Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
And the Church does not accept homosexuality, it condemns it. Think before you open your piehole.
"The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel."
Based on my stone age experience in Catholic boarding school, the Bible wasn't everyday text, but that was then. Now, I'm sure things are very different.
Ah...
"such as the acceptance of homosexuality, the churchs calling for no capital punishment, the ban on married priests when Timothy said even Bishops can be married..."
1 - The Church in Her Catechism acknowledges that homosexual ACTS are mortal sin, She also calls on those who are disordered in their lusts and desires to chastity and struggle. Where did you get the mistaken notion that the Church has an "acceptance of homosexuality"?
2 - The Church does NOT call for a ban on Capital Punishment. She acknowledges the right and even the obligation of the state. Some Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, argue that the underlying issues in a modern state can allow for a ban on such punishment, but the Church teaches that death is an acceptable and correct punishment under obvious circumstances.
3 - The Gregorian reforms restricting married clergy are frequently misunderstood even by Catholics. There ARE and always have been married priests. There are even a very, very few married bishops. Celibacy is an OPTIONAL discipline within the Church. If you wish to be a married priest, you simply need to choose a Rite that allows such and comply fully with the rules, assuming you do - voila`, after the prescribed course of study, examination and prayer, you can be ordained!
Well, the Roman Rite bars priests from marriage. And, from what I understand and correct me if im wrong, I heard that one should not switch Rites.
The unspeakable arrogance. Does that include the apocryphal books such as Macabees, etc.?
Macabees have been there for awhile.
" I just am disgusted seeing what the overwhelmingly liberal clergy have done to soil a once great intuition in the past 50 years."
So are many faithful Catholics. The SINS and HERESIES of the enemies of the Church who infiltrated the seminaries under instruction and pay of the USSR - together with their willing fool allies - are NOT the Church. The Church is indefectible, the men who are servants of God are fallible, sinful and sometimes even enemies of the Church and Christ. You confuse the two.
Like AA-1025?
The Roman (Latin) Rite has an Anglican Useage with married priests. Some Latin Rite clerics, including at least a few Bishops, behind the Iron Curtain married as part of the hidden Church. Ditto China I believe.
I am told that changing Rites is now possible and much easier than in times past.
NYer, can you help?
A part of morning prayer every day in the Anglican Catholic faith is a daily Bible reading. I have Roman Catholic friends who say that it is the same in that tradition too. If you follow the Church calendar each year you will go through the Bible in that year and start all over again the next year.
I know of the Anglican Usage, but did not Pope Leo XIII condemn such a practice? I am ignorant on the subject (because Im strictly a Latin Rite/Tridentine Mass Catholic).
Two former Communists, Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson, spoke on Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church. Dodd, an important Communist party lawyer, teacher and activist, converted to Catholicism in April 1952 under the tutelage of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Stating that the Communist infiltration was so extensive that in the future "you will not recognize the Catholic Church," Dodd also asserted that:"In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."
"Right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism."
Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official and author of "Color, Communism and Common Sense" testified in 1953 to the House un-American Activities Committee regarding the infiltration of the Catholic Church:
"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions (Europe also had its cells) and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations."
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722955/posts
>>"...what i have trouble with is the Catholic Church's teaching that is contrary to the Bible."
"I am not an anti, I just am disgusted seeing what the overwhelmingly liberal clergy have done to soil a once great intuition in the past 50 years."<<
Right.
Wow. I didnt know it was that big an operation. How awful.
:)
He may have, but as it is a discipline, not a dogmatic teaching, it can be changed at any time.
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.