[_ Old Earth _] Archeological Evidence Confirming Bible

[Asimov]

Re: josephus

Josephus

Josephus ends up being a rich source for confirmation of the Gospel record:
[)

"He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter's temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber Of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones; besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. He first built Hercules's temple in the month Peritus, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned home"
Josephus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6t ... en&start=1
So here we have Josephus including Hercules written as fact from his own perspective. This is proof that Hercules was real. I hope , finally we can put this idea to rest about evidence from Josephus as being authentic of Jesus. As for the rest of your continued referencing to Tacitus Pliny etc they lived much much later to be considered FIRST HAND evidence of Jesus. They simply were repeating what they heard at best.

Sweet, Hercules rules. I think Achilles is better, too bad Josephus didn't write about him...or did he?

 

[serapha]

Re: gary

As I pointed out early in this thread the authentication of the ossuary that was found some two years ago would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus. They are not my words but the words of biblical scholars. You claim you are a well read person then go to the links and dispute the experts. [/b]

Hi there!

I'm still sending emails, so this conversation is not closed. Evidences have been provided, I believe the word used was "scarce" and that there were historical evidences, but not much.

The James ossuary is not the "first" nor will it be the last, so please stop posting that "biblical scholars" say there is no evidence.


~thanks~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

]
Ben Pandera
"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1
To be more specific this is the teacher of rightioiusness in the Dead Sea Srolls.

"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming. One individual who fits the scanty evidence is a Jesus or Jesua or Joshua ben Pantera, Pentera or Pandera, who apparently had some influence with his movement, but may have been much more than that; we simply don't know. Apparently he had enough influence that he became a political threat; sufficient that he was declared a heretic by a temple court and was stoned to death and his body hanged from a tree on the eve of Passover in 88 B.C.E."
"If he was the Teacher of Righteousness referred to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as some have suggested, his impact on the movement towards Jewish reform was considerable. And if he was the Teacher of Righteousness, it would answer a lot of interesting questions, such as the scattered first century Christian and Talmudic references to a miracle worker named Jesus ben Pantera. Among them are a quote from Origen, saying that his arch-rival Celsus had heard from a Jew in Jerusalem that Jesus Ben Pantera was born of Mary as the result of a rape by a Roman soldier named Pantera, and had borne the baby in secret. "
" But if they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is really Jesus ben Pantera, possibly the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who died in 88 B.C.E. "
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UG ... en&start=6
Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

Hi there!


With my very minimal knowledge of history in the Levant, may I post a refutal to your great wealth of knowledge?
You may.

"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

The strongest evidences for the place where Mary grew up is that she was in Nazareth. There isn't any evidence of any Roman soldiers having ever been garrisoned in Nazareth because it was such a small community.
In fact there is not evidence of Nazareth ever having existed at all at this time. I didn't see where Mary was linked to Nazareth coclusively.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Jk ... en&start=3

In speaking of that community, they followed Hasidim teachings which were a close first-cousin to the Essenes, those in Nazareth were a very closed society, believing that the Messiah would eventuall rise out of their clan and show the world that "theirs" was the true teachings from God.

[quote:b166a]"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1

So, you are telling me that young woman who lived in a closed community, was seduced by an outsider, a Roman soldier, who was garrisoned at best, many miles away, and who took such an interest in the young girl, that he was able to seduce her away from her family, the teachings that she had lived with all of her life, and her faith in God just to have sex with him?
I didn't see anything that hinted that Mary was from Nazareth and I am not telling you anything. You wanted to know where the myth of Jesus may have originated. This was one possibility or it may be part of several myths rolled into one.

"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming.

The Christ of Calvary was not the "Teacher of Righteousness" and there are as many works available on the internet as there are supporting documents.

Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

I appreciate that you don't say it is fact. I'll say, "it is a stretch of anyone's imagination to grasp that straw man"


Jesus was living for a while in "Bethany beyond Jordan"... and that is where he was baptized by John the Baptist. If Jesus were the "Teacher of Righteousness" he would not have been in "bethany beyond Jordan" as it would have defiled him by Essene standards which required that they be separate... as say in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem.
Only in the bible is Jesus real. Someone making a break from traditional teachings could easily twist and exaggerate legend into new beliefs.


The apostle Peter was in "Bethany beyond Jordon" also, and that is where he first met Jesus. Don't you think that Peter would have recognized the "Teacher of Righteousness" for what he was?
The stories in the bible cannot be verified. We don't know if they occurred or not. The bible is not a history book. Some things are true and some things are not. That is why when you use the bible as evidence you have to look at how credible the source is. You may not want to accept it but the bible is full of errors and contradictions and anyone that has gone to theology school and can read understands this to be fact. The bible is not innerrant.You are looking and grasping at some evidence to confirm and earthly existance. I gave you something that might be in fact the real Jesus. Admitedly it's not the one you want to embrace but it's as close to reality I think your going to find.


~serapha~[/quote:b166a]

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

]

"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

The strongest evidences for the place where Mary grew up is that she was in Nazareth. There isn't any evidence of any Roman soldiers having ever been garrisoned in Nazareth because it was such a small community.
In fact there is not evidence of Nazareth ever having existed at all at this time. I didn't see where Mary was linked to Nazareth coclusively.

Hi there... I'll gladly post a separate response on the "proof" that Nazareth existed and why Mary would be from Nazareth.

Hi there... I'll post a second response just for you on Nazareth...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Jk ... en&start=3

In speaking of that community, they followed Hasidim teachings which were a close first-cousin to the Essenes, those in Nazareth were a very closed society, believing that the Messiah would eventuall rise out of their clan and show the world that "theirs" was the true teachings from God.

[quote:a1315]"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1

So, you are telling me that young woman who lived in a closed community, was seduced by an outsider, a Roman soldier, who was garrisoned at best, many miles away, and who took such an interest in the young girl, that he was able to seduce her away from her family, the teachings that she had lived with all of her life, and her faith in God just to have sex with him?
I didn't see anything that hinted that Mary was from Nazareth and I am not telling you anything. You wanted to know where the myth of Jesus may have originated. This was one possibility or it may be part of several myths rolled into one.

MAY is the word... "may have originated". You seem to have dismissed the Bible as any source on Jesus, but openly accept every other source without question???? (that is a question)

[quote:a1315]
"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming.

The Christ of Calvary was not the "Teacher of Righteousness" and there are as many works available on the internet as there are supporting documents.

Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

I appreciate that you don't say it is fact. I'll say, "it is a stretch of anyone's imagination to grasp that straw man"


Jesus was living for a while in "Bethany beyond Jordan"... and that is where he was baptized by John the Baptist. If Jesus were the "Teacher of Righteousness" he would not have been in "bethany beyond Jordan" as it would have defiled him by Essene standards which required that they be separate... as say in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem.
Only in the bible is Jesus real. Someone making a break from traditional teachings could easily twist and exaggerate legend into new beliefs.

I posted very early on that the Land was the fifth gospel, and it speaks the truth. It verifies all the very minute, very minor details of the Bible that no one would even have "thought" to record when they were writing and compiling the books of the Bible. That's why I get so EXCITED about biblical archaeology... there's nothing in archaeology that disproves the Bible.


The apostle Peter was in "Bethany beyond Jordon" also, and that is where he first met Jesus. Don't you think that Peter would have recognized the "Teacher of Righteousness" for what he was?
The stories in the bible cannot be verified. We don't know if they occurred or not. The bible is not a history book. Some things are true and some things are not. That is why when you use the bible as evidence you have to look at how credible the source is. You may not want to accept it but the bible is full of errors and contradictions and anyone that has gone to theology school and can read understands this to be fact. The bible is not innerrant.You are looking and grasping at some evidence to confirm and earthly existance. I gave you something that might be in fact the real Jesus. Admitedly it's not the one you want to embrace but it's as close to reality I think your going to find.

Ah, but the Bible is inerrant... there isn't a passage in the Bible, that when put in the context, time, location, and customs of the Bible, that doesn't prove out to be true... no contradictions. BTW... Dallas Theological Seminary would not agree with your statement concerning "anyone who has gone to theology school...." They believe that the Bible IS inerrant and they turn out the best of the best in ministers and teachers.


Dallas Seminary stands unequivocally committed to the Scriptures, God's inerrant, infallible, authoritative written revelation. (http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/whatmakesdallasdifferent/)


There's another biggie... Fuller Seminary...

All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
http://www.fuller.edu/provost/aboutfull ... _teach.asp

Then, you have all those independent baptist schools that stand by the inerrancy of the Bible... and all the Southern Baptist Seminaries... And Moody believes in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Me thinks that you jest :wink: when you say that those in the know, suggest that the Bible is inerrant.

~serapha~[/quote:a1315][/quote:a1315]

 

[reznwerks]

case closed

Serapha
There has been enough posted on this subject to render a verdict. In my opinion you have offered nothing outside of others beliefs and "evidence" which occurred much later than the event which is not evidence. I have used scholarly references and that is knowledgeable sources who seek out reliable evidence to confirm what they believe. They admit to having none.

"MAY is the word... "may have originated". You seem to have dismissed the Bible as any source on Jesus, but openly accept every other source without question???? (that is a question) Serapha

Serapha , that was not a determination of fact. Again , if you recall you asked for evidence as to where the myth of Jesus may have begun. I posted it for you. We didn't even touch the other 18 or so saviors who were worshipped as a deity and many with the same biography.
http://www.awitness.org/essays/bkup/16_ ... d_saviors/


As denying the bible as evidence I have answered that many times it is simply unreliable as a final source especially when fantastic claims lack the fanstastic evidence. Why are you so ready to accept whats in the bible as not being what is in the bible and have no problem inserting all kinds of supposed excuses to make the bible comply with YOUR beliefs? This is simply not logical. The best you can now do is go from a person who is the Son of God , who conquered death, promises life everalasting , performed great miracles to a person who may have existed.

"The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas’s tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate."
Jesus is a N/T figure and he did not mention anything about him if there was evidence? These guys are ecstatic if they find anything that relates evidence to Jesus.They are still looking.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_evidence.html


Biblical Archaeology Review revealed that a stone ossuary (bone receptacle) has an inscription reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." If authentic, this would be the earliest archaeological find that corroborates biblical references to Jesus.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IR ... en&start=7

Time magazine claims that if the ossuary is authentic and the inscription refers to the biblical James, "this would be the most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IR ... en&start=7

If the James whose bones were once stored in this ossuary was the James, a Jew who led the Jewish Christian movement in Jerusalem, then it would be the most ancient piece of hard evidence of the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). The only other evidence from that era is contained in the text of the Bible and in other literary works."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1n ... en&start=9


All those quotes are from apologetic sites about the most recent discovery of the ossuary which has been determined to be a fake. The last sentence says it all: YOU DON"T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. You have nothing from the actual time frame that Jesus supposedly lived. Don't bother responding about who believed or believe or how many believe. Believing doesn't make it true. The discussion is over.

 

[huj05]

all of the children in the world believe in santa. that doesnt make him true

santa is the character of many older books from hundreds of years ago. that doesnt make him true.

like chrisitianity, many people celebrate santa diffrently. Some get beating sticks if they are bad,(france) others get coal(america) and others, regardless get candy and crap (america also)

we know santa is wrong, because man made him up, like the bible, man wrote the bible.
we know santa is wrong because it is impossible for someoen to converse the world so quickly- except i guess god.
we know santa is wrogn because we made it to the norht pole, and we realized he wasnt there- however after we flew past the clouds and realized it wasnt heaven, they stuck it somewhere else - like santas lab is in a 3rd dimension or something :P

 

[Free]

we know santa is wrong, because man made him up, like the bible, man wrote the bible.

But it doesn't follow that man made up the Bible.

 

[serapha]

Re: case closed

Serapha
There has been enough posted on this subject to render a verdict. In my opinion you have offered nothing outside of others beliefs and "evidence" which occurred much later than the event which is not evidence.


Now, that simply isn't true. You are seeking an artifact with the fingerprint of God upon it, verified by the FBI files. That just isn't going to happen. I keep sending you back to the inscriptions which you repeatedly seem to call "frauds" with no evidence, and I also keep sending you to the eyewitnesses, which you discount. Both of these evidences would stand up in a court of law, not as circumstantial evidence but trustworthy historical witnesses by laboratory tests and eyewitness accounts by sworn affidavit.




I have used scholarly references and that is knowledgeable sources who seek out reliable evidence to confirm what they believe. They admit to having none.

No, actually, you have used sites what support what you want them to say.


"MAY is the word... "may have originated". You seem to have dismissed the Bible as any source on Jesus, but openly accept every other source without question???? (that is a question) Serapha

Serapha , that was not a determination of fact. Again , if you recall you asked for evidence as to where the myth of Jesus may have begun. I posted it for you. We didn't even touch the other 18 or so saviors who were worshipped as a deity and many with the same biography.
http://www.awitness.org/essays/bkup/16_ ... d_saviors/

Are you wanting me to address the information on that site?


As denying the bible as evidence I have answered that many times it is simply unreliable as a final source especially when fantastic claims lack the fanstastic evidence. Why are you so ready to accept whats in the bible as not being what is in the bible and have no problem inserting all kinds of supposed excuses to make the bible comply with YOUR beliefs?


That's easy... because I don't have to force the text to fit anything, it just flows into place.



This is simply not logical. The best you can now do is go from a person who is the Son of God , who conquered death, promises life everalasting , performed great miracles to a person who may have existed.


BTW... those scholars you cited, they don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ.



"The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas’s tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate."
Jesus is a N/T figure and he did not mention anything about him if there was evidence? These guys are ecstatic if they find anything that relates evidence to Jesus.They are still looking.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_evidence.html


Oh, here's more for you to pick at ....

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Archeo ... 0bible.htm

Biblical Archaeology Review revealed that a stone ossuary (bone receptacle) has an inscription reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." If authentic, this would be the earliest archaeological find that corroborates biblical references to Jesus.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IR ... en&start=7

Time magazine claims that if the ossuary is authentic and the inscription refers to the biblical James, "this would be the most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IR ... en&start=7

If the James whose bones were once stored in this ossuary was the James, a Jew who led the Jewish Christian movement in Jerusalem, then it would be the most ancient piece of hard evidence of the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). The only other evidence from that era is contained in the text of the Bible and in other literary works."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1n ... en&start=9


All those quotes are from apologetic sites about the most recent discovery of the ossuary which has been determined to be a fake. The last sentence says it all: YOU DON"T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. You have nothing from the actual time frame that Jesus supposedly lived. Don't bother responding about who believed or believe or how many believe. Believing doesn't make it true. The discussion is over.

I do wish you would off the James ossuary "kick"... I have mentioned the James ossuary in this thread, but you have been persistent is using that "evidences" to indicate that there is no evidence.

There are many evidences, all of which you have refused to accept.

I have a question for you... when did you lose your faith? Was it before you learned of 18 people claiming to be the Christ, or after?


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

like chrisitianity, many people celebrate santa diffrently. Some get beating sticks if they are bad,(france) others get coal(america) and others, regardless get candy and crap (america also)

Hi there!


Christianity has one common thread in ever denomination... Christ died to redeem fallen and reconcile the redeemed to God. That never changes.

we know santa is wrong, because man made him up, like the bible, man wrote the bible.

Man was the instrument of God, and since God is perfect, we can be assured that God has preserved His word. You imply that man made up the Bible, which certainly isn't true.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

[quote="reznwerks]




In fact there is not evidence of Nazareth ever having existed at all at this time. I didn't see where Mary was linked to Nazareth coclusively.


I didn't see anything that hinted that Mary was from Nazareth and I am not telling you anything. You wanted to know where the myth of Jesus may have originated. This was one possibility or it may be part of several myths rolled into one.

[/quote]

Hi there!


I said I would get back to you concerning the existence of Nazareth in the first century and why it would be believed that Mary and her family were from Nazareth. With certainty, the outline of Nazareth has been established by the graves which lie on three sides of ancient Nazareth. I believe there were 18 tombs, all Jewish, that were found. The area of ancient Nazareth was very small and would have only supported a small population, a small tribe or a clan of people, probably not more than two dozen families.

The critic will argue that Nazareth did not exist during the first century since there is no written record of the town of Nazareth outside the biblical text; however, again archaeology can be used to proved some facts about Nazareth. Excavations have revealed that there are first-century tombs in areas north, west and east of the Church of the Annunciation. The places of these tombs give us an outline of the city limits of Nazareth as they are Jewish tombs and Jews were buried outside the city. 1

There were kokim type tombs and four of the "rolling stone" type no later than 70 CE

____________
1 EAEHL III, pp 911-922, Bagatti, B. in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement vi, col. 318-321, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly, 1923, p. 90, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1, 1931, pp 53-55.

The indications now are the Nazareth was a Jewish village that followed Hasedim Jewish theology, which was a closed tribe of Jews, meaning that both Joseph and Mary would have come from that same tribe/clan, and thus also, keeping the lineage of the geneologies.


~serapha~

 

[huj05]

santa eaving you a present if your good never changes either. Some countries get candy, others get dumb parents that buy a cellphone, a ps2, and a car for theyre son.

diffrent sects of christianity like there are diffrent ways to believe in santa.

I was already told somehwere else that marks accounts are not correct (check the crucifiction time of christ in the apologetic section) so. i fail to understand fully, your point

 

[serapha]

santa eaving you a present if your good never changes either. Some countries get candy, others get dumb parents that buy a cellphone, a ps2, and a car for theyre son.

diffrent sects of christianity like there are diffrent ways to believe in santa.

I was already told somehwere else that marks accounts are not correct (check the crucifiction time of christ in the apologetic section) so. i fail to understand fully, your point

Hi there!

Let's just keep this thread on topic ... and the topic is archaeological evidences that prove the Bible.


~thanks~

 

[Mr. Lee]

Archaeology and the bible

The city of Troy has also been located--doesn't mean that there
was a famous horse, or a lady named Helen. I have been studying
archaeology and ancient history for 20+ years. It has shown that
the bible is not accurate in many places. The Rameses did not have
Jewish slaves, the plagues have not been documented by a nation
that wrote EVERYTHING DOWN. There are records on how much the
pyramid builders were paid (beer beef salt and onions), records of
sick and no-shows at work with their excuses.
No record of any first born wiped out. No Moses, No Exodus.
No troops drowned in a parted sea. No records at all.
Defeats and Victories both were written down by the Egyptians.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it means it DIDN"T happen in
Egypt.
The written language of Egypt was a closed book until Napoleon's
troops discovered the Rosetta Stone. For the past 120 years, the
writings of Egypt have been actively translated.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Archaeology and the bible

The city of Troy has also been located--doesn't mean that there
was a famous horse, or a lady named Helen. I have been studying
archaeology and ancient history for 20+ years. It has shown that
the bible is not accurate in many places. The Rameses did not have
Jewish slaves, the plagues have not been documented by a nation
that wrote EVERYTHING DOWN. There are records on how much the
pyramid builders were paid (beer beef salt and onions), records of
sick and no-shows at work with their excuses.
No record of any first born wiped out. No Moses, No Exodus.
No troops drowned in a parted sea. No records at all.
Defeats and Victories both were written down by the Egyptians.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it means it DIDN"T happen in
Egypt.
The written language of Egypt was a closed book until Napoleon's
troops discovered the Rosetta Stone. For the past 120 years, the
writings of Egypt have been actively translated.

I wonder how many really understand the consequences of what you wrote. No record of the slaughter of the innocents, no mention of Moses, how can that be, no record of the Red sea parting, etc etc ? Welcome back Mr Lee.

 

[Solo]

"The Pharaoh who reigned after Rameses is named Merenptah and he ruled from the late 13th to early 12th century BCE. Now what's most interesting is that there was found an inscription from his reign which is today called the "Israel Stele." On that stele is a record of Merenptah's campaigning in the area of Canaan, the Sinai/Israel area. And it's the first extra-Biblical mention of "Israel" anywhere in human history. We're talking about something that's around 3,200 years old. And this would correspond in Jewish chronology to some time after the Exodus story.

What does the stele say? "Israel is a widow. Her seed is no more." That is, we've wiped out the Jewish people, they're gone. This means:

1) The Egyptians lie when they record things. Jews are here today 3,200 years later, they hardly wiped the Jews out; in fact, they're gone. (This is not surprising as the ancient people are notorious for lying in their official records to make their rulers look good.)

2) At this early time in history, corresponding to the time when the Jews just entered the Promised Land, we have concrete references to a people called Israel in the records of another country. This is very significant piece of archeology."

EXCERPTS FROM Crash Course in Jewish History #9 by Rabbi Ken Spiro

 

[NOTW]

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft302.htm

 

[DISconect2]

except for fossils that helped prove evolution :/

huj05 give me an example that fossils prove evolution further more show me your transitional fossil, no I am not saying dinasours did not exist!

Evolution is a theory not a fact and it is currently on a downward spiral.

Show me I would love to debate this with you!

Thanks
Lou

 

[bibleberean]

"The Pharaoh who reigned after Rameses is named Merenptah and he ruled from the late 13th to early 12th century BCE. Now what's most interesting is that there was found an inscription from his reign which is today called the "Israel Stele." On that stele is a record of Merenptah's campaigning in the area of Canaan, the Sinai/Israel area. And it's the first extra-Biblical mention of "Israel" anywhere in human history. We're talking about something that's around 3,200 years old. And this would correspond in Jewish chronology to some time after the Exodus story.

What does the stele say? "Israel is a widow. Her seed is no more." That is, we've wiped out the Jewish people, they're gone. This means:

1) The Egyptians lie when they record things. Jews are here today 3,200 years later, they hardly wiped the Jews out; in fact, they're gone. (This is not surprising as the ancient people are notorious for lying in their official records to make their rulers look good.)

2) At this early time in history, corresponding to the time when the Jews just entered the Promised Land, we have concrete references to a people called Israel in the records of another country. This is very significant piece of archeology."

EXCERPTS FROM Crash Course in Jewish History #9 by Rabbi Ken Spiro

Good answer. I don't think a proud nation such as Egypt was is going to record every humiliation in their history anyway. We have people trying to re-write history today.

 

[NOTW]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm


http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm