|Subject:||Re: biblical languages Re: A question...|
|Date:||Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:13:52 -0700|
|Newsgroups:||sci.archaeology, sci.lang, soc.history.ancient|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:Matt Giwer wrote:Now that even the most ardent believers have agreed upon a 6th or 7th c. BC creation they still see things written in styles older than that time where everything should be style of the time of creation. So if the creation time known then the variations are based upon locale not age. This same can be applied to any creation date.Nope, on refelction I think you are wrong here, but /it was worth bringing up/.It is an attempt at creating the simplest explanation for the facts. There are facts which must be accounted for in any explanation.
Mr Daniel's post on the Hebrew swung it for me. As I don't know Hebrew I take his word for it. That is my decision on the basis of probability. I do not say that the arguments you reiterate are without validity.
-- You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: biblical languages Re: A question..., Martin Edwards|
|Next by Date:||Re: biblical languages Re: A question..., Martin Edwards|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: biblical languages Re: A question..., Ruud Harmsen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: biblical languages Re: A question..., gnenian|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|