Carin Nel

To use your own words: "Check out some factual sources from real scientists":
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaver...ics/thera.html
For interest sake, check out the following link: http://www.webspawner.com/users/mccoy007/index.html
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt that I’m not lying!

I know that. I am talking about the reliability of a manuscript. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span .

Quote from article by Jeffery Jay Lowder: "But he (Josh MacDowell) cannot claim that his book has been "fully updated" when he ignores a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to it."
So Josh does not want to reply to the guy and now he's offended. The article did not impress or convince me, but on the other hand, I don't know much about Josh MacDowell apart from the few data I got from an article by him on the comparison between the NT, the Iliad and the late manuscript of Tacitus's Annals.
I've read the thread you referred me to, but I have not read any of his books to make any comments.

This statement, coming from you, I find surprising, as it is not falsifiable and, as most of you are quick to point out to me , is ....not permitted. I will go so far as to use one of your members' own terms, which I BTW found in an interesting website (The Atheist.com) namely "argumentum ad ignorantiam".:wave:
Just like you, I know that the truth is everywhere and I claim it wherever I find it. So it does not matter who makes the statement, an Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or whoever, if its the truth, I'll accept it and make it my own. Paul also quoted the Cretin Philosophers when he addressed the Ephesians and said they spoke the truth.

This is a quote from an article by Josh MacDowell. I don't know whether it is true or not. I know that translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. Most Bible Scholars agree that the majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). I know that in South Africa the translators of the Bible Society, who are responsible for translating the Bible into the different languages of our population groups, are meticulous in their work, using the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus - we have 11 official languages.

I don’t have knowledge of Geek or Hebrew and rely on Lexicons.
Thanks for the advice.
Regards
Carin Nel

Amaleq13

With all due respect, I think you should take your own advice and actually check out what the "real scientists" say rather than relying on an interpretation of their results by your fellow Christians. Rather than providing "extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus" as your article's author claims, the study by Bruins and Plicht challenges the traditional chronology your fellow conservative Christians have been claiming for the Exodus. In addition, the results do absolutely nothing to confirm that it actually took place but assumes that if there was an Exodus and if the volcano was the natural inspiration for the story of the plagues, then the dating of the event must be significantly changed from traditional beliefs.

Given all that, I think you'll have to agree that your author's assertion that this offers "extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus" is disingenuous if not a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of the actual facts.

From this article referencing the same study (emphasis mine):

"Bruins illustrates this relation by analysing how data, beliefs, interpretation and association shape archeological knowledge. His paper on the Exodus and the fall of Jericho raises a fundamental question. When archeology demonstrates that the Bible is unreliable with respect to historical and geographical matters, is it also unreliable with respect to matters of faith? Bruins believes that by nature faith does not need biblical geography or archeology."

Julian

Amaleq provides a good answer to this.
Your statement is a bit vague. It is true that Paul's seven authentic epistles are generally accepted as having been written about 25 years after the crucifiction. The earliest physical manuscript that we have (p52) dates from well into the 2nd century, however, and dating of that is debated. There is no question that the NT have a manuscript tradition that is superior to all. Unfortunately, we missing early manuscripts which is when most of the major changes probably happened. If you are interested in this subject I can recommend Bart Ehrman's excellent book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk) although it is complicated and advanced so you might want his lighter, layman's version Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) which I have not read.
That's fine, just know that quoting McDowell around skeptics and scholars is not a good idea if you hope to convince anyone of anything, including your judgment.
I have no respect for apologists and will stand by my admittedly harsh statement. Of course, between apologists and scholars you will find every shade of writer so the definition is rarely clear-cut. Each writer must be judged on his or her merits. They must consider all the evidence and not draw conclusions unsupported by that evidence.
Paul probably didn't write Ephesians. I haven't read this whole article but it might help you out some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles What I read seemed reasonably balanced.

As for the 'truth,' I can quote this: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
I won't comment on the OT texts as I am no expert on those and others here can do a much better job.

The Textus Receptus (TR) is not based on ancient manuscripts which is its biggest problem. The term comes from the Elzevir 1624 printing based on the Stephanus 1550 edition (textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum). All of these in turn go back to the first printed Greek version by Erasmus from 1516. He was in a hurry and used just a couple of manuscripts that he could get his hands on. Unfortunately, these manuscripts were Byzantine family manuscripts of a very late date, the worst and most inaccurate manuscripts imaginable. Manuscripts that in today's Greek versions would never be even included for consideration. It is an awful version of the Greek bible. Today's Greek standard bible is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA27, identical to the United Bible Societies 4th edition UBS4) and a number of English versions are based on that rather than the hopelessly inadequate TR. People like the KJV and Textus Receptus because they are used to it, however, no scholar ever uses it. The standard text is NA27 which still has problems, being mired in tradition as they are, but it is superior to all other versions because it considers all the thousands of manuscripts that we have to attempt to reconstruct the autographs.

I am sure that the translators are meticulous but probably not to the extent that you think. I know many languages, including Koine Greek (not great at it but enough to stumble through the text) and while the translations are mostly decent, they are not all that great, either. Remember, a translation cannot be better than the source material which in the case of TR is completely inadequate.

The bible does, indeed, contain redundancies but it also contains contradictions so I see little comfort there. Anyways, enough for now.

By the way, if you want to get an idea about the variations in the NT go ahead and offer up, say, 5 random verses and I will reply with the differences. I you like...

Julian

Sven

:huh:
What exactly about Julian's statement is not falsifiable?
And non-falsifiable statements are of course permitted - its only that they don't lead anywhere and are thus not worth the time one needs to write and read them.

Carin Nel

You make wild, non-falsifiable statements about Christian translators and interpreters which I find really unfair.
But, I admit there is disagreements on the issue of the time span. The prophecy states: 69 weeks of years (69 x 7 = 483 years) would pass from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, until the coming of the Messiah. This is according to the Babylonian 360-day calendar, since Daniel was written in Babylon during the Jewish captivity after the fall of Jerusalem. Thus, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days. According to records found by Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9062808 ) in the Shushan (Susa) Palace, and confirmed in Nehemiah 2:1, this decree was made on March 14th, 445 BC, by Artaxerxes Longimanus. Exactly 173,880 days later, on April 6th, 32 AD, Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem upon a colt (fulfilling the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9). The world celebrates this day as Palm Sunday. Four days later, Christ was murdered upon the cross. Actually, the form of His execution and even His last words were foretold in Psalm 22. Three days later, Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, fulfilling numerous other prophecies of our Messiah. From a study of Jeremiah's prophecy Daniel had calculated that the time of Israel's captivity was about to end (Dan.9:1-2). Interrupting his fervent prayer in this regard the angel Gabriel "informed" him (9:22) of coming events related to the people of Israel as it is recorded in Daniel 9:24-27. As I’ve stated before, a final decision regarding the interpretation of any Old Testament prophecy can be made, of course, only after the New Testament citations/allusions to that prophecy are taken into account. This passage of Daniel is treated by New Testament authors at least three times:
Jesus made express reference to Daniel's "abomination of desolations" as the identifying sign of the "great tribulation" (Mt.24:15). But since this phrase ("desolating abominable idol") occurs also in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 it must be determined which is Jesus' exact point of reference. All sides acknowledge that Daniel 11:31 refers to the altar or idol of Zeus that Antiochus Ephiphanes placed in the holy of holies of the Jerusalem temple in June, 168 B.C. Since Jesus' reference to Daniel's idol was spoken of as yet future (to Him), this cannot be His point of reference. It seems that the idol of Daniel 12:11 is the very same as that of 9:27, and in both cases the thought connects the ending of sacrifices with the abomination of desolation. It would be difficult to demonstrate any reference to 12:11 as over against 9:27; the two speak of the same. In His Olivet discourse, then, Jesus makes specific reference to Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks.

I know that some interpreters of the Dead Sea scrolls believe they refered to Onias III as the Messiah (http://www.factsbehindfaith.com/defa...ntContentID=13) and that this Teacher of Righteousness sacrificed himself willingly to satisfy the wrath of the ‘Wicked Priest’ in Jerusalem. On the holiest of all days, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), set aside for the redemption of sin. It was Onias who laid the foundations for the Christian faith and inspired the wonderful spiritual message and symbolism of the sacred Gospels, some believe.
Your statement, "The "anointed one" in Daniel 9:26 was the high priest Onias III. This was not a prediction, incidentally, it was written after the fact." is rediculous.

The Jewish year-
The Jewish Calender is calculated as follows:
The first day of the calendary year, Rosh HaShanah, on 1 Tishri is determined as follows:
The new year starts on the day of the new moon that occurs about 354 days (or 384 days if the previous year was a leap year) after 1 Tishri of the previous year.
If the new moon occurs after noon on that day, delay the new year by one day. (Because in that case the new crescent moon will not be visible until the next day.)
If this would cause the new year to start on a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday, delay it by one day. (Because we want to avoid that Yom Kippur (10 Tishri) falls on a Friday or Sunday, and that Hoshanah Rabba (21 Tishri) falls on a Sabbath (Saturday)).
If two consecutive years start 356 days apart (an illegal year length), delay the start of the first year by two days.
If two consecutive years start 382 days apart (an illegal year length), delay the start of the second year by one day.

Another reason some scholars say that we should apply a 360-day calendar to Daniel's prophecy is because of various Bible references that allude to a fixed 30-day month view of time. For example, in Genesis 7:24, it says that the flood lasted 150 days. And, in Genesis 7:11, it says the flood began in the 17th day of the second month. And in Genesis 8:4, it says that the flood subsided on the 17th day of the seventh month, when the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So, these passages present us a 5-month period of time that is described as being 150 days in length. And that of course is five 30-day months.

There are other Bible passages that indicate that time is being measured in fixed 30-day month periods. Revelation 12:6 mentions a 1,260 day period which, in my view, clearly relates to the three-and-a-half-year period mentioned in Revelation 12:13-14 and in Daniel 9:27. For three-and-a-half years to equal 1,260 days, one would have to measure years in 360-day increments. That of course doesn't mean that the earth's orbit of the sun is going to speed up or change, it just simply means that the prophetic year is a measure of time in which a "year" has 360 days, nothing more, nothing less.


I've read all the websites where you get your data from, so the information is not new to me.
I've read many articles on www.atheists.com and http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/ etc.


Old Testament scholars concede that most of the Hebrew texts available today read “lion,” rather than “pierced.” In some of these manuscripts “pierced” is a marginal
note. On the other hand, there are Hebrew texts that read “pierced,” with “lion” in the margin. The same variance is reflected in English translations, except that the vast majority of the English versions retain “pierced” in the text, with “lion” relegated to the footnote in some instances (see ASV, RSV, NIV, ESV). The two words are strikingly similar in appearance in the original Hebrew text. The only difference between the word translated “like a lion,” and the one rendered “they pierced” is in the length of the upright vowel stroke on the latter word. The two might easily be confused. Since the Hebrew had no written vowels – only vowel sounds – some think the confusion may have resulted from a misunderstanding in pronunciation. Craigie offers this view and says that the “like a lion” rendition “presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct” (196). Even the very liberal Interpreter’s Bible, which repudiates the passage as being prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, says that “like a lion” does not make sense in the context (Sclater,120). Brown, et al., represent the term in this fashion: “they have bored (digged, hewn) my hands and my feet” (468). Professor Baigent of the West London Institute of Higher Education suggests that the standard Massorite Hebrew text, reflecting “like a lion,” “seems to be corrupt” (614). Numerous other scholars concur.
The ancient versions (translations of the Hebrew text into various languages) overwhelmingly support the reading “pierced.” This is the case in the Septuagint (Greek version), the Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, and the Ethiopic. One must remember that the Massorite Hebrew text is from the second century A.D., while the Septuagint dates from the third century B.C. There is a very powerful point here, to which Kidner calls attention: “A strong argument in its [“pierced”] favor is that the LXX [Septuagint], compiled two centuries before the crucifixion, and therefore an unbiased witness, understood it so”
In around A.D. 140, a scholar named Aquila, a native of Pontus, produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the design of which was to rival the Septuagint. Aquila was an apostate from Christianity who had converted to Judaism. In his translation he seems to have known nothing of the “like a lion” rendition.
Only the very obtuse, and those with them who deny the authority of the New Testament writers, resist the conclusion that Psalm 22 has, as its general thrust, the mission of the promised Messiah.
The narrative begins: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – a question agonizingly framed by the Savior from the cross (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34). The treatment afforded Christ during his trial/crucifixion is graphically portrayed in verse 7-8.
“All they that see me laugh me to scorn: They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, Commit thyself unto Jehovah; let him deliver him...” (cf. Lk. 23:35; Mt. 27:39,43). Verse 18 depicts the soldiers gambling for the Lord’s clothes. “They part my garments among them, and upon my vesture do they cast lots” (cf. Mt. 27:35). It is in the midst of this context that the controversial statement is found: “They pierced my hands and my feet.”
Additionally, compare this sentence with the references in the New Testament to the wounds of the Savior’s hands and feet (Lk. 24:40; Jn. 20:25). The connection is too obvious to miss if the student is honest.
Tertullian (cir. A.D. 160-220), one of the post-apostolic “church fathers,” who had access to evidence older than we possess today, quoted from Psalm 22 in one of his five books, Against Marcion. In Book III, which is designed to argue the Messianic identity of Jesus based on Old Testament prophecy, Tertullian says that the Lord was “prophetically declaring his glory” when he said, “They pierced my hands and my feet” (Sect. XIX).
Source: http://www.christiancourier.com/feat...cember2001.htm

Brown, Francis; Driver, S.R.; Briggs, Charles (1981), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
Baigent, John W. (1979), The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, Howley,

I disagree. I’m just going to refer you to : http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=37

Right at this point I want to point out to you that Israel as a nation is not referred to as masculine but as *feminine* in Isaiah (note the surrounding passages refer to Israel as feminine in Isaiah 51:18, Isaiah 52:2 and Isaiah 54:6). So the 'he' here cannot refer to the nation of Israel, therefore the Servant cannot be Israel. That by itself could settle the point.

Believers say the "suffering servant" in Isaiah is Yeshua HaMashiach while Judaism maintains it is the nation of Israel. Some followers of Judaism will point out that Isaiah 49:3 actually names the servant "Israel.' However, an honest search of Scripture will reveal *many* were called God's servant: Moses in Exodus 4:10; Caleb in Numbers 14:24; Joshua in Joshua 5:14/Judges 2:8; Samson in Judges 15:18; Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:10; David in 1 Samuel 23:10,11, etc.. In the book of Isaiah itself, Isaiah himself is called God's servant in Isaiah 20:3; Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20; Jacob in Isaiah 44:1, etc.. So the use of 'servant' in one place does not mean 'servant' is always referring to the same individual. If we read further in Isaiah 49 -- beyond verse 3 -- we see that the Servant, though called Israel, isn't the nation but instead the Redeemer who will bring the nation of Israel back to God.
If we read further in Isaiah 49 -- beyond verse 3 -- we see that the Servant, though called Israel, isn't the nation but instead the Redeemer who will bring the nation of Israel back to God, let's look:
"Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken, ye peoples, from far: the LORD hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He made mention of my name; And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of His hand hath He hid me; and He hath made me a polished shaft, in His quiver hath He concealed me; And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said: 'I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and vanity; yet surely my right is with the LORD, and my recompense with my God.'And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee." Isaiah 49:1-7
The servant isn't the nation of Israel but instead is Messiah, called Israel. The Servant has a dual mission: to restore the 'preserved' of Israel (the remnant) and to act as a light to the Gentiles/nations. The nation of Israel doesn't bring herself back to God so the Servant cannot be one and the same as the nation here. Like Jacob, the Servant is called while still in the womb to do this mission and be glorious in the eyes of God. A nation isn't called while still in the womb, an individual person is. Verse 49:2 shows the 'hiddenness' of the Servant -- the Servant is likened to an arrow concealed in God's hand and quiver. So the Messiah is hidden, being called both 'Israel' and "Servant' here. As we read on, we will see the hiddenness come more into play -- the Servant simply isn't recognized by His own people! Let's continue reading in Isaiah 52:
"13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14 According as many were appalled at thee--so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men--
15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.
This passage begins with God announcing that His servant would prosper and become exalted. Many would be offended at him, but the Servant would startle the world -- the nations/goyim would see and understand something they had not been previously taught!
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/isaiah53.html

You can read :
http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html
It gives the Christian perspective as well as the Jewish perspective with which you will agree.

Many mainstream Biblical scholars, as well as others, suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke because Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE and material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE. According to Aviram Oshiri, this included the "...Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus." So, it appears that Bethlehem was deserted at the time that Jesus was born. according to theologians Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong, "...our first principle of historical criticism must be: be wary of any details in the gospels which have close parallels in the Old Testament." Their reasoning was that Christians in the first century CE diligently searched the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) for references for the coming Messiah. They would have found the reference to Bethlehem, Judea, in Micah 5:3 and assumed that Jesus must have been born there. So, the authors of Matthew and Luke would have followed this tradition. There appears to have been a small hamlet in Galilee that was also called Bethlehem -- "Bethlehem HaGalilit" in Hebrew. It was located very close to Nazareth.
Bruce Chilton, author of "Rabbi Jesus" comments:
"Bethlehem in Hebrew means 'house of bread,' a common name for settlements with mills capable of producing fine flour, rather than the course grade most Israelites used for their daily needs. In 1975, amid the musty, damp and badly lit back shelves of the University Library in Cambridge, I first learned of a Galilean Bethlehem, near Nazareth, from an obscure study of the Talmud published during the nineteenth century. I was surprised by the dearth of discussion of this place in New Testament studies as the possible site of Jesus' birth, especially since a northern Bethlehem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 19:15)....Now, however, archeological excavations show that Bethlehem in Galilee is a first-century site just seven miles [12 km] from Nazareth, so my former reserve can be put aside. There is good reason to surmise that the Bethlehem to which Matthew refers was in Galilee."
Aviram Oshiri writes:
"I had never before questioned the assumption that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. But in the early 1990s, as an archaeologist working for the IAA, I was contracted to perform some salvage excavations around building and infrastructure projects in a small rural community in the Galilee. When I started work, some of the people who lived around the site told me how Jesus was really born there, not in the south. Intrigued, I researched the archaeological evidence for Bethlehem in Judea at the time of Jesus and found nothing. This was very surprising, as Herodian remains should be the first thing one should find. What was even more surprising is what archaeologists had already uncovered and what I was to discover over the next 11 years of excavation at the small rural site--Bethlehem of Galilee."
Excavations between 1992 and 2003 have uncovered the remains of a large church and monastery built circa 500 CE. Oshri said: "There is no doubt in my mind that these are impressive and important evidence of a strong Christian community established in Bethlehem a short time after Jesus' death." He is certain that the structures are Christian because of the oil lamps with crosses, baptismal font, bronze cross, and pig bones found on the site. He expects that recognition of Bethlehem in Galilee as the birth place of Jesus may take a long time. He said: "Business interests are too important. After all this time, the churches do not have a strong interest in changing the nativity story."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
http://www.ancientsandals.com/
http://www.bu.edu/
http://www.archaeology.org/

If you read the prophecy again, you will see that what is important is the name of the “mountain” on which Isaac was sacrificed. The life of Isaac gives us clear types of what would be fulfilled through Jesus’ life and death. Isaac truly was ‘born according to the Spirit’. It was the work of God that allowed the ninety one year old Sarah to conceive and it was the power of God that bought about Jesus in an even greater miraculous birth. Like Isaac, the Lord Jesus was ‘born according to the Spirit’ and would go on to fulfill in His life many of the events that we see pictured in the life of Isaac. While some of this has already been mentioned in the study of Abraham, let me point out some (obvious!) pictures of Jesus from Genesis chapter 22.

22:1-2 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied. Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

Isaac, whom Abraham loved, was to be a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. This was actually a mountain range, upon which Calvary stood. So this is the same place that approximately 4000 years later God would allow His son to be the sacrifice for the sins of the world. Notice also that God spoke of the love that Abraham had for Isaac. Believe it or not, this is the first mention of love in the Bible and while it speaks of Abraham’s love for Isaac, it is a picture of the love which God the Father had for Jesus. This love existed before the foundation of the world and was expressed several times in Jesus’ earthly ministry when God’s voice was heard from Heaven stating ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’
22:6 “Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife.”
While Abraham carried the fire and the knife, it was left to Isaac to carry the very wood on which he would be sacrificed. This again pictures the Lord Jesus who, while he was physically able, carried his wood, the cross, to Golgotha where He would die.
22:7,8, “Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?” “Yes, my son?” Abraham replied. “The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”
Just as Isaac was to take the place of the lamb for this sacrifice, so Jesus became the ‘lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.’
22:13-14 “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”
Abraham called the place where Isaac was to be sacrificed, ‘The Lord will provide.’ And that is exactly what God did do 4000 years later because He ‘so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…’ With Isaac, we had a picture of Jesus as the only Son, deeply loved by the Father being sacrificed. But a slightly different picture emerges now with the ram. With the ram we have a picture of an innocent victim dying as a substitute for another. Its blood was spilt so that others could go free. This again is what Jesus did for us.
To use your own words, read “REAL archaeological evidence” does exist of the Exodus of the Israelites. We will just not easily find evidence, as nomadic people seldom, if ever, leave any evidence of their presence. The Bible tells us that throughout the Exodus, the people never planted crops, built cities or did anything that would be expected to be found in thousands of square miles of desert. The Bible says that even their clothing did not wear out. The chances of finding any physical evidence of the Exodus itself seems extremely unlikely. However, the events surrounding the Exodus (both before and after) are testable and datable.
Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature, that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (± 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating). This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old. What is even more interesting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which has been dated to 1628 B.C. This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. Check out Exodus 10:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt.” So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22) Even the researchers commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking."
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaver...ics/thera.html

Most of the ancient writers equated the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC Most ancient writers put the Jews in Egypt for 215 years or less. According to most ancient writers the 430 years in Egypt was taken to start with the promise to Abraham, and the 400 years from the birth of Isaac. Others begin these years with Abraham's entry into Canaan. All of the ancient Jewish and Christian writers considered in this paper took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt as well as Canaan. Biblical writers also agree with these ancient traditions, and the archaeological evidence reinforces these views.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Some experts on this subject write: "As dim and uncertain as Hebrew history is in the age of the patriarchs, there is no question that the migration out of Egypt around 1250 BC is the single most important event in Hebrew history. More than anything else in history, this event gave the Hebrews an identity, a nation, a founder, and a name, used for the first time in the very first line of Exodus , the biblical account of the migration: "bene yisrael," "the children of Israel." (Richard Hooker, World civilization, Washington State University on the internet) .
Where do the Jews come from?
According to the free encyclopedia, wikipedia, for the first two periods the history of the Jews is mainly that of the Fertile Crescent. It begins among those peoples which occupied the area lying between the Nile river on the one side and the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers on the other. Surrounded by ancient seats of culture in Egypt and Babylonia, by the deserts of Arabia, and by the highlands of Asia Minor, the land of Canaan (later known as Israel, then at various times Judah, Coele-Syria, Judea, Palestine, the Levant, and finally Israel again) was a meeting place of civilizations. The land was traversed by old-established trade routes and possessed important harbors on the Gulf of Akaba and on the Mediterranean coast, the latter exposing it to the influence of other cultures of the Fertile Crescent.
Traditionally Jews around the world claim descendance mostly from the ancient Israelites (also known as Hebrews), who settled in the land of Israel. The Israelites traced their common lineage to the biblical patriarch Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Jewish tradition holds that the Israelites were the descendants of Jacob's twelve sons (one of which was named Judah), who settled in Egypt. Their direct descendants respectively divided into twelve tribes, who were enslaved under the rule of an Egyptian pharaoh, often identified as Ramses II. In the Jewish faith, the emigration of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan (the Exodus), led by the prophet Moses, marks the formation of the Israelites as a people.
Jewish tradition and the Word of God (Genesis through Malachi) has it that after forty years of wandering in the desert, the Israelites arrived to Canaan and conquered it under the command of Joshua, dividing the land among the twelve tribes. For a period of time, the united twelve tribes were led by a series of rulers known as Judges. After this period, an Israelite monarchy was established under Saul, and continued under King David and Solomon. King David conquered Jerusalem (first a Canaanite, then a Jebusite town) and made it his capital. After Solomon’s reign the nation split into two kingdoms, Israel, consisting of ten of the tribes (in the north), and Judah, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (in the south). Israel was conquered by the Assyrian ruler Shalmaneser V in the 8th century BCE. There is no commonly accepted historical record of those ten tribes, which are sometimes referred to as the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...ough_150_CE.29

Regards
Carin Nel

RED DAVE

From Sven:
From Carin Nel:
Stuff and nonsense. If you think that large numbers of Jews, religious or secular, are lining up to join a religion that has been persecuting us for about 1500 years, you're nuts.

On a website that I found that listed all Messianic Jewish congregations (there seems to be a something over 300 in the country – no indication as to size) I notice that in all of New York City, which has the largest number of Jews of any city in the world (over 10% of the world's Jewish) there are exactly 4 messianic congregations listed. There are more than 4 congregations within ten minutes walking distance of me, to say nothing of secular Jewish organizations.

Go away. Leave us Jews alone. We either have one of our own, or none at all. In either case, we don't want yours.

RED DAVE

Diogenes the Cynic

For the record, Messianic Jews are religiously Christian, not Jewish. There are no religious Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah. Messianics are evangelical Christians who use pseudo-Judaic imagery and language as a ruse to try to convert religiously uneducated ethnic Jews. Messianics are not recognized as Jews by Israel and are not permitted any Right of Return by the state.

Carin Nel

Hear from the Messianic Jew himself who he is and what he believes: http://www.menorah.org/mjews.html

Regards,
Carin Nel

Jack the Bodiless

A year isn't 360 days in length. Because of this, nobody used a 360-day calendar for any significant length of time without incorporating some sort of correction factor.
...Or maybe 28 AD, or 29 AD, or 30 AD, or 31 AD, or 33 AD, or 34 AD (...etc). There is no evidence that this actually happened in 32 AD. What you're doing here is equivalent to scoring a bullseye by firing an arrow at the side of a barn and then painting a target around it.
You seem to have missed several points here. Perhaps the most obvious is that if you wish to cite this as a "prophecy fulfilment", you must demonstrate that Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem: not just that he MIGHT have been.

Matthew says that he was, but Luke uses a bizarre contrivance to get him there (a census which, unlike any other and contrary to common sense, required people to travel from their actual place of residence to somewhere else that their ancestors once lived in). Mark is silent on this issue, and John says that he wasn't born in Bethlehem. And Matthew's Jesus is born at least a decade before Luke's Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic

What he believes in is called "Christianity." It is theologically impossible to be Jewish and worship Jesus. They are mutually contradictory positions. Jewish theology does not permit the worship of the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled none of the criteria for the Jewish Messiah anyway. Messianic Jews are. at best, ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity. If you were under the impression that it has anything to do with religious Judaism then you don't know anything about Judaism (and neither do they).