From: Dr Sebby (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 04:03:21 MDT
...that is pretty ridiculous. first you place the bible beyond factual
scrutiny then you refer to it as 'this historical document'...assuming that
everything that IS, has at least a slight history; historicity has no
meaning in this context, so which is it? is it historically/factually based
or isnt it? besides, this viewpoint is flat out contrary to what the vast
majority of judeo/christian theologists suggest...and since it is "their"
book, who are you to declare such contradictory ideas as substantive?
drsebby.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Fabian E Schoonraad <fschoonr@csc.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Egyptian history contradicts the Bible
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:25:43 +0200
Sorry to interrupt, but I just thought I'd share a thought.
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps everything in the Bible can be
contradicted by one discovery or another, simply because the Bible was not
meant to be used as a historcal reference?
Perhaps everything in the Bible is completely untrue and are simply stories
that were made up by the respective authors.
As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the Bible is meant to be taken at face
value, but instead the stories are more like parables than factual stories.
Hence, they have been told to us with a moral behind each particular story.
Something that we can learn from.
Maybe, people should start realising that they should rather try to learn
from the 'stories' in the Bible, instead of constantly attacking its
authenticity
Then and only then, can we make sense of this historical book.
Just a thought. Use it .................. don't use it .....
Fabes
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT