🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:02�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> Chris Shore wrote:
>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:621f5b5c-8511-45b7-ae9f-03c8a9914fd5@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Well, they do now that I have brought up the subject of Hezekiah's
>>>> tunnel and the earthen ramp, which can both be seen today. �Before
>>>> that, they were saying there was nothing in the Bible that was not
>>>> mythology and nothing in the Bible that could be proven. �Atheists say
>>>> whatever they think will fly. �It just so happened that I knew about
>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel, so what they usually say was not sufficient for
>>>> this conversation. �So now they are saying that the Bible has some
>>>> history in it, but they are not happy about having to say that. �They
>>>> would rather be saying what they said when this conversation started,
>>>> that the Bible is nothing but mythology.
>>> Of course the Bibel has some history in it. And of course some of it
>>> is verifiable. So are various parts of various other ancient texts from
>>> other
>>> ancient historical/religious cultures. This prove absolutely nothing.
>> How is this difficult to understand? Three thousand posts suggest that
>> it is.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Well, there you go again denying the existence of Hezekiah's tunnel.
> The existence of Hezekiah's tunnel proves that the Bible is accurate
> aboput there being a conduit for water between Gihon Spring and the
> Pool of Siloam.
> Robert B. Winn

With respect. so what?

No one denies that along with many other ancient texts, there is a great 
deal of historical fact, semi fact as well as lots of other stuff.

There is, for example, a very accurate description of pyroclastic flow - 
something no one in modern times had really seen and understood - by a 
Roman historian describing Pompeii. (Pliny. writing probably around the 
time of the crucifixion: AD 35 or so)

Does this menathat everything Pliny wrote is total historical fact? No. 
Though much of it eems to be.,

Does this mean we should base a religion on what he wrote? No.