Thanks for saying what I was trying to say; my guess is that Triple Q's response will be, "Well, if contains errors like all other historical documents, then it's not inspired" – which brings one back to the question of what biblical inspiration is. But aside from what you say, one also has to take into account the changing nature of historical writing. It drives me crazy when people who have obviously never read Livy or Polybius or Tacitus or any other classical historian try to judge the historicity of the Bible by modern standards of historical writing. Heather |