Dear Inguma,
Thanks for the exposition. I concur. I am also pleased someone said this has every bearing on AP. Suppose we call the bible "fooey"? We might as well call Astral Projection "hallucination". Right?
Anyway, I'd really love to hear more detail about the view that the bible has little evidence supporting it. I understand this view is widely held and I see why people contend there is no "hard" evidence. However, I don't see why anyone would object to all the "loose" evidence that piles up so rapdily.
To me, the book is either a grand conspiracy (of biblical proportions), or it quite probably contains a few actual events and people.
Don't you think?
[
]
Love,
Luci
Thanks for the exposition. I concur. I am also pleased someone said this has every bearing on AP. Suppose we call the bible "fooey"? We might as well call Astral Projection "hallucination". Right?
Anyway, I'd really love to hear more detail about the view that the bible has little evidence supporting it. I understand this view is widely held and I see why people contend there is no "hard" evidence. However, I don't see why anyone would object to all the "loose" evidence that piles up so rapdily.
To me, the book is either a grand conspiracy (of biblical proportions), or it quite probably contains a few actual events and people.
Don't you think?
[

Love,
Luci