Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

K Randolph wrote:

> Going back to what Yigal Levin wrote, that in the archeological record the
> absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence. Add to that, much of
> what we think we know from archeology, may be misunderstood. Even recorded
> history is so fragmentary that often assigned dates are merely matters of
> convenience within a realm of possible error.
>
> Because so little is really known, there is no way either to disprove nor
> prove the Documentary Hypothesis, nor to prove or disprove Biblical
> inerrancy. Both are taken on faith. Because it is a matter of faith, I do
> not intend to comment on it further.
>
> You may have the final word, but please do not misrepresent what I wrote.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.

Actually, Karl, I don't think that I am the author of the above statement. I 
have been avoiding this argument, because we have all discussed it before, I 
think that all of us have made our veiws known, and none of us is likely to 
convince the others. So what's the point?

(Just for the record, I agree with most of what Yitzhak has written on the 
subject, although I may differ on some of the details.)

Yigal Levin