Posted on 03/29/2011 8:14:29 AM PDT by marshmallow
They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The Lachish Letters are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.Lastly, this is what it's like to have a conversation with an anti "Why can't Mormons send flowers?
DU is BACK!!
And his flurry of words will now overwhelm us all!
And the FACTS that support ANYTHING about MORMONism are not to be found anywhere.
Where IS the 'supporting evidence' and 'archeology' should be found all over Hill Cumorah?
Where ARE the massive cites?
Where ARE the 'mouldering' bones?
Why ARE the SLC 'mormons' failing to obey their GOD?
He used a method of spirit writing; placing his FACE IN A HAT and dictating what he SAW to a stenographer!
You are PATHETIC!
***As to the translating bit, the Rosetta Stone was not found until 1799, translation started in 1815, so in 1827 when Joseph Smith obtained the plates the Rosetta stone was neither accepted science nor well known.****
But now we DO have it! And LOOK AT THIS from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM!
From the REAL papyrus of Abraham ...Verses 1-5
http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_6.html
(I/1) [”Osiris, the god’s father], prophet of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, prophet of Min who slaughters his enemies, prophet of Khonsu, the [one who exercises] authority in Thebes,
(I/2) [. . .] . . . Hor, the justified, son of the similarly titled overseer of secrets and purifier of the god, Osorwer, the justified, born by the [housewife and sistrum-player of ]
(I/3) [Amon]-Re, Taikhibit, the justified! May your ba-spirit live among them, and may you be buried on the west [of Thebes].”
(I/4) [”O Anubis(?),51 . . .] justification(?).
(I/5) [May you give to him] a good and splendid burial on the west of Thebes as on the mountains of Ma[nu](?).”
[Osiris shall be towed in]to the great lake of Khonsu,
and likewise [the Osiris Hor, the justified,] born of Taikhibit, the justified,
after his two arms have been [placed] at his heart, while
the Breathing Document, being what
is written on its interior and exterior, shall be wrapped in royal linen and placed (under) his left arm in the midst of his heart. The remainder of his
wrapping shall be made over it. As for the one for whom this book is made,
he thus breathes like the ba-spirit[s] of the gods, forever and ever.
Yessirie! Old JOE was really on the ball!
Any archaeological proof that Jewish and/or Christian theology, as described in the Scriptures, pre-dates the Muslim baloney is a direct threat to their big lies (the Bible is corrupted, the Koran is the true holy book, Jesus was a prophet, etc.).
And they know it. It's why they destroy Jewish archaeological sites and artifacts.
Certainly Judaism used Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew was certainly around for a few centuries after this time, and Aramaic for hundreds of years after that. But it is an article of faith for Christians that Aramaic was the common language of the time and that the Greek Septuagint was used as Scripture. Not much point in encoded Hebrew under those conditions. Who would be the intended audience?
Using a more ancient script and language to lend “gravity” would be an unconvincing affectation.
BUMP!
“Several decades later? Try only about 15 years until the writing of Galatians, which is both undisputedly Pauline and undisputedly written before 50 AD.”
And, Galatians describes Paul’s trip to Jerusalem no more than 6 years after the resurrection to meet with Peter and James and to make sure the Gospel he received from Jesus was the same as what Peter and James knew to be true.
Nevertheless, this would be an important find, if true. It will to undercut the “Paul made it all up” theory, if it represents a non-Pauline tradition that dates to the same period as the epistles.
“There are many people who study these things who put the date of Galatians after 50 (though not far after 50) AD.”
That’s only 17-20 years after the resurrection. When we’re looking back 2000 years, a 3-5 year difference in dating something doesn’t make much of a difference.
That may very well be true. I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting only the use of the term "undisputedly dated" when talking about books of the New Testament.
“That may very well be true. I wasn’t commenting on that. I was commenting only the use of the term “undisputedly dated” when talking about books of the New Testament.”
I don’t think there’s much dispute over the dating of the epistles. If you know of serious questions of the dating, I’d love to know about them because I kind of follow that stuff in an amateur sort of way. Of course, there’s the standard Nero vs Dometian dispute about the dating of Revelation. But that really doesn’t affect the dating of Paul’s works.
I was responding to a post that said that Galatians is "undisputedly" dated prior to 50 AD. I know - because, like you, I also study these things in an amateur sort of way - that there are reputable, believing New Testament scholars who date Galatians to after 50 AD, though (as I said in my post) not far after.
Clearly, no epistle that is generally accepted as geuninely Pauline is going to be dated later than 60 - 65, so we're not talking about huge differences in terms of the number of years involved.
The fact is that there are academic disagreements over the dating of many, if not all of the epistles and there is disagreement over which ones are of genuinely apostolic authorship (Ephesians and Colossians for example in the Pauline tradition).
I'm not implying anything in saying this, other than to point out facts and to warn against using terms like "undisputedly" when discussing these matters.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.