Not true!
Submitted by Triple Q on July 10 1999 at 11:58:50
In reply to On historical methodology Submitted by Heather on July 09 1999 at 14:10:29
|
My first thought in response to Tygyr's post was "Jeez, I am definitely not coming across with the message I am trying to express." Btw, I may have eventually arrived at that particular phrase: "Well, if contains errors like all other historical documents, then it's not inspired". BUT, not being "inspired" does not mean that it can't be inspiring. [Turn off your spiritual radar for a second. :) ] What I am trying to say is that historians use details like I described to present a whole picture. Yes, they may in fact be widely variant from the real story but Tygyr (or you, for that matter) never said that the story itself never happened. Merely that the facts surrounding the stories are in error or biased. If one can provide proof that the story itself never happened (and, yes, historians use detail to further this goal) THEN it will provide reason for questioning all the other stories of the Bible. Sorry, but I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. |