At 08:16 AM 3/11/02, Christopher wrote: >The historical accuracy of the Scriptures (The Bible) is in a class by >itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other >early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been >almost innumerable in the last century.
Which version? Which translation? Which scholars? Which archaeologists? I"ve been studying biblical history and scriptures for over 30 years, including learning ancient languages so I could read the source manuscripts for myself, and I've never found anything that would convince me that the bible (in any form) is anything more than the words of man. For every Nelson Glueck quote, there are others such as Philip Davies who wrote: "The gap between the Biblical Israel and the historical Israel as we derive it from archaeology is huge. We have almost two entirely different societies. Beyond the name 'Israel' and the same geographical location, they have almost nothing in common." I happen to believe that a lot of the events in the Bible have historical antecedents, but using that historical 'evidence' to proof G*d is spaghetti logic. You could prove that Moses existed, ruled in Egypt, and lead his people to the promised land, but you will never prove, based on archaeological or historical evidence, that the voice coming out the burning bush belonged to some supreme and all-powerful being. The best you can ever say is that you (and Moses) believed it was G*d. Which takes you right back into the realm of faith. ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
