i believe shakespeare explain what i just read beautifully . me think he ( the lady ) doth protest too much . the whole thing sound to me a if the author be try to convince himself . he sit profane literature ( writing from the same time period but not connect with the bible ) a number of time however i can think of at least three reference off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to event contain in the bible . anyone can skew data and prove anything they like but it doesn not make it true . custom change and word definition change over time ( look at english and german where it be very obviously a common root ) nothing stay the same and it always grow and change . the bible have many different translation but the king james version be the one i have find to be the best when it come to any kind of research . in the king jam version you will notice there be certain word write in italic . these word have be add by the translator and can be drop and the mean of the entire verse change . writing from around the time of christ be write without space and without punctuation and without paragraph and without numeric verse . these writing look like one long word and the translator add all of the above . for example how would you read this represent godisnowhere do you read it a god be nowhere or do you read it a god be now here . same string of letter two entirely different meaning . this be why many biblical researcher use a lexicon to assist them in translation a it provide a word for word translation from the original arabic and greek or hebrew depend on the language in which the scripture be originally write . it also interest to note that when translate into symbolic logic you can prove god exists but you can not prove he doesn not exist . in the end i just love listen to people who think they be so smart that they be qualify to judge the almighty . talk about ego . put soapbox away and god bless maegi .