...the old testament, a scarcely believable document...
Malcolm,
Only someone willfully ignorant of history, woefully ignorant of literature, and completely ignorant of the micro-science of textual criticism would say something like that.
For starters, the old testament is not "a document," but is in fact, 39 separate documents. If you count each Psalm as an individual document you can add 150 more. Are all 189 documents scarcely believable?
Did you know that the astoundingly important discoveries starting in 1947 of the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 200bc-65ad) contained either fragments or entire copies of every book in the Hebrew canon except Esther, and that they match modern translations (the Isaiah document for instance) almost word for word? Did you also know that if you used the same metrics of textual criticism to simultaneously evaluate the historical reliability and accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Virgil, that the veracity of the OT is so superior as to be in a class completely by itself? Throw out this scarcely believable OT and you must also, justifiably, throw out as untrustworthy and inaccurate, almost every other ancient manuscript on which western civilization was founded.
No Malcolm, the only scarcely believable documents I've seen lately are a quote from analyst Ed Snyder regarding QCOM being "on a teeter-totter" with Nokia, and your SI G & K post #33482.
Respectfully, Mike |
