There is no feasible way to back a literal translation of the Bible (exempli gratia: creationism) other than twisted, unfounded, religious ideology. While it is your right to attempt to sway those who dissent, you can do nothing but regurgitate, in my mind, the same old drivel. You have NO eyewitnesses, only a book that has been translated and rewritten hundreds of times. Consider the source, and you might agree that the Bible is clearly a secondary source that contains its own bias. Do you think that the writers and re-writers would not try to change the Bible for their own motives? I can only surmise that if the Christian Fundamentalists, and others, take the Bible at face value they could also take "Jack and the Beanstalk" at face value. Yes, many places in the Bible have been found; or rather it is believed that they have been found. There is no evidence, however, that proves these are the same places. Even if they are, what does this prove? There are a lot of historic accuracies in the bible, but that does not mean every word of it is true by default. It would be ludicrous to conclude that, simply because some of the locations described in the Bible exist, the entire tome is historically accurate. Biblical evidence does not meet current academic standards, and therefore their