The Bible's Buried Secrets (Documentary) Up to date Archaeoligical Discoveries in Israel.

MadMax9
If you cannot mention God's name in a relational way I question how well you know him. I the NT even his closest went from disciples, to friends to sons.

I don't know the LORD any better than you!

I was using that name as a particular link to ancient history.

I often call HIM JAH personally! I like that name a lot. It is a name that is used in the Bible. Just another way of saying YAH.

Christ called HIM ELI on the cross! "Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me"!

HE gets called many names. Which do you prefer???

BobAthome

Here u go,, hope this helps,,
in response too,,,

en.wikipedia.org...

its pretty big

they found a name of a Tribe that was Conquered and who's Seed they Cut off,, that name was,,,

see it

here this might be better,,

three guess,,

for those interested,,

belonged too this guy
en.wikipedia.org...

was a floppy disk of his conquests

5 inch,,

ohh here,,

Thanks! That really puts out the content in an undeniable way!

Personally, as a believer I am not afraid of Science and Archaeology. Archaeology is fascinating and it really has given us in this age a picture of our past that is unsurpassed!

What amazing relics these are! I would just like to say that many people will hate this because they are trying to rub out the culture of a people. To most Israelis saying that Abraham and Moses did not exist is like telling an Englishman that Shakespeare and Chaucer did not exist.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
You say that Israel wasn't allowed to make an idol of Yahweh because it was against his law, yet Christianity has made an idol out of Jesus on the cross. Go to any church in America and you'll find a cross with Jesus hanging on it, usually in a place where the whole congregation can clearly see it.

Also, would you mind giving a summary of the documentary and the points it covers? I don't have time to watch an entire documentary.

The documentary provides details of many archaeological finds that support the Bible's stories. It shows that Hebrew speaking people who called themselves Israel were in the land formerly known as Canaan when the Bible says they were; 1200 BC.

Yes, many churches do have all kinds of idols. That's up to them. I never did quite understand that when the Bible specifically states that this is not a good thing.

I can only speak for myself and I don't have any here. Nowadays I don't even wear a cross. The whole thing is about Spirit to me. I am a bit too liberal, too. I know my own shortcomings well.

WarminIndy

leostokes
reply to post by BobAthome

 

yes verifiable Historic Facts

There is no such thing as a verifiable historic fact.

You mean that George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas night to attack the Hessians could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Jamestown, Virginia being settle by the British could not a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that the Spanish Armada being beaten by a storm could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Attila the Hun sweeping across Eastern Europe could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Caligula's hedonism could not be a verifiable historic act?

Or do you simply mean that when it comes to Biblical history, that all other history is verifiable except that?

Is the Oracle at Delphi verifiable historical fact?

Wait, people believe the Oracle at Delphi was real, but there could never be any prophet from Israel, namely Samuel?

And Helen of Troy, you know she had to not be real....but Helen of Troy is now accepted as real.

I think people need to stop cherry picking historical facts and believing only what they want to believe. The Bible is real in its history.

edit on 9/27/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Exactly! History is real! Archaeology attempts to piece together our past. It is a great human achievement.

When it comes to the Bible people do cherry pick very much. Thanks for your insights in this thread. They are warmly received.

reply to post by WarminIndy

reply to post by BobAthome


Wasn't King Saul the King of the Israel? According to the Bible, King Saul wasn't defeated by the Egyptians. He fell on his sword to avoid capture from the Philistines, not the Egyptians.

Saul was the first king of Israel. After his death, King David was anointed King of Israel. David's kingdom, according to the Bible, was a powerful kingdom, later given to Solomon.

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not

The Bible records no such event. So, either the Stele is wrong, or the the Bible is wrong.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

reply to post by BobAthome

 

Wasn't King Saul the King of the Israel? According to the Bible, King Saul wasn't defeated by the Egyptians. He fell on his sword to avoid capture from the Philistines, not the Egyptians.

Saul was the first king of Israel. After his death, King David was anointed King of Israel. David's kingdom, according to the Bible, was a powerful kingdom, later given to Solomon.

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not

The Bible records no such event. So, either the Stele is wrong, or the the Bible is wrong.

u know not everyone is able too understand the mind of a King. so dont feel bad. if u dont get it.

reply to post by BobAthome


What's to understand? Either the Stele is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. It's really very simple.

windword
reply to post by BobAthome

 

What's to understand? Either the Stele is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. It's really very simple.

actually no,, recording your lifes Triumphs on a 500 ton Stele, is not, too be equated, with some simple,,task, i would like too imagine you going up to the Pharoes kid and saying "hey ur wrong,,,there not alllll dead,, so what u got too say about that?????" yaaa bet that would really go over well ,,lol

reply to post by BobAthome


HaHA, kinda like telling Pilot that Jesus wasn't dead! They woulda put out an APB and start killing anyone that even looked like the man, or people. Wonder why that didn't happen..............

Perhaps they lied to the Pharaoh. Either way, either the Bible is wrong or the Stele is wrong. But, neither provide proof that the Bible stories are true.

WarminIndy

leostokes
reply to post by BobAthome

 

yes verifiable Historic Facts

There is no such thing as a verifiable historic fact.

You mean that George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas night to attack the Hessians could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Jamestown, Virginia being settle by the British could not a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that the Spanish Armada being beaten by a storm could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Attila the Hun sweeping across Eastern Europe could not be a verifiable historic fact?

You mean that Caligula's hedonism could not be a verifiable historic act?

Or do you simply mean that when it comes to Biblical history, that all other history is verifiable except that?

Is the Oracle at Delphi verifiable historical fact?

Wait, people believe the Oracle at Delphi was real, but there could never be any prophet from Israel, namely Samuel?

And Helen of Troy, you know she had to not be real....but Helen of Troy is now accepted as real.

I think people need to stop cherry picking historical facts and believing only what they want to believe. The Bible is real in its history.

edit on 9/27/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

The reason why the bible is cherry picked regarding verifiable facts, is because it shapes the belief systems of millions of people. Some people might think that that demands a bit more scrutiny than Attila the Hun.

windword
reply to post by BobAthome

 

HaHA, kinda like telling Pilot that Jesus wasn't dead! They woulda put out an APB and start killing anyone that even looked like the man, or people. Wonder why that didn't happen..............

Perhaps they lied to the Pharaoh. Either way, either the Bible is wrong or the Stele is wrong. But, neither provide proof that the Bible stories are true.

wow so thats why the APOSTLES hid in the room afraid, for there lives,, after Christ died.,,


An apb,, ya ur right,, makes sence.

reply to post by BobAthome


There is no evidence that the Romans were looking for an undead Jesus. And, the apostles ran from Jesus before he, supposedly, rose from the dead.

reply to post by windword


"There is no evidence that the Romans were looking for an undead Jesus." because u didn't call a Centurian from Rome's 6th Legion,,? the Legion from Southern Egypt,,??? a liar,, well not too his face,, cause he did put the Spear into the Side as Ordered by his Commander,, unless u wanted too call the Commander a liar as well. ur choice.

ohh official roman verdict he's dead. period.

reply to post by BobAthome


Well, according to the biblical story, there was rumor that Jesus would rise. Thinking that one of his followers might steal the body, Pilot sent 2 Centurian to guard the tomb. Do you think that they would have lied to Pilot about the missing body?

If the apostles were running around saying that Jesus was alive, that would have meant the Romans failed, and would make them look weak. No way would Pilot have allowed that. Crucifixion was more to terrorize the population than to punish the criminal.

But there is no evidence of the Romans punishing the apostles for "stealing" Jesus' body, or saying that he was still alive, soon after after the crucifixion. If the apostles were martyred, years later, it was for the same crime that Jesus was crucified for, which was sedition against Rome.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

reply to post by BobAthome

 

Wasn't King Saul the King of the Israel? According to the Bible, King Saul wasn't defeated by the Egyptians. He fell on his sword to avoid capture from the Philistines, not the Egyptians.

Saul was the first king of Israel. After his death, King David was anointed King of Israel. David's kingdom, according to the Bible, was a powerful kingdom, later given to Solomon.

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not

The Bible records no such event. So, either the Stele is wrong, or the the Bible is wrong.

In that passage on the Merneptah Stele, it does not directly say Merneptah was responsible. And yes, King Saul did commit suicide after the battle with the Philistines, but at that same time, David was in Egypt and David heard the report.

Even after that, Rehoboam and Jeroboam split the kingdom, and Rehoboam had gone to Egypt to escape Solomon.

But King Saul died with his sons. His seed was cut off definitely and the next reference to King Saul's descendents was Mephibosheth, whom David took into his palace.

After that, there is no more reference to King Saul's line. Again, the Bible mentions several battles with Egypt and who their enemies were aligned with. The Armana letters say that they were from Canaan, which is exactly where the kingdom of Israel was at.

Egypt is mentioned throughout the Bible, and the battles with Egypt are in a lot of the Old Testament. Some instances they say Egypt was the victor and at times they say Israel was the victor. But there is not enough space and time to show every reference to battles with Egypt, as Egypt appears over 500 times in the Bible.

Out of those more than 500 times, two pharaohs are mentioned by name, and those two have been proven to have existed. And not only are they mentioned by name, but the battles they fought were recorded in both the Bible and in Egyptian records.

Since the Merneptah stele mentions battles, it is wrong then to assume it was one battle. And it is even more wrong to assume Israel was destroyed in this one battle, it merely says that Israel was cut off during one of the campaigns. But why then assume it could not have happened if the Bible records also Canaan and Gezer being destroyed? Just because the Bible does not mention Merneptah by name does not mean anything.

But Solomon was married to the daughter of a pharaoh after King Saul had died. Gezer was given to him as a prize, after King Saul had died. King Saul was who was cut off.

reply to post by windword


"which was sedition against Rome" which finally ended with Constatine's win over Rome and all of the Old Gods of Rome,,, for at that moment,, Rome became Christian tolerant. ,, well u just could not kill them outright,, not like lets say ,,, a Jewish believer,,

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

reply to post by BobAthome

 

Wasn't King Saul the King of the Israel? According to the Bible, King Saul wasn't defeated by the Egyptians. He fell on his sword to avoid capture from the Philistines, not the Egyptians.

Saul was the first king of Israel. After his death, King David was anointed King of Israel. David's kingdom, according to the Bible, was a powerful kingdom, later given to Solomon.

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not

The Bible records no such event. So, either the Stele is wrong, or the the Bible is wrong.

Well in retrospect we have the hindsight to know that the Israelites were by no means destroyed. We have these other artefacts to attest to that and the Hebrew built two temples, went into exile two times and now we have the very real state of Israel in the 21st century.

Somehow these guys keep returning. That's survival instinct if ever I saw it.

BobAthome
reply to post by windword

 

"which was sedition against Rome" which finally ended with Constatine's win over Rome and all of the Old Gods of Rome,,, for at that moment,, Rome became Christian tolerant.

,, well u just could not kill them outright,, not like lets say ,,, a Jewish believer,,

Could we make the distinction at this point, Rome was in the Western Empire and already declined, Constantine was in the Byzantine or the Eastern Empire. Constantine had removed Rome as capital and now Constantinople was the new capital. Eastern Orthodox should have been the more powerful.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK is a historically verifiable fact?



Do you think that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think that Saddam Husain had weapons of mass destruction is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe the FBI list of Saudi hijackers is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think that the Wright Brothers were the first to achieve sustained flight is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think the first working electronic digital computer was the ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe that President Eisenhower met with space aliens is a historically verifiable fact?




Do you think that Hitler died in the bunker is a historically verifiable fact?




Do you believe James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King is a historically verifiable fact?


Do you believe that George H. W. Bush was innocent of the Iran Contra affair is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe that E. Howard Hunt was not in Dallas on 9/22/63 is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe that Clay Shaw was not a CIA agent is a historically verifiable fact?

leostokes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK is a historically verifiable fact?

edit on 28-9-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

Do you think that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think that Saddam Husain had weapons of mass destruction is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe the FBI list of Saudi hijackers is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think that the Wright Brothers were the first to achieve sustained flight is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you think the first working electronic digital computer was the ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania is a historically verifiable fact?

Do you believe that President Eisenhower met with space aliens is a historically verifiable fact?

edit on 29-9-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

Do you think that Hitler died in the bunker is a historically verifiable fact?

edit on 29-9-2013 by leostokes because: add examples

Do you think the Mayans were right in that the world is going to end December 21, 2012? That one was pretty well verified by a lot of your sources. What do you think, are you liking the new digs after all your verifiable sources confirmed it?