Why isn’t the Bible known as a historical textbook?

From Seth Godin’s latest post:

“If you read a book that tries to change you for the better and it fails or doesn’t resonate, then it’s a self-help book.

“If you read a book that actually succeeds in changing you for the better, then the label changes from self-help book to great book.”

What I immediately thought as I read this, the Bible is revered by those who love it, or derided by those who hate it. There aren’t many in the middle who advocate the Bible for it’s historical insight. There are few who advocate it as a helpful book and many who condescend to say Jesus was a good guy who taught some good stuff, but in saying that, they expose themselves as never having grasped what the Bible is all about. Fundamentally the Gospel’s demands must make Jesus mad, a liar, or Lord over all!
A 1770 Bible turned to John 1 verse 1
He said he was the Son of God, so he was:

  • a liar if this was false and he knew it.
  • a lunatic if this was false and he didn’t know it.
  • a Lord, if this is true.

Those who’ve actually read it, have Jesus as their Lord, or despise it for the implications of what it contains. Some (because there’s rarely only two options), are apathetic. That’s why it’s not seen as a history textbook by most.

Welcome

I’m interested in how businesses, churches and other organisations can really leverage the internet. If you are too, leave a message. Failing that, I’ll be discussing all sorts of things in the productivity/business techniques/speaking/writing categories.