From: "Robert Comer" 

> Contemporaneous notes I might be more tempted to believe.  Egyptian
> hieroglyphs, that kind of thing.

Why would you if you don't believe that Jerusalem exists -- seems pretty
hypocritical to me.

> But a vast amount of the Bible is oral history written down sometimes
> centuries after the events occured.

As could be the above.

> The Bible, for me, is as cedible as the Norse or Orkney sagas, or the myth
> of the Nibelungen.

Obviously The trouble is that you're discounting things with no valid
counter evidence and not discounting others with no valid counter evidence.

> It's a simple fact that there are bugger all archeological artefacts that
> can be attributed to a city civilisation around the tenth century BC.

Yep -- even parts of Jerusalem.

--
Bob Comer





"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:45128ec3{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:45128914{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > Absolutely right, of course.  There isn't a shred of evidence that
> either
>> > David or Solomon - or their Jerusalem - ever existed.
>>
>> Just pesky written history.  I suppose you don't believe anything just
>> written down...
>
> Contemporaneous notes I might be more tempted to believe.  Egyptian
> hieroglyphs, that kind of thing.
>
> But a vast amount of the Bible is oral history written down sometimes
> centuries after the events occured.  When was the first of the Gospels
> written?  Why does the New Testament essentially contain three copies of
> the
> same text, leaving out other (and possibly older) material?
>
> The Bible, for me, is as cedible as the Norse or Orkney sagas, or the myth
> of the Nibelungen.
>
> You could call all of that written history too, if you wanted, but it's
> just
> as untrue.
>
> It's a simple fact that there are bugger all archeological artefacts that
> can be attributed to a city civilisation around the tenth century BC.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5