GREETINGS

Ralph Di Fiore co332@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:17:30 -0500 (EST) (00918706650, Pine.3.89.9902101714.B3416-0100000@queen) 

	Greetings gents.  Started reading your postings last eve and 
would like to comment.  As 2000 years separate us from the facts of the 
early new testament and an even greater time span for the old, how can we 
possibly grant any historic writing validity, when deception, lies and 
falsehoods permeated ancient literature?  
	It is my opinion that where facts are distorted and purposely 
covered up, there is great controversy.  Where an event is plain and 
indisputable, there is no controversy.
	To draw a 20th century analogy, let us consider the JFK 
assassination.  Countless books and debates have spawned forth from the 
mystery surrounding the death of JFK.  Now this is something that 
occurred a mere 36 years ago, that has been recorded on film for all to 
view.  Yet, the true killer(s) of Kennedy has yet to be conclusively 
uncovered.  On the other hand, nobody disputes Jack Ruby killed Lee 
Harvey Oswald.  In the one case you have evidence that is being assembled 
to present a theory, on the other hand no such work is necessary as Ruby 
was captured on camera killing Oswald.
	I don't know if the above analogy makes sense.  What I am trying 
to state is that we today, can really only at best, piece together a 
general consensus of historical data that might at best provide a rough 
idea of what transpired in the early biblical days.  To become dogmatic 
about it is lunacy to me.  Lies put to paper and perpetuated become 
facts for gullible future generations.  Only when conflicting writings of 
the same period appear can we make any kind of judgement as to the 
validity of ancient documents.
	So my point is, while it is great intellectual exercise to debate 
the errancy of the bible, the grander point is that we have no way of 
knowing or not knowing what was written was rubbish or truthful. 
	Some thoughts gents.

	Dr. Doubts