Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Who rose from the dead?
Message-ID: <217@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 11:30:52 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.217
Posted: Wed Nov  7 11:30:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:39:25 EST
References: <1376@pucc-h> <256@qantel.UUCP> <222@pyuxd.UUCP> <1485@qubix.UUCP> <233@pyuxd.UUCP> <289@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24

[Ken Nichols]
> As far as I know, the Bible is the most historicaly acurate, and well
> documented books on the earth.  If it doesn't have any credibility, then
> either does any other historical document.

Judging from your first sentence, you must be VERY proud of your ignorance. :-)

Credibility of a document comes from support from independent sources.  And
beware of the fallacy of composition.  If one or more parts of something are
true, that doesn't mean the whole thing is true.  Consider the hypothetical
O'Haran religion of the year 4000 AD.  Their sacred text is "Gone with the
Wind".  There is an enormous amount of corroborative evidence for the book.
The revolutionary war took place, with many of the historical figures of the
period mentioned in the book.  But did Rhett really exist?  He MUST have
really left Scarlet, because there is no burial ground with their bodies
side-by-side, as was the custom.

You HAVE to look elsewhere to establish credibility of a historical document.
The only property a historical document can have intrinsically is consistancy.
Without bringing up whether the bible is consistant, consistancy does NOT
imply accuracy, honesty, truth, or credibility.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh