On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:16:04 +0000 Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>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.
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?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I am just holding to the principle of "innocent until proved guilty". And a negative cannot be proved. So what is the positive proof?
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?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.