Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Evidence of the Babylonian conquest found

888 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
12 minutes ago, larryp said:

^^^ You flood me with a bunch of links and guess that I will read all of them? Where is your point in the links above?
Stop smoke and mirrors!!

You told me to show you.

Why don't you actually read something other than a Bible.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

You told me to show you.

Why don't you actually read something other than a Bible.

R.I.F. - Reading Is Fundamental. :tu:

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
33 minutes ago, Piney said:

The Hebrews were a branch of the Canaanites and they were polytheistic up until the Roman Period.

 

If you read Scripture, you'll find that the Hebrews were a separate people, told to conquer the land of their Canaanite neighbors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, larryp said:

If you read Scripture, you'll find that the Hebrews were a separate people, told to conquer the land of their Canaanite neighbors. 

If you study archaeology and genetics you'll find that BOTH predate Scripture by many millenia. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 9/11/2019 at 4:12 PM, cormac mac airt said:

They were written to support the alleged Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish religio-historical timeline. It’s not rocket science. 

cormac

Then why do both the "scrolls" and the "Scriptures," when compared, show only minor errors after thousands of years of being translated thousand of times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, larryp said:

Then why do both the "scrolls" and the "Scriptures," when compared, show only minor errors after thousands of years of being translated thousand of times?

What's that have to do with "why" they were written?

Attention to detail by those qualified to translate such texts would be the obvious reason. 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
17 minutes ago, larryp said:

If you read Scripture, you'll find that the Hebrews were a separate people, told to conquer the land of their Canaanite neighbors. 

Israeli archaeologists have proven otherwise. They were just going after their fellow Canaanites.

As for "scripture" I had to read a lot of it. I actually went to something called a "seminary". 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
18 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Hey, you do literally anything to produce an iota of hard proof your half-caste Phoenician storm god is real and I'll listen, but if the best minds of the past 2,000 years can't, my expectations for you aren't very high.

--Jaylemurph

You talk a lot, but say much!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
8 minutes ago, larryp said:

Then why do both the "scrolls" and the "Scriptures," when compared, show only minor errors after thousands of years of being translated thousand of times?

Here we go again. The scrolls date to the Roman Period and were only translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to English. Not "thousands of times". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
17 hours ago, Piney said:

And unjustifiable ones if you read Samuel. :yes:

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
37 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

People are providing you with facts and yet to refuse to see them. You are incredibly stubborn in everything you post and there is no point in people replying to you.

Typical of fundamentalists who scream "Show me the evidence!" whilst closing their eyes and covering their ears.

  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, larryp said:

What's your point?

God instructed Saul to destroy the women, children and livestock.

My people didn't kill women and children. We considered it "evil".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, Piney said:

God instructed Saul to destroy the women, children and livestock.

My people didn't kill women and children. We considered it "evil".

As is true with any other peoples on the planet, the above isn't necessarily true of all NA tribes. 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

As is true with any other peoples on the planet, the above isn't necessarily true of all NA tribes. 

cormac

Let me specify. Traditional  Algonquians don't kill women and children. We took them and adopted them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 9/11/2019 at 5:39 PM, cormac mac airt said:

And there goes your relevancy to the discussion. In this case Wikipedia is grossly inadequate to the task . . ." 

cormac

Who cares about what Wikipedia thinks, what they say, and what you say. Most of us care about artifacts, historians, and the Scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
32 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here we go again. The scrolls date to the Roman Period and were only translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to English. Not "thousands of times". 

The idea that perfectly human translators were just good at their jobs doesn’t even warrant consideration, eh?

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
3 minutes ago, larryp said:

Who cares about what Wikipedia thinks, what they say, and what you say. Most of us care about artifacts, historians, and the Scriptures.

Evidently not...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Let me specify. Traditional  Algonquians don't kill women and children. We took them and adopted them. 

No problem Piney, I knew what you meant. Just wanted to point it out that even NA weren't all of one mind on the idea of killing. Case in point, in my family, one of my GGGrandmothers (Martha Poage Moore) and daughter Jane were abducted by an NA raiding party and taken to Ohio where they were both eventually burned at the stake. Son John was killed because it was determined he was too weak to travel and a baby had its brains bashed out against a tree for crying all the time and giving away the Indians location. Husband Captain James Moore was killed at home and son James Moore, Jr. had been abducted by Indians 2 years prior in 1784. 

The above is from the unpublished manuscript, Indian Atrocities Along the Clinch, Powell and Holston Rivers, pages 149-152.

cormac

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
20 minutes ago, Piney said:

Let me specify. Traditional  Algonquians don't kill women and children. We took them and adopted them. 

Sounds an awful lot like kidnapping there Piney....:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
6 minutes ago, larryp said:

Who cares about what Wikipedia thinks, what they say, and what you say. Most of us care about artifacts, historians, and the Scriptures.

Apparently docyabut2 does as she used it in the post I was replying to. 

If that were true in your case you'd know that artifacts and historians CONTRADICT much of what Scriptures claim. 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, ThereWeAreThen said:

Sounds an awful lot like kidnapping there Piney....:ph34r:

War booty!

 Like when Cromwell was selling your cousins across the Irish Sea. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

If that were true in your case you'd know that artifacts and historians CONTRADICT much of what Scriptures claim. 

Prediction: Next will come a request for documentation to back up this claim.

Requested documentation will be provided, but left unread by the requester.

Requester will deny the evidence they were provided with, and claim reliance on their holy book.

 

It is really hilarious that 'evidence' and 'science' are scoffed at and denied, when they do not support biblical tales, but LO! Science is the bomb! when a discovery confirms something written about in their book.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Prediction: Next will come a request for documentation to back up this claim.

Requested documentation will be provided, but left unread by the requester.

Requester will deny the evidence they were provided with, and claim reliance on their holy book.

 

It is really hilarious that 'evidence' and 'science' are scoffed at and denied, when they do not support biblical tales, but LO! Science is the bomb! when a discovery confirms something written about in their book.

Holy **** psychic abilities are real!

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
58 minutes ago, larryp said:

Then why do both the "scrolls" and the "Scriptures," when compared, show only minor errors after thousands of years of being translated thousand of times?

Because the people doing the translating believed that what they were translating was the Word Of God and to change things willy-nilly was an insult to God, so when it was time to translate into a new language they spent a lot of time choosing the most appropriate word (and even then sometimes words lost nuance in translation, such as “murder” becoming “kill”). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

If you study archaeology and genetics you'll find that BOTH predate Scripture by many millenia. 

cormac

I agree, most scholars agree that the oldest Hebrew scriptures (Genesis) was completed around 1500 B.C.E, which means that both the Israelite and the Canaanite civilization predate the bible. So, what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.