Quote:
|
Again, we have no proof, only opinions.
|
You utterly mischaracterize Erhman's stances. He has a vast volume of evidence (not proof) supporting his claims. Access to ancient texts and training in history of the region as well as independent research in a peer reviewed study.
He presents his opinions along with his evidence as well (like the adulteress stoning story I mentioned). You simply stated his opinions, omitted his evidence and arguments, and then discarded his stances.
Your characterization of Erhman is biased and just plain wrong.