texts we were given. And the math department did not have a religious curriculum (they used Saxon), so they don't count in that number. I didn't teach with a single social studies teacher on the high school level at that school who didn't think the textbooks were complete crap.

[nolongerIFBx]

Ridiculousness?! Ridiculousness?! Their religion was not ridiculous! Just because a faith is not yours does not make it ridiculous! Argh!

Anyways, the book says God turned the thing that the Egyptians worshiped against them and that His power has no limits!

The chapter ends with the part about Moses and the Israelites crossing the sea.

Overall, this chapter really was relief. Yea, it had its moments but for the most part it act like a history book.

I can't say the same about the next chapter. The next chapter is called "Israel in Its Land". I have a bad feeling about this...

I'm learning the same thing in my accredited college class on religions of the world. The plagues each showed how God was stronger than the Egyptians gods-- "The Nile River was worshipped as a god by the Egyptians. Turning the River Nile to blood is like killing one of their chief gods. The plague of frogs, which start to then die and cause a terrible stench, is a divine judgment on the goddess Hecht, which was always worshipped in the form of a frog. Each of these plagues is not only an affliction designed to change Pharaoh's mind; each is also a direct affront to the various Egyptian deities: Hapi the god of the Nile; Heket (or Heqt), the god who took the form of a frog; Apis, the bull god; and Re, the sun God, for example. The plague on livestock is a judgment on Apus and on the goddess, Hatha. The cow god, Hathor and the ram god, Kanum, were all judged and condemned and symbolically slaughtered in these plagues systematically. The plague of darkness is a judgment on Ra, the great Egyptian sun god. Exodus 12:12 makes the point clearly: “on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.â€14

The tenth and last tenth plague is greatest judgment of all: the death of the first-born. Pharaoh himself was considered to be divine and his first-born was divinized in a special ceremony. In a sense, all fathers and their first-born sons were, by extension, called to share in a quasi-divine power and position. The first-born represented in a sense, the political gods of Egypt. When you destroy the first-born sons in a culture that depends upon family relations and clan structures you create a huge power vacuum. Just such a vacuum is created, and noted in historic documents, where the dynastic line seems to be interrupted and Egypt only recovers over a period of some years."

I agree that using the word "ridiculous" would have been very disrespectful and Christians are told to be respectful-- "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15.

[browngrl]

Thanks Differentgurl for both reading and posting this information. It is interesting to see what fundies are taught as I always wonder how they manage to explain away so much scientific and historical information.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Salon.com snarked this very same book last week (though not to this level of detail). Salon pointed out the places in the book that teach how the Great Depression was just a myth, that sort of thing.

Very wtf? territory.

[FloraKitty35]

It sounds like most of the stuff in ACE booklets that I had in 12th grade.

[louisa05]

Salon.com snarked this very same book last week (though not to this level of detail). Salon pointed out the places in the book that teach how the Great Depression was just a myth, that sort of thing.

Very wtf? territory.

Yep. Here are some high points I recall from both history and government texts:

*Prohibition was a grand success. The rise in crime is something liberals made up to repeal it.

*The U.S. has "unofficial requirements" for the presidency that all voters adhere to. (white, male, Protestant Christian, two or more children, happily married--IMHO that last one has tripped up a lot of people especially while in the W.H. as it is not an environment that nurtures a marriage--and then there is the issue that a number of presidents had no or only one child--Clinton was president when I was teaching from that lovely text. And, of course, the current president has really missed the mark on the one I fear A Beka thinks most important).

*The French Revolution was a Christian event that broke the "stranglehold" of Catholicism in that country.

*Truman intended a divided Korea which is going to eventually lead to Communism in all of Asia and the Pacific Rim (thus said A Beka in 1982...)

*Alexander the Great conquered the Mediterranean world to "prepare the way for Christ".

*The "liberal media" is biased because all journalists are alcoholics. This from a really bizarre sidebar in the government book's section about Prohibition.

And I mentioned the hierarchy of races and bizarre interpretation of Apartheid in another post.

[DifferentGurl]

Hi everyone! Once again, thank you for all your comments. Time for Chapter 5, which is about Assyria, Babylon, and Persia.

The chapter starts with an brief synopsis of the origin of the Assyrian Empire. We are told that they were used by God as a tool of judgment against the northern Israelite kingdom for their sins. Then we get to the more educational stuff again and are told more about the culture of Assyria. The education part soon ends when we read about the king Sennacherib standing outside the walls of Jerusalem, boasting how his gods are better than Judah's. An angel comes from the heavens, destroys his force, and sent the king running with his tail between his legs. He then got killed by his own kids. In 612 B.C., the Assyrian empire was no more.

Onto the Chaldean/Babylonian Empire! We get a brief introduction on the origin of the Chaldean empire. Like the Assyrians, they were used as tools of judgment by God. This time, they were used to punish Judah. Luckily for the Israelites, the Chaldeans weren't as harsh as the Assyrians. We get info on Nebuchadnezzar and the hanging gardens before getting to his connection with Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar has a dream about world history, Daniel interprets it, and the king makes Daniel his chief advisor. According to the book, we are still awaiting the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the end times. Just like some people are awaiting the prophecies of Nicodemus to be fulfilled.

We then read that Nebuchadnezzar soon stopped respecting Daniel and Daniel's God because of his pride and how the world should bow down to the Babylonian empire. In response, God made him go crazy to the point that he forgot his name and ate grass like an animal. After seven years of living like a crazy man, he gained his sanity back and praised the Lord! Hallelujah! But the Babylonians following God's word didn't last. When Nebuchadnezzar's son came to the throne, the Babylonians started hating God again. During a banquet, a heavenly hand wrote something on the wall. Daniel was summoned and interpreted the writing as a message that the empire was doomed! That same night, the city was invaded, the king was killed, and the empire was no more.

Finally, we have the Persians. We get information on the beginnings of the Empire and of Cyrus the great. According to the book:

What even Cyrus did not know, however, was that God had chosen him specifically for the tasks that lay ahead.

The book goes on about Cyrus's tactics in battle and how whenever he conquered a group of people, he let them keep their religion. Obviously, this was a good thing for the Israelites. Some 42,360 Jews were allowed to go back to their homeland. After Cyrus, Darius still allowed the Jews to worship how they wanted. But like the empires before it, the Persians' fell. We'll get more about their fall later in the book.

Then we get to his part of the chapter called "Instruments of God's Will". Oh boy...

God sometimes works in mysterious ways.

So says the book. People can be working for him without ever realizing it. All the empires mentioned in this chapter worked for him.

The book goes on saying that the Assyrian and Chaldean kingdoms living in rebellion against God. They looked up to the same kind of gods that the Sumerians did, which were really glorified human beings. They strove to make their empires be above the rest of mankind and above God himself. But what they didn't know was that they were being used as God's tools as judgment against the Israelites who were sinking deeper and deeper into false religions. The Persians then brought the Israelites back to their nation. We hear how the kings of the Chaldean and Persian empires were no match for Daniel because of his relationship with God.

Through it all, God continued to work in history with His plan for man's salvation.

Thanks to all their years suffering, the Israelites were now wising. People in the west were rising up to form cultures and empires that would be even greater than the Empires before.

The chapter ends with sentence:

Although they knew nothing of God's plan for them, the Greeks and Romans prepared the world for God's greatest intervention in history.

One more thing I should mention is that in this chapter there is this little boxed area about the Bible as history.

The Bible, the most important source for the knowledge of history, is the only completely reliable source because the men who wrote it were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the World of God and therefore contain no mistakes, something that can be said of no other book.

Our study of the beginning showed the importance of the Bible for information about the earliest times. The Bible also provides the student of world history with invaluable information about ancient cultures. Only the Bible, for example, records the moments when the three empires studied in this chapter were briefly in the right relationship with God.

First of all, the idea of the Bible being completely reliable can be debated. Second, the Bible pretty much contains brief information of how these empires ran. Third, how is the fact that they had the "right" relationship with God an important part of history.

The boxed area goes on saying that the Bible contains information on how Jonah, Daniel, and Esther reacted with these ancient empires.

Finally, the boxed area ends on this:

If you want to do further reading in ancient history, you could do no better than to read the Old Testament.

I think Wikipedia would be a better resource on ancient history than the Bible. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't contain any good information on ancient history, but we don't get information from the Bible of how these ancient people lived, did their business, what gods they worshipped, etc.

Once again, another hard chapter. As always, hoping the next one isn't as bad to go through.

[Arete]

For Fuck's Sake! To reduce empires like Persia, Sumeria, and Babylon to nothing more than tools to teach the Northern Kingdom and Judah a lesson.....

OK, core curriculum that everyone has to teach, including private schools and homeschoolers. Change the laws. They should not be able to "teach" this dreck in the name of religious freedom.