PLEASE! Tell me what is wrong with this ... If I wanted to know something about a person, a place or a thing, I go, NOT to the source of the person place or thing, but rather I go to second hand sources, such as strangers who never met the person or those who have strong opinions, ONLY but no PERSONAL knowledge of the person! Does it not make sense, for instance, if I wanted to know about a person to ignore what he wrote about himself, ignore the records written by his friends and family but rather place more trust in someone who never met and did not know the person? If a person wanted to cook a meal for the first time, he reads and executes the instructions in the Cook Book. If a student is training to be a Dentist, he will listen more intensely to and place more faith in the trained experienced Dentist (even if the Dentist have cavities or wear dentures) than he would in the opinions about Dentistry from an expert auto mechanic, even though the expert auto mechanic has perfect teeth!! OK, with that being a logical, rational approach to any research project, why is it that OPINIONS about the Bible prevail over the actual knowledge of what is written? Why would anyone give more weight to a second hand source than they would to the record of one claiming to be a first hand eyewitness who either directly knew the person or were acquainted with others who did?
Posted on: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 23:30:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015