Re: Only Myths?

Adam Crowl (qraal@hotmail.com)
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:39:23 PST

Hi ASA,

The current situation in archaeology isw such that the strata and their
dating are very probably confused for the relevant period. A period of
roughly 350 - 250 years has been erroneously inserted into the sequence
which means the Bible is mismatched against the record. The real signs of
Solomon can be found in the 14th-13th century strata, not the illusory
"10th", which probably represents the time of the Assyrian invasions.

Archaeology isn't always about objective analysis...

Adam

>From: mortongr@flash.net
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Only Myths?
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:25:08 +0000
>
>I ran into the following URL which clearly shows what the rest of the world
>thinks would be the case if the Bible were only myths/legend. They, unlike
>many apologists, see the fallacy of having and believing a Bible that is
>'only myth'. THe tone of the articles' title clearly shows that they think
>myths are inferior to historical truth. See.
>
>http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief3.html?ct=3819d9c6
>
>
>Of course if we imagine hard enough, we can still be inspired to believe
>it.
>
>This is the reason I am a concordist.
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com