The Bible

[dre]

God's time. God's days.

[betsy]

The earth and universe was not created in seven days.

God's time. God's days.

Psalm 90:4

4 A thousand years in your sight

are like a day that has just gone by,

or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Obviously God's time is not the same as the time we observe. What is the equivalent of a second....or a minute...or a day....only God knows. We cannot even begin to grasp God's temporal framework. God exists outside of time and space, which He created.

[M.Dancer]

Obviously God's time is not the same as the time we observe.

Why is that obvious? Why does god lie? Why does god plainly deceive?

[M.Dancer]

Explain what they've got to do with archeological findings contradicting Bible refernces.

Support your argument. CITE!

I am merely pointing out that the bibled, hobbled together by 1000s of different people without the benefit of an editorial director is riddled with errors.

I mean really...augustus ordered a census? Bats are birds?

I already pointed to the fact that Joshua did not cause the walls of Jericho to fall.

Edited June 30, 2011 by M.Dancer

[betsy]

I am merely pointing out that the bibled, hobbled together by 1000s of different people without the benefit of an editorial director is riddled with errors.

Never mind finding fault to those who wrote the Bible! Unlike you, they didn't have the luxury of science daily subscription and yet they got some things scientifcally proven.

Let's deal with your response!

You issue a challenge about archeological finding!

Betsy:

You think archeology contradicted the Bible. Wishful thinking.

Then put your mouth where your money is.

Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible.

M.Dancer' date='29 June 2011 - 07:22 AM' timestamp='1309353741' post='685582']

There are dozens if not more.

Genesis 1:17 (science has conclusively proved the moon does not give of light)

And when you're called on it, you give a cosmological reply!

I mean really...augustus ordered a census? Bats are birds?

Moon and light....archeology??? I mean really?

Furthermore... you're all over the place BUT never in the right place!

Like the other devolutionists, your aiming apparatus is askew! You can't hit the bull's eye.

And just like the Biblical reference of the tree and its fruits...you guys are sounding more and more like Preacher Dawkins.

Edited June 30, 2011 by betsy

[eyeball]

God's time. God's days.

Psalm 90:4

4 A thousand years in your sight

are like a day that has just gone by,

or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Obviously God's time is not the same as the time we observe. What is the equivalent of a second....or a minute...or a day....only God knows. We cannot even begin to grasp God's temporal framework. God exists outside of time and space, which He created.

Doesn't Peter's formula tell us everything we need to know to determine exactly what a God-minute or second means in human terms?

Given such precision it should be easy as pie for just about any archaeologist to refute the Bible's fairly explicit claim that the universe was created in precisely 7000 years.

[M.Dancer]

You issue a challenge about archeological finding!

Actually betsy, you issued the challenge, just like most bible freaks, you're addle brained.

I dealt with the archaeology, joshua did not bring jercho's walls down....need more? Abraham did not visit egypt with camels?

Whats the point? The fact that the bible is error filled, is a matter of record.

That some people take it literally (when it suits them) is their business, but like prayer, wish they would keep it in the closet so they don't embarrass themselves.

[DogOnPorch]

Whats the point? The fact that the bible is error filled, is a matter of record.

Yup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1K3HfzqHQk

[betsy]

Actually betsy, you issued the challenge, just like most bible freaks, you're addle brained.

Addle-brained? What was that again? Excavations happened on the moon and did they find or not a flashlight hiding underneath all that cheese?

It's not me who mistook cosmology/physics for archeology, Mr Moon Dancer!

There was Anchor Man, Mesopotamia Man, Proven No-Read Man, Dino-Cuckoo Man....and the latest discovery, Moon Man!

I'd like to break tradition with Moon Man, and instead name him Moon Dancer - for the cute imagery the name evokes.

Oh boy, monkeys are evolving again!

They're turning into noisy excellent agile deflectors but poor-aiming X-men!

If that makes you feel much better - though I don't know why - let's go along with your statement. I issued the challenge by posting a FACT. A fact about archeological discoveries which was stated by a reputed archeologist - Gleuck - who'd just been recently vindicated by the discovery and dating of Khirbat En-Nahas.

Apparently you don't agree to the posted fact. You want to contradict the statement of Glueck.

You challenge the posted - and Glueck's - statement.

The onus is on you to provide something to support your argument! You obviously can't!

Or you wouldn't be here trying all the semantic gymnastics and yoga-contortionists movements....but never producing a single irrefutable evidence!

Not a single irrefutable evidence!

Hello? Deja vu.....it's like evolution all over again!

I dealt with the archaeology, joshua did not bring jercho's walls down....need more? Abraham did not visit egypt with camels?

Cite something that shows archeology irrefutably contradicts all those! After all that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?

ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES DID NOT CONTRADICT ANY BIBLICAL REFERENCE.

Not Moon Dancer's opinion that said it did! So stop bouncing - or dancing - all over the place!

Whats the point? The fact that the bible is error filled, is a matter of record.

That some people take it literally (when it suits them) is their business, but like prayer, wish they would keep it in the closet so they don't embarrass themselves.

The classical deflecting strategy which translates to: therefore, you cannot refute it!

Loud and clear.

Edited June 30, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

That was what a reputable archeologist said!

A reputable archaeologist who was also a rabbi. A reputable archaeologist who's career peaked in the 1950s. A reputable archaeologist who asserted he didn't take the Bible literally. What meaning does his claim about no archaeological discovery disproving a Biblical passage have, then, to anyone but himself? Once we stray from the literal words of the Bible into personal interpretation, everything's subjective. So no archaeological discovery up to the 1950s disproved the Bible as Glueck interpreted it away from the literal. Who cares? To date, archaeology has proven quite a few parts of the Bible, as written, to be wrong. Science, broadly, has proven almost all the Bible to be mythical and impossible. That's precisely why the devout are forced to either stick to the literal and dismiss the science as a conspiracy, or move away from the literal and dilute it with added interpretation that fits the science.

[sp]

Edited June 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Addle-brained? What was that again? Excavations happened on the moon and did they find or not a flashlight hiding underneath all that cheese? It's not me who mistook cosmology/physics for archeology, Mr Moon Dancer! There was Anchor Man, Mesopotamia Man, Proven No-Read Man, Dino-Cuckoo Man....and the latest discovery, Moon Man! I'd like to break tradition with Moon Man, and instead name him Moon Dancer - for the cute imagery the name evokes. Oh boy, monkeys are evolving again! They're turning into noisy excellent agile deflectors but poor-aiming X-men!

Betsy's speaking in the tongues again. The spirit is upon her!

[sp]

Edited June 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES DID NOT CONTRADICT ANY BIBLICAL REFERENCE.

Joshua did not fit the battle of Jericho

By the post-war period a revolution had occurred in archaeological methodology, and Albright accordingly asked Kathleen Kenyon, one of the most respected practitioners of the new archaeology, to excavate at Jericho once more. Kenyon dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952-1958. Kenyon traced the entire history of the city from the earliest Neolithic settlement. She did this by digging a narrow deep trench maintaining clean, squared off edges, rigorously examining the soil and recording its stratification, and thus building up a cross-section of the tell. When presented with an area that would require wider areas to be excavated - the floor plan of a house for example - she carefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyon reported that her work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result was confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

A comprehensive new survey of Kenyon’s evidence at Jericho, however, has led author Bryant Wood to conclude that a walled city existed at Jericho until about 1400 B.C.E. when it was destroyed in a conquest strikingly similar to the Biblical account. The 1400 B.C.E, conquest would match the chronology derived from the Bible. However, it is about 150 to 200 years earlier than the time most scholars believe the Israelites were to be found as a people living in Canaan.

In short, there was no strongly fortified Late Bronze Age city at Jericho for Joshua to conquer. The archaeological evidence conflicted with the Biblical account – indeed, disproved it.

Based on Kenyon’s conclusions, Jericho has become the parade example of the difficulties encountered in attempting to correlate the findings of archaeology with the Biblical account of a military conquest of Canaan. Scholars by and large have written off the Biblical record as so much folklore and religious rhetoric. And this is where the matter has stood for the past 25 years.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx

There is no need to continue. The bible is not 100% supported by science....the bible is a collection of fables, myths, political propaganda and homilies

[Oleg Bach]

Joshua did not fit the battle of Jericho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx

There is no need to continue. The bible is not 100% supported by science....the bible is a collection of fables, myths, political propaganda and homilies

That's like saying that all history books are published by crass revisionists. You do not toss the baby out with the bath water...sure there are some myths...and sure some things defy science - BUT somethings are very scientific....and here and there if you are not fanatically prejudice you will find some very useful and powerful information....To arrogantly dismiss this whole collectioni of manuscripts as fake and utterly useless is a dismissal that does not serve humanities best interests...The detractors of ancient writings feel oh so superiour and evolved ---- but they do not have all the answers to all of mankinds problems....

If they stumbled upon a concept in the bible that proved to be a great salvation in regards to the suffering of mankind - the detractors would ignore it out of sheer blind pride.

[betsy]

Joshua did not fit the battle of Jericho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx

There is no need to continue. The bible is not 100% supported by science....the bible is a collection of fables, myths, political propaganda and homilies

You only quoted a fraction from your last source (biblearcheology) - which is actually just the introduction to the whole premise of the title.

Perhaps you did not bother to read any further thus your "conclusion" is false....or misleading?

The article is very long since it's quite detailed.

Here is your quote, and the subsequent information you've neglected to add, including the the conclusion:

In short, there was no strongly fortified Late Bronze Age city at Jericho for Joshua to conquer. The archaeological evidence conflicted with the Biblical account – indeed, disproved it.

Based on Kenyon’s conclusions, Jericho has become the parade example of the difficulties encountered in attempting to correlate the findings of archaeology with the Biblical account of a military conquest of Canaan. Scholars by and large have written off the Biblical record as so much folklore and religious rhetoric. And this is where the matter has stood for the past 25 years.

Kenyon died in 1978 without living to see the final publication of her excavation of the tell. Her conclusions were reported only in a popular book published the year before she completed her fieldwork,15 in a series of preliminary reports16 and in scattered articles. The detailed evidence, however, was never supplied. This became available only in 1982 and 1983 when two volumes on pottery excavated from the tell were published.17 This, together with the stratigraphic data from the excavation, published in 1981,18 makes it possible to perform an independent assessment of Kenyon’s conclusions.

Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s original date for this event appears to be the correct one!

Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:

• The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).

• The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10).

• The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1).

• The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).

• The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).

• The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).

• The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).

One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.

A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two views is already well-known to BAR readers.**

But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx

In other words, it's like the Nelson Glueck -Khirbat En-Nahas scenario in the sense that previous archeological assessments that favored the Bible are getting vindicated in the end. Puzzle pieces falling into places.

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Furthermore...your argument is outdated, since you're just basing it on Kenyon's conclusion. These seem to be the latest findings.

Kathleen Kenyon critiqued Garstang’s work in 1951, and did additional excavation at this site during 1952-1958. Kenyon disagreed with Garstang’s date of the destruction level, and placed it at c. 1550 B.C., many years before the biblical date of the conquest. She further contended that in 1400 B.C. there was no fortified city for Joshua’s army to conquer, and that the archaeological evidence does not agree with the biblical description of a large-scale military incursion contemporary with the destruction of Jericho (Kenyon, 1957b, p. 259). Kenyon based her conclusions largely upon the absence of pottery typically used around 1400 B.C.

Subsequently, scholars have critiqued Kenyon’s work and have vindicated the conclusions of Garstang, and, by implication, the biblical chronology (Wood, 1990; Livingston, 1988; see also Jackson, 1990). Kenyon’s conclusions, however, caused Jericho to become the classic example of the difficulties with correlating the biblical account of the conquest with the archaeological record. Pottery stands at the center of the interpretive and dating discrepancies of the conquest.

There are many archaeological evidences, both artifactual and literary, which have undermined liberal interpretations of the biblical text, and supported its credibility. However, archaeology, like other natural sciences, has its limitations. William Dever, for example, observed that although archaeology as a historical discipline can answer many questions, it is incapable of determining “why” something occurred (1990, 16[3]:57). The destruction level at Jericho, for instance, which many date to the early 15th century B.C., corroborates the biblical text, but it cannot prove that a transcendent God caused its walls to fall. We must turn to sacred history for causative details.

However, the physical evidence does support the historicity of the biblical narrative—certainly something we would expect of a divinely-inspired volume. Further, archaeology often serves to illuminate biblical texts. The literary discoveries at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), for example, have enhanced our knowledge of Baalism, shedding considerable light on biblical allusions to this pagan cult (see Brantley, 1993).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=995

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And this one too, which is another long article but quite detailed. So I just give the table of contents and the conclusion.

Jericho chronology dispute

Contents [hide]

1 Debate over date of the fall of Jericho

2 Jericho: John Garstang

2.1 Critique of Garstang's research

3 Jericho: Kathleen Kenyon

3.1 Critique of Kenyon's research

4 Jericho: Bryant Wood

4.1 Correspondence of archaeological findings with the Biblical account

4.2 Critique of Wood's research

5 Carbon-14 dating of the end of Jericho City IV

6 Strange results from the adjusted C14 dates

7 An adjustment to C14 dates suggested by the Thera data

8 With either solution, Kenyon's conclusions cannot be correct

9 References

9.1 Bibliography

10 Related links

Kenyon's conclusion that Jericho fell at about the time the 18th Dynasty began cannot be reconciled with either solution to the dilemma. Currently the only solution that seems to have any semblance of credibility is the Biblical solution: Jericho fell to the armies of Israel in the latter part of the 15th century BC, and the C14 evidence, properly interpreted and adjusted, now supports the Biblical account.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Jericho_chronology_dispute

[betsy]

A reputable archaeologist who was also a rabbi. A reputable archaeologist who's career peaked in the 1950s. A reputable archaeologist who asserted he didn't take the Bible literally. What meaning does his claim about no archaeological discovery disproving a Biblical passage have, then, to anyone but himself? Once we stray from the literal words of the Bible into personal interpretation, everything's subjective. So no archaeological discovery up to the 1950s disproved the Bible as Glueck interpreted it away from the literal. Who cares? To date, archaeology has proven quite a few parts of the Bible, as written, to be wrong. Science, broadly, has proven almost all the Bible to be mythical and impossible. That's precisely why the devout are forced to either stick to the literal and dismiss the science as a conspiracy, or move away from the literal and dilute it with added interpretation that fits the science.

[sp]

So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." Just for the record, here's the complete statement:

Dr. Glueck always maintained that his faith was not based on a literal interpretation of the bible. To do that, he once said, would be to "confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion."

He didn't want to confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion!

Can you read that now? Is that any clearer?

Of all people, aren't you supposed to approve what he said???

Boy, you're truly confused. No wonder you're like a flea-bag doggie biting its tail (no offense to DOP)...on and on and on and on and on....going circular.

So which one do you prefer?

CIRCULAR MAN or

FLEA-BAG DOGGIE

Edited July 1, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Just so to make it easier, let's have a recap.

So far there are 33 posted facts - not 36, sorry - all scientifically proven. 33 and counting...

1 FACT: Nothing holds up Earth. It is affected by gravity. p.1

2 FACT: The earth is round. p.1

3 FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars. p.1

4 FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.p.1

5 FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks p. 1

6 FACT: Noah’s Ark and Ship Buildingp.1

7 FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists!”p.2

8 FACT: A finished creation.p.2

9 FACT: The universe is deterioratingp.3

10 FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning p.3

11 FACT:: Existence of ocean currentsp.3

12 FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED!p.3

13 FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSEp.4

14 FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cyclep.4

15 FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE!p.6

16 FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: SCIENCE GIVES AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION BY THE WORD "STRETCH!"p.7

17 FACT: Expression - "CURVATURE OF SPACE," still related to STRETCHING UNIVERSEP.10

18 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WOUND, SKIN and DISCHARGE PRECAUTIONSP.11

19 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WASTE DISPOSALP.11

20 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

DIAGNOSIS and ISOLATIONP.11

21 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

CORPSES and BURIAL PRECAUTIONSP.11

22 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

FOOD and DRINKING WATER SAFETYP.11

23 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

PROMISCUITY, UNLAWFUL LIFESTYLES and DISEASEP.11

24 FACT: The human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements which are all found in the earth P.11

25 FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

26 FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean! p. 12

27 FACT: Man is superior to all other living things. p.36

FACT: SCIENTISTS NAME and CLASSIFY CREATURES p. 37

28 FACT: MODERN-DAY DEADLY VIRUS COULD BE PREVENTED FROM SPREADING BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE BIBLE p. 39

29 FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE! p.43

30 FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS p.47

31 FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY! p. 47

32 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY UNEARTHED THE EBLA TABLETS p. 48

33 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND AT KHIRBAT EN-NAHAS IN LINE WITH

BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF DAVID AND SOLOMON p. 50

Edited July 2, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Fact - we are alive and aware. Fact...in this endless and eternal void we exist on earth ....FACT this is a miracle - FACT all the rest whether it be atheist or religious is of little consequence....Fact ...we are a miracle...and the last FACT is the rest is all filler to amuse and entertain humanity that is so thankless for being born that they attempt to make what is totally interesting more so, Fact....we are not GOD and we will never surpass the devine miracle that we exist in....FACT.

[Oleg Bach]

Just so to make it easier, let's have a recap.

So far there are 33 posted facts - not 36, sorry - all scientifically proven. 33 and counting...

1 FACT: Nothing holds up Earth. It is affected by gravity. p.1

2 FACT: The earth is round. p.1

3 FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars. p.1

4 FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.p.1

5 FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks p. 1

6 FACT: Noah’s Ark and Ship Buildingp.1

7 FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists!”p.2

8 FACT: A finished creation.p.2

9 FACT: The universe is deterioratingp.3

10 FACT: The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning p.3

11 FACT:: Existence of ocean currentsp.3

12 FACT: SCIENCE REMAINS BAFFLED!p.3

13 FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSEp.4

14 FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cyclep.4

15 FACT: PROPHECIES HAVE COME TRUE!p.6

16 FACT:

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: SCIENCE GIVES AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION BY THE WORD "STRETCH!"p.7

17 FACT: Expression - "CURVATURE OF SPACE," still related to STRETCHING UNIVERSEP.10

18 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WOUND, SKIN and DISCHARGE PRECAUTIONSP.11

19 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

WASTE DISPOSALP.11

20 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

DIAGNOSIS and ISOLATIONP.11

21 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

CORPSES and BURIAL PRECAUTIONSP.11

22 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

FOOD and DRINKING WATER SAFETYP.11

23 FACT: Sanitary Practices, Disease Prevention and Public Health

PROMISCUITY, UNLAWFUL LIFESTYLES and DISEASEP.11

24 FACT: The human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements which are all found in the earth P.11

25 FACT: BLOOD – THE RIVER OF LIFE

26 FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean! p. 12

27 FACT: Man is superior to all other living things. p.36

FACT: SCIENTISTS NAME and CLASSIFY CREATURES p. 37

28 FACT: MODERN-DAY DEADLY VIRUS COULD BE PREVENTED FROM SPREADING BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE BIBLE p. 39

29 FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE! p.43

30 FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS p.47

31 FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY! p. 47

32 FACT: ARCHEOLOGY UNEARTHED THE EBLA TABLETS p. 48

33 FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND AT KHIRBAT EN-NAHAS IN LINE WITH

BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OF DAVID AND SOLOMON p. 50

Old testimonal writings are a history of bad human behavour,,,, why do we worship what is bad and attempt to repeat it?

[cybercoma]

That's still 1/10th of the number of debunked "facts" on the SAB website, as it pertains to science in the Bible.

[Oleg Bach]

That's still 1/10th of the number of debunked "facts" on the SAB website, as it pertains to science in the Bible.

It's hit and miss with the Bible - writings by Solomon...are brilliant....Paulist writings are purely political and pertain to nothing ever spoken and taught by Christ....stories of King David ---setting up a man to die in battle - to indirectly murder that man so he could have sex with his wife - yet they worship this treacherous bastard of a King? Just very odd.

[DogOnPorch]

Classic.

[betsy]

DOP

I've been missing out on those photos you've been posting. For some reason - perhaps due to the antiquity of my computer - they don't show on my screen.

Edited July 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And since the previous FACT talked about the narrative of David, it's only fitting that this FACT becomes #34.

FACT: ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY IN TEL DAN PROVIDES A CONNECTION TO THE RULING DYNASTY OF KING DAVID

Excerpt from:

Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of the Twentieth Century Relating to the Biblical World

Keith N. Schoville

Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semitic Studies

University of Wisconsin-Madison

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than a quarter of a century of excavations at Tel Dan in the north of Israel at the foot of Mount Hermon produced little in the way of written material. The excavations have been directed through the years since 1966 by Dr. Avraham Biran, distinguised Israeli archaeologist. Then on July 21, 1993, while work crews were preparing the site for visitors, a broken fragment of basalt stone was uncovered in secondary use in a wall.

On closer examination it turned out that, indeed, they had found an inscribed stone.. The discovery was of a fragment of a large monumental inscription, measuring about 32 cm. high and 22 cm. at its greatest width. Apparently the stone had been purposely broken in antiquity. It turned out that the stele fragment mentions King David's dynasty, "the House of David." As the preparatory work for tourism proceeded, two additional fragments of the stele were recovered in two separate, disparate locations in June of 1994.

The partially reconstructed text reads as follows:

1. [ ... ...] and cut [ ... ]

2. [ ... ] my father went up [against him when] he fought at [ ... ]

3. And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of I [s-]

4. rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king.

5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven [ ...-]

6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]

7. Riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [i killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]

8. king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]

9. g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]

10. their land into [desolation ... ]

11. other [ ... and Jehu ru-]

12. led over Is[rael ... and I laid ]

13. siege upon [ ... ] [6]

The pavement and the wall where the fragments were found was laid at the end of the 9th or beginning of the 8th century BC, according to pottery fragments recovered in probes beneath the flagstone pavement. Since the fragment and the entire pavement was covered by the debris of the Assyrian destruction of Tiglath Pileser III, in 732 BC, it could not have been laid latter than that year.

The surmise is that Jehoash (798-782), grandson of Jehu, or Jehoash's son, Jeroboam II (793, co-regent 782-753), and more likely Jehoash, was the monarch who had this reminder of Aramaean domination smashed (2 Kgs 13:25). It is further assumed that Hazael (844/42-798?) was then king of Aram- Damascus, because Hazael fought against Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah

( 2 Kgs 8:7-15, 28; 2 Chr 22:5). Hazael was followed by his son and successor, Ben-hadad III, early in the 8th century BC.

The discovery provides an archaeological connection to the biblical references to the ruling dynasty established by King David approximately two centuries before the events that are mentioned in the inscription. It is the first mention of King David and the earliest mention of a biblical figure outside of the Bible. The discovery is of particular importance in the face of those scholars who were either skeptical or denied the historical existence of King David [7]

http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

Edited July 2, 2011 by betsy