Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by James_Newman, Jul 12, 2007.
I love these findings. It's almost like an "I told you so" to the world
Yep, me too. :thumbs:
Yet, there will be those who come on here to post and say they don't need archeological proof, the Bible is good enough for them. They miss the point entirely. Sad.
Unfortunately, all to often those in the world ignore the implication of these finds. They don't wan't to have to give up their myth that the Bible is a fairy tale.
So true. So many are afraid that they will have to give up something if they even acknowledge that God truly exists. (Perfect description of "slave to sin" )
Being fair to both sides...Yes, much of the world has unfairly and illogically dismissed the Bible's accuracy, however historical accuracy doesn't really do very much to prove spiritual accuracy.
True, but it certainly puts the Bible in a different class than works like the Book of Mormon.
Very much so.
I agree...they reject the truth (after being able to clearly see it). They are accountable.
I know a few atheists who are experts on the Bible, and they accept the historical accuracy of it. They do realize that changing names from one language to another creates problems, therefore that doesn't mean that non-matching names is inaccurate. However, they still reject the idea of God.
OK...who's name was on the tablet? C4K or Dr. Bob?
My ears were burning, but I didn't know why until I found this thread. I have to say I resemble that remark.
While this is a welcome discovery (and apparently very rare), I suggest it would be wrong to make too much of it. Certainly the Telegraph was over the top when it said "Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament."
Well, no. It may be exciting to see another bit of the Bible given some verification, but the fact that Jeremiah mentions a now-verified (by secular means) character no more validates the story contained in the Bible than does the mention of Pilate, Herod, Augustus, etc. validate the stories presented in the New Testament.
I see that half of the 100,000 cuneiform tablets in the British Museum are yet to be published; there may be many more goodies in them. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it's wise not to put too much faith in the discoveries of archeology. I hope we remember the boom - and bust - following the "discovery" of the ossuary of James and the stone supposedly mentioning Yehoash. I'm not suggesting that the latest find is a fake, only that such discoveries should not be embraced as proving more than they do.
On a side note, Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary, concludes that if the new finding confirms the account in Jeremiah, then the NIV and the NLT got the translation of Jeremiah 39:3 right (the NET also gets an "A," although it's not on his list) based on the Septuagint reading, while the ESV, the NAB and KJV (and the NASB, also not on his list) get it wrong.
Hip-hip , Hurray for the NIV/TNIV , NLTse and NET ! They got it right !
I loved those archaeological findings!
:thumbs: :godisgood: :jesus: