Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!lief
From: lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <14600033@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 17:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcrs.14600033
Posted: Tue Jul 23 17:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:15:06 EDT
References: <404@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:iham1:404:hpfcrs:14600033:37777777600:1901
Nf-From: hpfcrs!lief    Jul 23 13:35:00 1985


	>An interesting collection of anecdotal and circumstantial
>"evidence" of no scientific value whatever! Really such partisan
>authors as Josephus!(A Jew no less). But as a matter of fact many
>ancient historians were veru uncritical of thier sources and generally
>included myths and unsubstantiated tales as "facts". Then of course
>there are these people who saw the Ark and waited 30 yeaers to tell
>someone, and when they did it was for financial gain(being hired as
>guides by a gullible foreigner)!! I have seen some of these photos,
>they are about as clear and unambiguous as the photos of pyramids
>on Mars! Really, none of these accounts is of any value, none would
>even be acceptible in a court of law, let alone a serious historical
>textbook! What with "lost reports" and distant rumours I see no reason
>to take any of this seriously. Especially in the light of recent
>expeditions and analyses which have consistantly failed to find the
>Ark, and which have shown that the "piece of wood from the Ark" is
>in fact no such thing!
>-- 
>
				>Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
>
>{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
>or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
>/* ---------- */
>
In case you didn't know, Josephus (who was a Jew) had no reason to help the
Jewish cause.  In fact, he fought with the Romans aginst the Jews.  So why
should he want to lend validity to a Jewish book?

You complain about the ambiguity of the data above.  Yet some of the very
theories you are backing with your life have even more ambiguity tied to
their evidence than that above.  Why is it that you can be so open minded
with some theories that have questions left open, and so closed minded on
other theories that may still have questions?  Or are you basically bias
against anything that hints at Creation?

Lief Sorensen
HP Fort Collins, CO
Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief