>>Errrrm. And the OT is a work of historical fact? :-)
>
>I think so. There are probably hundreds of instances where the critics said the Bible was wrong, only to be disproven by archeaology.

Rather the other way round, in that excavations have proven that the bible is bunkum when it comes to the age of the world. The bible (if you add up all the generations, ages etc. since Adam) would have you believe it's only several thousand years old. We know the Yucatan asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs and much of ONE of God's creation job-lots millions of years ago. And that's frecent in evolutionary tales.

>Take for example the Hittites, or King Darius, the pool of siloam,the crossing of the red sea or the canaanites.

As I understand it the crossing of the "Red" Sea was a mis-reading of the original Aramaic, and should have been "Reed" Sea, as in a marshland that exists thereabout.

>Look them up and you'll see the Bible said they existed, the critics (much like the wmd critics) said they didn't - until the ruins were excavated and they were silenced.

I've no doubt much of what the bible says DOES include facts, maybe even dates, but so does "The Da Vinci Code". They're both ripping yarns but don't assume they reflect reality. God creating the heavan & Eareth, Man and all the beasts ... in 7 days? Puh-lease!

>
>The Bible says it and that seals it for me.

That your mind sealed?

>If you chose to doubt, that's fine, but do so only after a fair investigation.

As I said, I DO have some insight into the facts and figures. But some of the stuff I just don't need to check up on as it's patently absurd. In a time when books were scarce, and Man couldn't explain the magic of the world around him, I'v eno doubt many a night was enjoyed sittuinng round the camp fire listening to these tales (and getting a pious religious upbringing at the same time)

I'm not going into all this again. We've had it out ad nauseum with Howard et al in "George Bush"

Terry