Once again, archaeology confirms Scripture.

Guille said:
Now I know for sure you're a sock. I use that all the time.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He claimed that Bethlehem didn't exist during the time of Christ's birth. I caled him on it. Then he posted a link that claims it did. So yeah. He proved my point.
 
Guille said:
Now I know for sure you're a sock. I use that all the time.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He claimed that Bethlehem didn't exist during the time of Christ's birth. I called him on it. Then he posted a link that claims it did, but it was a different bethlehem. So yeah. He proved my point.
 
The archaeologist William F. Albright, writing even earlier, saw camels in the Bible as a literary anachronism.

Recent excavations in the Timna Valley by Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef discovered what may be the earliest domestic camel bones yet found in Israel or even outside the Arabian Peninsula, dating to around 930 BC. This garnered considerable media coverage, as it was described as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph were written after this time.
 
Grugore said:
Wrong. He claimed that Bethlehem didn't exist during the time of Christ's birth. I caled him on it. Then he posted a link that claims it did. So yeah. He proved my point.
Click to expand...
The claim was Bethlehem of Judea was not occupied at the time of Christ birth. There was a Bethlehem of Galilee which was not the Bethlehem of King David.
 
Phantasmal said:
No, you aren’t comprehending that Bethlehem of Judea and Bethlehem of Galilee were two different places.
Click to expand...

twobeth.gif
 
Guille said:
Stop. Use your own words.
Click to expand...

Words are free to use by everyone. Are you claiming that the words I used are owned by someone else? Don't be silly. Besides, there is only one way to express what I posted...

You: pronoun
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.o: verb (used with object), present singular 1st person

Do: verb
(used with object), present singular 1st person do

Realize: verb
become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.

That: —used to introduce a clause that is the subject or object of a verb. —used to introduce a clause that completes or explains the meaning of a previous noun or adjective or of the pronoun it. —used to introduce a clause that states a reason or purpose. that. adjective.

You: see first entry.

Just:
very recently; in the immediate past.
"I've just seen the local paper"

Get the picture? What I wrote was the only way express my thoughts. No other words would have sufficed.
 
Phantasmal said:
The claim was Bethlehem of Judea was not occupied at the time of Christ birth. There was a Bethlehem of Galilee which was not the Bethlehem of King David.
Click to expand...

You can split hairs and deflect all you like. The fact remains that archaeology backs up everything the Bible says.
 
kudzu said:
The archaeologist William F. Albright, writing even earlier, saw camels in the Bible as a literary anachronism.

Recent excavations in the Timna Valley by Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef discovered what may be the earliest domestic camel bones yet found in Israel or even outside the Arabian Peninsula, dating to around 930 BC. This garnered considerable media coverage, as it was described as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph were written after this time.
Click to expand...

Use your own words shitpickle.
 
Grugore said:
You can split hairs and deflect all you like. The fact remains that archaeology backs up everything the Bible says.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.. even the story of Rachel's tomb being purchased from the Hitite is a lie.. There weren't any Hitites around then.
 
Grugore said:
You can split hairs and deflect all you like. The fact remains that archaeology backs up everything the Bible says.
Click to expand...
Lol, you deny evidence, it’s a common attribute amongst Bible literalist. If you knew the importance of the authors need to tie Jesus to David, you would understand why this matters.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and you can prove there wasn't at least one?.......
Click to expand...

Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological ...

The difficulty, which Gelb said was “a historical enigma,” has been described succinctly by Ishida: “although the Hebrew Bible often mentions the Hittites among the original inhabitants of the Promised Land, we have had so far no definite evidence of a Hittite presence in Palestine in the second millennium b.c.



EXCERPT "The presence of Hittites in the narratives of Israelite beginnings is thus rhetorical and ideological rather than historical.” -John Van Seters. The appearance of the term "Hittites" in English Bible translations has been an apologetic, archaeological and historical problem for quite some time. Many claim that references to the Hittites in the Old Testament are either errors or fictional anachronisms.

In this important article, Dr. Bryant Wood proposes that the solution to this problem is a linguistic one. Based on a detailed assessment of the original Hebrew text, and an evaluation of the archaeological evidence pertaining to the Hittite and neo-Hittite kingdoms, Dr. Wood concludes our English translations require correction. Once this is accomplished, we once again find the Bible is accurate and trustworthy... Continue reading

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ed-solution-to-an-etymological-conundrum.aspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top