>>2841
I don't trust most people's analysis as to the means of interpretation, they have to have serious proof which would take nothing less than someone as brilliant (or honest) as David Rohl. However, not everything can be understood, nor should it even be understood in a literal, historical sense, which I can tell if people are bullshitting in that regard concerning trying to synchronize existing chronologies with events in the bible. I don't care about what cannot be understood which takes extraordinary proof to back up the extraordinary claim, but many don't have that extraordinary proof most of the time.