|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 4/3/2001 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 23903
Yep, I agree totally. I think the only reason they use the modren accounts, if becasue they think the people back then didn't know what they were looking at, or whatever. I mean hello? Were they three? Did they see it? No! So what makes them think their new account is better? Silly people. Emiok-chan  |
Date: 4/3/2001 9:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 20104
I totally agree. People tend to fill parts with their own stuff as time goes on. It kind of reminds me of that game telephone. When you start the game its one thing, but when you get to the end it is so far from the original its rediculous. Jamie  |
Date: 4/3/2001 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 23903
oops, 4 typos, that's "modern", "is", "because", and "there".  Emiko-chan |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 23903
I'm too tired to be writing educated answers! LOL Emiko-chan |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 9:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 23903
I agree with Jamie. Good comparison. Emiko-chan |
Date: 4/3/2001 10:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 27678
Yes, I agree. And if you read modern accounts of our country's history, in particular, there has been lots of rewriting of this history, in order to cover up the truth regarding our Christian roots. I always try to research pre-l960's books on history and religion because the "liberal" slant is not apparant in such materials. Thanks for this post, Pam. Free Girl  |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 10:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13354
Yes, this is how I feel... I think sometimes they also do this because they think it would be MORE interesting if it were more controvesial. We don't need that kind of garbage!!!  |
Date: 4/3/2001 10:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
I also agree Pam, great post and question. The books included in the canonicity of the King James Bible are the same as the early church, those closest to the life of Christ. Also, the King James English is the closest translation to the orininal Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic languages available to this day. Although I do admit I use the New King James. But you are correct, those writings closest in time to the actual events have always been the most accurate. Especially when it has been eye witness testamony. >>  |
| Date: 4/3/2001 12:14:00 PM From Authorid: 27500 I'll have to agree. After time, things get blown out of perportion however if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have any of the western legends in this country that we have now. Grey Soul |
Date: 4/3/2001 12:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
Hiya Pam...I agree with you in most cases. But there are a few exceptions. I'm sure there are old fish tale stories that when originally told were embellished and then later someone came along and researched it and found that something didn't happen the way the story told it but rather grew into an embelleshment. Especially stories about great people...where at the time people tell a story of this person's greatness....either out of misplaced pride or fear....and years and years later someone researches the life of this person and finds that it is exaggerated. It could happen? Hmmmmm.... Interesting post Pam. *hugs* -Lady Nyx  |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 12:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13354
Yes, I agree that there would be some cercumstances like that. Things that are pretty well documented however, in my opinion need to be left alone. Have you noticed that it seems to be the fad to try to change all the history books??? That gripes me... |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 1:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 23610
I hear ya Pam....and I do agree on that point. -Lady Nyx |
Date: 4/3/2001 3:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I must say that I dissagree. Firstly, older accounts dating from the time of the event are often biased and full of propeganda. I think modern accounts are far more reliable as historians have the opportunity to look at all sides of the situation and review severel different accounts and weigh this against the scientific and historical data. As the say, hindsight is 20/20. I think lookine can get a far more accurate picture of what really happened...Dark Phoenix  |
|
Date: 4/3/2001 7:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13354
I'm sorry but I totally disagree... It may be true in some instances but I don't think in most... Hindsight is only 20/20 if it's YOUR circumstance... |
|
Date: 4/4/2001 12:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
But surely, we have far more information now, then we have ever had before?I'm not saying information from primary sources should be totally disregarded, but I believe that we cannot get the full picture, unless modern scientists and historians study the situation. Maybe it's not that things get more distorted and twisted as time goes on, but become more accurate. Looking back, we can be objective and have access to far more information then the people at the time would have had to determine what really happened...Dark Phoenix |
|
Date: 4/4/2001 2:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13354
It depends on what you are talking about... I think most of the time details and eye witness accounts become VERY mixed up as time goes on... As far as why a volcano erupted or something like that, yes, we MIGHT have a better idea now. As far as things like this years presidential election in the US this year. Try to make sense of that in 2,000 years. lol... It would be impossible!!! |
| Date: 2/1/2002 12:47:00 PM ( Admin-DNL ) yep i agree!!~ |
Date: 3/22/2024 7:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 21435
I'm not sure, anymore? In the past few years, certain people have been erasing and rewriting history, to suite their narrative.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
