Posted on 07/31/2012 9:12:13 AM PDT by the scotsman
>>God’s Word is enough proof for me.<<
“Amen. An adulterous generation seeks for a sign. Believers know because they believe - scoffers need proof, and yet still won’t believe!
Not to mention, the Bible, is the most “proofed” book in the history of man. There is no evidence to dispute it, but plenty to validate it.
It likely proves that the Samson legend existed back then. The Biblical story itself has long been known to have been taken almost in its entirety from earlier stories, by other peoples in the region. While there is lots of evidence for other Biblical stories, this one should be given a pass.
The Hebrews had a tradition that is eminently sensible, and quite rare among the peoples of the Earth, that “good ideas” are more important than who thinks them up. So they had no problem in embracing good ideas whenever they found them—a lot better philosophy than discarding good ideas because they aren’t yours and you don’t like their origins.
That little boy whose story was chronicled in that “Going To Heaven” book claims to have met him there. Good enough for me.
There were no coins in the 11th century BC--they weren't invented until several centuries later.
It could be a seal--lots of seal stones have been discovered in Bronze Age sites. There are many very artistic seal stones known from Minoan Crete. Presumably they were used like seals were in the Middle Ages, for identification (press the seal stone into wet clay to create an impression).
I’m surprised no one has pinged SunkenCiv yet (unless I just missed it).
Note: even if the other side indicates that this is supposed to be Samson, this does not prove that Samson lived. It would just prove that someone knew the Samson story at the time the coin was made. I’m curious about the coin’s significance, but we should be careful in evaluating all archeological finds. Note: I have sufficient proof that Samson lived - the story is backed by the highest possible authority.
Mosaic in Israel Shows Biblical Samson
CNN | 7/4/12 | Joe Sterling
Posted on 07/05/2012 4:40:04 AM PDT by marshmallow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2902998/posts
Philistines: Giving Goliath His DueThe name Goliath, like Achish, is not Semitic, but rather Anatolian (McCarter 1980, 291, Mitchell 1967, 415; Wainwright 1959, 79). Not all agree though; the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (2:524) proposes that Goliath may have been a remnant of one of the aboriginal groups of giants of Palestine who now were in the employ of the Philistines. [1. Naveh (1985, 9, 13 n. 14) states that Ikausu, the name of the king of Ekron in the seventh century b.c., is a non-Semitic name that can be associated with that of the Achish of Gath in David's time. The name in the seventh century has a shin ending that is non-West Semitic.]
Marco Polo Monographs, No. 7.
by Neal Bierling
foreword by Joe E. Seger
old edition on Amazon
Giving Goliath His Due:
New Archaeological Light on the Philistines
by Neal Bierling
foreword by Paul L. Maier
That Delilah was a real looker. No wonder Samson was snared.
I agree. I believe in the Bible and the story of Sampson, but fighting lions was a tradition among middle eastern rulers from Egypt to Iran.
Thanks, Civ
I saw the coin and think it is an amazing find. It may just be an indication that there is more to be found in that area.
wow! and I guess 3000 years from now they will find similar ‘proof’ that bugs bunny and elmer fudd were real
(after all, there were drawings of them!)
Ditto to that
Amazing in its beauty.
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.
