Once again, archaeology confirms Scripture.

Phantasmal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bethlehem of Judea was the town where the lambs raised for temple sacrifices were raised......the shepherds who tended the birth of the sacrificial lambs were invited to the manger where Jesus lay.......when Jesus entered the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers he entered through the gate where the sacrificial lambs were brought from Bethlehem......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which one is the home village of the tribe of Judah, where Joseph and Mary were required to go......
Click to expand...

Nazereth is 90 miles north.. and Judah is 7 miles from Jerusalem.

twobeth.gif
 
kudzu said:
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
Click to expand...

it is only an enigma to atheists.....
 
[FONT=&quot][h=1]Micah 5:2 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.[/FONT]


[/FONT]
 
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...

That is absurd.

Archeology does NOT back up the supposed walk of Jesus on the Sea of Galilee. Although for you, I suppose the fact that we can show that a "Sea of Galilee" exists is proof that Jesus walked on its waters.
 
Anarchon said:
Not at all. You're free to be a hypocrite as much as you like...
Click to expand...

Easy Jerk-off.

The OP announced that "atheists" did something...and in order to comment on that, I had to use the word "atheist."

My earlier comment that there is no valid reason to even use the word...was during a discussion of it being used as a descriptor of a position on the question of whether gods exist or not.

If you want to be a punk...and pretend otherwise...you are free to be as much a punk as you like. You certainly have had plenty of practice...pretending that you want to live in anarchy...while living here where government keeps you safe.

This is fun.

Let's keep at it. ;)
 
Frank Apisa said:
Easy Jerk-off.

The OP announced that "atheists" did something...and in order to comment on that, I had to use the word "atheist."

My earlier comment that there is no valid reason to even use the word...was during a discussion of it being used as a descriptor of a position on the question of whether gods exist or not.

If you want to be a punk...and pretend otherwise...you are free to be as much a punk as you like. You certainly have had plenty of practice...pretending that you want to live in anarchy...while living here where government keeps you safe.

This is fun.

Let's keep at it. ;)
Click to expand...

You're a statist. I shouldn't be surprised that you want to tell everyone else what to do, but don't allow the reverse.
 
CFM said:
It's so automatic for you, you don't realize you're doing it. Someone has to educate you on that fact.
Click to expand...

Every healthy person should be comfortable in their own skin, but skin color is not the measure of a man or woman. That's about who they are.. Are they kind, honest, generous, intelligent? Its about character and integrity. You don't seem to get that.
 
Anarchon said:
You're a statist. I shouldn't be surprised that you want to tell everyone else what to do, but don't allow the reverse.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in what surprises or does not surprise a jerk like you...

...but thank you for offering the information anyway.

Anarchist!

images
 
kudzu said:
Every healthy person should be comfortable in their own skin, but skin color is not the measure of a man or woman. That's about who they are.. Are they kind, honest, generous, intelligent? Its about character and integrity. You don't seem to get that.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to use a particular skin color to consider someone qualified?

You don't seem to have character and integrity based on what you do.

BTW, if you had characters, you'd provide verifiable proof of the claims you've made about all the things for which you claim to be knowledgeable.
 
CFM said:
Why do you continue to use a particular skin color to consider someone qualified?

You don't seem to have character and integrity based on what you do.

BTW, if you had characters, you'd provide verifiable proof of the claims you've made about all the things for which you claim to be knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

Obama's skin color doesn't matter.. He's educated, accomplished and kind. He's a good family man and an idealist. None of those qualities of character are dependent on skin color.

I have had a long, busy life .. what is it you want as proof? You want my name, photos.. You want to know who may family is ??.. what exactly? You sure sound like a loser.
 
kudzu said:
Obama's skin color doesn't matter.. He's educated, accomplish and kind. He's a good family man and an idealist. None of those qualities of character are dependent on skin color.

I have had a long, busy life .. what is it you want as proof? You want my name, photos.. You want to know who may family is ??.. what exactly? You sure sound like a loser.
Click to expand...

Quit lying. There were plenty of you left wingers that had far more experience and believed the same things as Obama. The only difference, as expressed by Obama's own VP, was skin color.

Perhaps Obama should live in reality rather than the fantasy world of idealism. Good intentions don't produce good results.

You've made claims about yourself that you simply haven't proven. It's not up to me what you provide as long as it's verifiable. The loser is the one like you that makes claims then runs like a coward when asked to prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top