Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

The fundamental problem I have with things like this is: If we are to reduce
the Biblical accounts to speculation and embellishment, how is it that
our similar speculation and refurbishment 3000 years after the facts (whatever
they were) is more worthy of consideration?

Solomon Landers

Polycarp66 AT aol.com wrote:

> Some among
> us hold to a very literal understanding of the BH (and the NT)
> while others, including
> myself, do not.  I do not write this to attack the
> views of those who hold
> the historicity of these accounts as fundamental to
> their faith.  I am
> simply pointing out for the sake of understanding what I
> am proposing that I do not
> agree with their position.  Nevertheless, the
> accounts do not seem to
> be simply made up out of whole cloth.  Beneath them
> there usually seems to lie
> a kernal of fact which has been transmogrified
> into its present form. 
> It was customary for kings to give grandiose
> descriptions of their reigns
> and accomplishments -- are the accounts of David
> and Solomon perhaps no different
> in this respect?  But the accounts of David
> and Solomon are not my concern
> here.   It has been fairly well established
> that Israel grew out of
> a people indiginous to Palestine.  Why then do we
> have an account of the entrance
> of the patriarchs into Egypt and the
> subsequent exodus many years
> later under Moses?
> *********************************************<snip>