From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<ksand-220992180945@wintermute.apple.com> <69009@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<ksand-270992130726@wintermute.apple.com>
	<1992Oct9.112534.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
	<ksand-101092160004@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:09:09 GMT

Man!  I'll post more when I have time.  Did y'all blow me away when I was gone
or what?

Let me just say my 2 cents worth, though.  Perhaps the key to understanding
(the Bible) doesn't lie in having it explained well to you.  Surely it cannot
convey all of its intended meaning to you as the writers intended.  (Similar
to writing to each other on the net.)  The Bible has some evidence and
material that the writers took for granted as true, directed towards people
of a certain time with some fairly common ground (culture, technology, etc.).
We today are at a loss to comprehend quickly and easily much of the intended
meaning behind the words.  In short, WE have the responsibility to understand
the writing, and the writings cannot be dismissed because WE think the
writings are not clear/specific enough.  I believe the writers tried to be as
accurate, historical, and truthful as possible.  They were; but the under-
standing came much easier to people living at that time who understood what-
all was going on.  It was appropriate to the audience.  The intention and
evidence are there, but I think we can miss alot of it if we aren't careful
or don't want to see it.
     Moreover, an element of faith applies to reading and believing anything,
as we all know.  It just depends on who we choose to believe, as I said 
before.  You have pretty much decided the "current form of Christianity"
isn't for real.  You have many arguments against the Bible based on supposed
historical evidence.  Alot depends here on interpretation of the facts, too.
And, "regular" (i.e., non-religious) historians can make mistakes.  Or, have
in mind to prove their own beliefs.  I could just as easily shoot down
many "authorities" by proving inconsistencies with other sources.
     I think then we're back to square one, resting on faith.  Of course, I
choose to believe one set of guys (who BTW, claim to have witnessed all those
events), and you, another group WAAY later on, speculating on what happened
2000 years back based on their limited understanding of what the writers were
*really* talking about and what they really *meant* when they said certain
things, sometimes quoting sources THEY take in faith.
     I personally have found the Bible to be supported in many sources.  It
hasn't been proven wrong to me.  It's principles work, and it is accurate
historically.  No one has proven to me without a doubt that any portion is
incorrect or ahistorical or contradictory or without significance.  Ah, but
it hasn't proven itself by supporting evidence, one may say.  This statement
is actually faulty in itself.  The actual happenings were the "extraordinary
evidence" most require and the Bible is the supporting evidence of those
real facts.  In addition, history does support this.  But, once again, it
all depends on whom you believe.  In the near future, I'll try to post some
references along this line of thought (some books, magazines articles, etc.),
when I get the time.