
whereas the Bible might not be entirely historically reliable because of the class of literature that it is, as well as how it was produced, but it nevertheless counts as evidence. Scholars argue about exactly what it is evidence of but there's no reason to reject it while we accept so much other literature from the period and earlier. Quite a lot of what we know about ancient history comes from what people wrote about it.
The King James Bible isn't a great translation of the Hebrew, although it has a certain charm. The Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the Masoretic text mostly only in very minor ways, and even the major differences are hardly contradictions. I couldn't tell you anything about the Lindisfarne Gospels off the top of my head. I shall make a note to look them up.
I don't know why you think I'm calling you thick, that's certainly not the intention. Neither is it my intention, for the record, to convert you to Christianity. I don't even know if I'm a Christian myself.
( ,
Mon 17 Oct 2011, 18:32,
archived)
The King James Bible isn't a great translation of the Hebrew, although it has a certain charm. The Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the Masoretic text mostly only in very minor ways, and even the major differences are hardly contradictions. I couldn't tell you anything about the Lindisfarne Gospels off the top of my head. I shall make a note to look them up.
I don't know why you think I'm calling you thick, that's certainly not the intention. Neither is it my intention, for the record, to convert you to Christianity. I don't even know if I'm a Christian myself.