> I am skeptical because I have
> never seen history done that way once in my life, and
> it could lead to many false leads.
Certainly, if you define "false lead" as "rational and open-minded consideration of a logically possible explanation that is different than the one I learned in Sunday School". :-)
> I say again I will
> consult with several PH.D historians at my college
I am "skeptical" of your ability to accurately represent my position in this matter. If you can get a historian to actually read my analysis and critique it in writing, let me know. But I'm not really interested if instead you merely want to vouch to me that some casual conversation somehow constitutes a justification for you not defending your indefensible position (which remains: Yahweh 100%, Other Possibilities 0%).
> I will restudy histography a bit and see if that is a
> valid method. If it is not then I see no need to
> answer it.
The justification for my method is already stated. You either can answer my analysis, or you can't. If you can't, then I'm not very interested in how you rationalize your inability to do so.
P.S. I'll take your continuing silence in response to my question about confounding factors as an admission that you aren't seriously offering yourself as an example of atheist having long-term experience with both sides' arguments who later converted to Christianity purely because of comparing those arguments.