Denial is refusal to accept anything that goes against what you believe. It's simply when you think you know instead of realizing it's a belief.
Knowledge occurs when you have final proof: An original document, an original photograph, an ancient stone carving. The key is that you cannot go back any further to find any additional information. (I'll go into this in Part VI.) The exact wording or image is indisputable, though interpretation may be questionable. This, however, can usually be settled through gaining more information.
If you can't provide sufficient proof that what you say is true, it is a belief. More often than not, belief is based on interpretation, which can easily be the result of not having enough facts. To avoid false beliefs, you must do all of the above: do not accept the first thing you are told or see, do not assume, ask questions and clarify, and know who you're dealing with.
Denial means you're putting your belief before knowledge. A great example occurred to a friend of mine. The issue was what language Jesus spoke. It quickly developed into an argument when he shouted, "My Bible is written in English, so Jesus spoke English!"
English did not even develop until the third century and developed from the languages of neighbors Norway and France and from Latin, because Rome occupied the British Isles. In fact, English wasn't even the same in the early years of the language as it is today. For example, although the spelling of "knife" has remained the same since the Middle Ages, it was pronounced "k-NIF-uh". More extreme, the word "céap", pronounced "seep", became our word "cheap".
Further, many insist that Aramaic was spoken in the area during the time of Jesus--which also fails. Whether or not Jesus was real, the truth is that the land was occupied since 165BC, when the Greeks took over. They ruled until 63BC, when Rome conquered. Assume Jesus' birth occured in 3BC, as the Church will tell you. After eight generations, what kind of chance did Aramaic have to survive in Judah-Israel? Just look at how fast children of Hispanic immigrants adapt to the English language, even though the U.S. has no official language and you'll start to understand the impact of outside forces on language.
(You know, I really should do a blog on that sometime, but no promises.)
How did that belief happen? This is my theory: The Roman Diocese (later the Roman Catholic Church) sought answers, so they used what information they had to produce those answers. Further, they had issues with Greece because of the years of conflict between the two nations. Because Rome took Judea-Isreal from Greece, they refused to give the Greeks any additional confidence by allowing them to believe they never held the area.
The problem, however, is Acts 21:40, where Paul spoke to the crowd in Aramaic. There are two answers, neither of which I've ever seen anything about: either the reference to Aramaic here (and two more times) were added later, or it was a case of speaking in tongues.
See how this theory fits into everything discussed so far?
And I emphasize, this is a theory.