To: tacticalogic
A lot of verifiable testimony about Bible history in the form of archaeological evidence is already rejected.
Why would anyone presume that testimonies in the internet, even with names and locations, be any different?
620 posted on
03/29/2010 7:30:54 AM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
A lot of verifiable testimony about Bible history in the form of archaeological evidence is already rejected.Can you give me an example?
643 posted on
03/29/2010 1:23:10 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: metmom
Why would anyone presume that testimonies in the internet, even with names and locations, be any different?Names and locations of events are contemporaneous. If they are accurate there should be verifiable medical records of the the original diagnosis, and the subsequent finding that the patient underwent a spontaneous remission without any medical treatment.
Simply finding an archaeological record of testimony that someone was "healed" provides no evidence other than that the testimony was recorded.
644 posted on
03/29/2010 1:33:31 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson