[jluetjen]

Recent archealogical finds in the Isreal suggest that there really was a King David based on inscriptions found some corner stones. This would be the first physical evidence of his existance aside from contents in the Bible. While not admittedly "slam dunk", it is moving the bar back that the people and places in the Bible are accurate at least that far back in time. The "New Testiment" people and places are a lot easier (although these have been argued elsewhere on this BBS, you can go there for that argument, I'm not trying to re-start it), but it is pretty well accepted that Jesus, John (both of them), Peter, Paul and the others were real people with specific references to real places. Even the women from Ceasoria (another real place) who was plagued by bleeding and reported to be healed by touching Jesus's cloak was accepted as real until at least 300-400 AD since there was a contemporary statue in that place as reported by Eusebius. I suspect that it was melted down when the Muslims over-ran Isreal and replaced all of the holy sites with Mosques. There are numerous detail references in the Bible to things like foot washing, ritual bathing and foods which have come to be accepted by archealogical finds even though in the interim time they were unknown aside from the biblical references. There are also many "hostile" references to events that occurred in the Bible. For example there are numerous ancient non-biblical references to places and battles described in the Book of Kings. Is any of this slam dunk? No -- but then that's what faith is for.

I can't speak to many other religions, but I have read about 2/3 of the Koran believe that it fails a number of those tests even though I accept that Mohammad was a real person who did move from Madina, to Mecca and back again. But any references to events before that time (circa 650 and later) do not stand up very well. I do accept though that Muslims accept the Koran on faith just as I accept the Bible. But on the veracity of it's contents I guess we agree to dis-agree. If a Muslim would like to learn about the Bible (it's not readily available nor read in the much of the Islamic world), I'd be happy to discuss it with them in a friendly fashion. I on the other hand picked up the Koran from a number of editions that were available at Barnes and Noble.

Of Budhism and Hindu-ism I only have a passing knowledge of, but there's always tomorrow to start learning. Confusism (?) and Tao-ism have zero history prior to their founders, and so have about as much provanance as RPKESQ does. (Sorry RPKESQ, but you'll have to work harder then that for my $29.95.) Once you get into the various idalitries, there's usually nothing there except a man-made figure, so they're pretty much non-starters.

Those are the things on which I chose to base my faith. I understand if you chose not to.