>>Can we get back to the moment when Cain killed Abel? How many people were there on Earth at that moment? The only explanation I remember you gave was that the Bible never says how many kids did Eve and Adam had (how's this - putting the woman first? Is it blasphemous?).
>>
>
>Can you to tell me why you think that is an error or contradiction? I really don't see your point - what does putting the woman first have to do with Cain and Abel? Sorry for being a little dense sometimes - please bear with me...

Actually the Eve-first thing has nothing to do with my question. I've put it in parentheses, though, but it's still a distraction. So, let's get back to the question:

At the moment when Cain killed Abel, how many people were there on Earth?

>So, your discounting the point because of something that "may" have happened? Can you prove your assertion that the translations were done single-handely - or - that the translators didn't feel obliged to follow the style of each author?

I can't, without actually knowing the original languages myself, and without having both the original texts and the translations, and without having the time to compare and analyse.

So, I'm not completely discounting the point, ony expressing my doubts.

>>How was resurrection historically proven?
>>
>
>I don't know if there is any proof of that - except from the Bible itself - which I'm sure you would discount.

You said "Bible was historicaly proven" - and you know that we wouldn't count it proving itself. When a single statement is proven, we never accept the pronunciation thereof to be the conclusive proof, do we? We always want an independent proof.

> But that doesn't make my statement inaccurate. Can you show me a place where history is at odds with the Bible?

Dynosaurs.

> Has the resurrection been disproven somewhere?

Not that I know of - maybe it was. There were cases of people rising from clinical death, or from coma. Or it may have been a case of suspended animation - alive, but virtually undistinguishable from dead, then getting better after a while. Any of that may be taken as a miracle; the part with ascension could be metaphorical or just taken as the most plausible explanation at the time (or the only explanation written and kept - do we have the minutes of what Romans were saying about the event?).

So, while I think that something did happen there, there's no way we can either prove or disprove the whole story in all detail. Now why would the story of resurrection be one of the reasons not to look into other texts is probably a matter of your own preference.

>>You can't know that, you can only believe it's so. Or is this directed against the Islam being based on Muhamed's chats with archanger Gibrail (sp?)?
>>
>
>I can know the Bible claims to be the word of God. You're right, however, I can't know for sure that it's not just a man's opinion. Many, many things one cannot know for sure. And, yes, it was directed at other religous books.

May I conclude that you believe because you simply chose to, while not really having much to choose between? I don't even take bread without looking at what's available out there and which bread would be the best for me. I reckon that choosing a religion would be a much tougher choice, specially if you intend to use it as a guide. Since you never mentioned other choices you may have had, I figure you took the first one that came along?