Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/03/2005 17:45, George F Somsel wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:16:04 +0000 Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> writes:
>  
>
> > ...
> >
> > I didn't actually say this. For one thing I didn't mention 
> > Deuteronomy. 
> > And then I was only pointing out that certain evidence for later 
> > authorship which someone had put forward was in fact very weak 
> > evidence, 
> > for later true authorship rather than redaction. I consider the 
> > issue to 
> > be open, not clearly proved either way.
> >    
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> You didn't say it, but if you said it you meant " . . . "
> Am I reading you correctly?
>
>  
No. I am stating that "X may have committed the crime, but the evidence 
currently presented is weak, insufficient for a successful prosecution" 
- in fact even insufficient for the lesser burden of proof which applies 
in such cases.

...

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ah, yes, the old "we just haven't found the evidence yet" argument.  What
> would you say if we were to dig up the entire country?  We didn't dig
> deep enough?  We're on the wrong side of the Jordon?
>
>  
I am just holding to the principle of "innocent until proved guilty". 
And a negative cannot be proved. So what is the positive proof?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005