Biblical Scroll Found in Desert

Guardian (U.K.) ^ | Saturday July 16, 2005

[nickcarraway]

An encounter with a Bedouin robber in a desert valley has led to what one Israeli archaeologist described as one of the most important biblical finds from the region in half a century.

Professor Chanan Eshel, an archaeologist from Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, said yesterday that the discovery of two fragments of nearly 2,000-year-old parchment scroll from the Dead Sea area gave hope to biblical and archaeological scholars, frustrated by a dearth of material unearthed in the region in recent years, that the Judean desert could yet yield further artefacts.

"No more scrolls have been found in the Judean desert since 1965. This encourages scholars to believe that if they bother to excavate, survey and climb they will still find things in the Judean desert. The common knowledge has been that there is nothing left to find there," Prof Eshel said. The two small pieces of brown animal skin, inscribed in Hebrew with verses from the Book of Leviticus, are said by Prof Eshel to be from "refugee" caves in Nachal Arugot, a canyon near the Dead Sea, where Jews hid from the Romans in the second century.

The scrolls are being tested by Israel's Antiquities Authority.

Prof Eshel said he was first shown the fragments last year in an abandoned police station near the Dead Sea. A Bedouin had been offered $20,000 (£11,000) on the black market and wanted an evaluation.

[DelphiUser]

>>Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

No Sweat

>>I am trying to understand the nature of the Mormon gods. Here is my understanding, with a few follow up questions:

>>1. There are many “eternities”
We have one God, God the Father. We have Jesus Christ, His First born who represents God to us the creations, who is sometimes referred to as God (See My post #124). There is only one eternity. Let me Try using math on this, OK? Infinity divided by two = Infinity. Half of forever is forever. Or think of it this way you are alive, there is a central event in you life, “Marriage” you may speak of life before marriage, and life after marriage, but it is still one life.
Did that help at all?

>>2. Each eternity is created by a god that previously existed as a man in a previous eternity. (Sidebar – can a woman become a god?)
Gods exist outside of time. (which is why First is a meaningless phrase when talking about them, and I am not sure I am up to the answer if I asked :-)
Women cannot become gods, they become Goddesses (Wives of a God) (Boy am I going to get flamed for this, but I am just answering truthfully as I don my asbestos suit :-)

>>3. This god retains a perfected, immortal body. He is not spirit, but "sits enthroned in yonder heavens"
God has a spirit, and an immortal body inseparably joined that he can die no more

>>4. This god creates all the spirits in his eternity that will eventually become human. These spirits have consciousness. They can sin and fall before becoming human. Um the spirits are in his Domain, the rest is right (There is only one eternity, although it may be divided by events See my answer to #1)

>>5. This god has children, who are also gods. (Are the children born of a woman-god? Does his wife come from the previous eternity? If not, where?) See my answer to #2, Marriage is an Earthly ordinance, this is one of the reasons Mormons are so bound and determined to do genealogy, in the Temple we perform All the ordinances of the gospel including Celestial Marriage for the Deceased. (Which they are free to accept or reject, we are commanded to do this lest the earth be smitten by a curse Malachi 4,5&6)

>>6. All the humans in this new eternity who do the right things will become exalted, become gods themselves, and eventually create their own eternities.
Except for the “New Eternity”, yes (See #1)

>>I know this is a very abbreviated summary, and the exact nature of god is difficult to know for certain. (It took me six years to get through the “Summa”)
I had Four years of Seminary, Two years on a mission and heaven only knows how much time I spent reading on my own, I hear you.

Do I have it right?
Pretty darn close, by my counting

[XR7]

I produced two specific examples of ancient Mayan artifacts that contain not one, not two, but at least three specific correlations to Book of Mormon events.**

According to you only.
You provided no reference to any credible archeological authority. The cool website you supplied made no mention of the BOM or Joseph Smith (Little wonder. If they did, they would be a laughing stock and lose all credibility.).

[DelphiUser]

No one should construe this to mean I am not capable, and willing to back up what I say :-)

But this thread seems to have take a turn into “Prove your religion is true”. I have had some interesting Conversations with Physicists who were atheists, and when We got down to what Caused the “Big Bang”, they had to just come up with well the primal cause caused the cosmeg to Explode into the Universe. (Cosmeg is the matter for the universe before it exploded, No; I am not making this up) When asked how they knew the primal cause existed, they said, “Well, we’re here, aren’t we?” So they end up having faith too.

No religion, or even science can exist without faith. To argue that your faith, or mine is some how better, or more logical is to deny faith for what it is. Scientists have faith that the universe is understandable by us. We have faith that god is (in at least a small portion) understandable by us.

Arguments of “My faith has more archeological evidence than yours.” are similarly pointless, unless all archeological evidence has been gathered that will ever be gathered.

I suggest that honest questions rather than attempts to confound the “Enemy” are more in keeping with this forum, and the Decorum that should exist here, than argumentative statements would be.

Please join me in making Free Republic a place where Questions are answered, and no one will be afraid to ask for fear of being belittled.

Now, wasn’t there something about some Scrolls found in a desert in this somewhere?

[DelphiUser]

>>According to you only.
>>You provided no reference to any credible archeological
>>authority. The cool website you supplied made no mention
>>of the BOM or Joseph Smith (Little wonder. If they did,
>>they would be a laughing stock and lose all
>>credibility.).

You are rude.
This is a statement of Fact. You have not addressed the Points brought up by Auntie Dem, you just blithely say “They didn’t mention Joseph Smith”, They didn’t mention Joseph Smith” She said they were not Mormons, and Tied their work to the Book of Mormon by dates, and names. The ball is in your court, prove that there is no evidence that the BOM is true, instead of just stating it.

Oh, and have fun proving a negative :-)

Be back after a meeting...

[XR7]

Tied their work to the Book of Mormon by dates, and names. The ball is in your court, prove that there is no evidence that the BOM is true, instead of just stating it.

1. They tied nothing to the BOM. It is nowhere on their site - and I scoured it. Saying the evidence on their website "proves" the BOM is nonsense. There is no empirical data whatsoever to remotely make such a connection. If there was, it would be headline news, and there would be a lot more interest in the BOM because of its archeological significance. But the BOM has been around for a century and it has been researched to death. It is useless as an archelogical tool, or an historical one - unlike the Bible.

2. Typical rhetorical device used when there is no evidence to back up a claim, tell the other side to prove something is false, when there is no evidence whatsoever to prove it is true. But then, in LDS missionary training, you get pretty good at rhetorical devices.

[XR7]

2. Each eternity is created by a god that previously existed as a man in a previous eternity.

[DelphiUser]

>>Tied their work to the Book of Mormon by dates, and names. The ball is in your
>> court, prove that there is no evidence that the BOM is true, instead of just stating it.

Nice editing by the way, chop off who is tying things together, to obfuscate their point, then try to beat them up with it.

Can you read? I said “She said they were not Mormons, and Tied their work to the Book of Mormon by dates, and names.” She = Auntie Dem. Since the web site in question is NOT in anyway affiliated with Mormons, OF COURSE they do not mention the Book of Mormon! (Sky is blue alert)

What a disingenuous fallacy filled straw man you have to create to make your posts seem relevant to what everyone else is saying. Let me make this simple.

1. The Web site will not mention Mormons, or the Book of Mormon.
2. Dates and Names on the site (from archeology) Match dates and times in the Book of Mormon.
3. There was no knowledge of this in Joseph Smiths day.

Now I could say that this “Proves” that Joseph smith was a prophet. I will not. I will say that to state that there is “NO Evidence” when it has been presented. Is to be intellectually dishonest. Once “Proof” of any kind is submitted if you continue to state the proof does not exist, the ball is in your court to prove a negative. (Did you ever take debate? It doesn't show) (No, this is not a rhetorical device taught to missionaries, I spent time learning Chinese, not tactics)

Did Auntie Dem Lie? Does the Research indicate what she said? Is there other evidence to refute what she said?

Speaking of Devices, nice sound effect.

[XR7]

Is there other evidence to refute what she said?

Yes.
The "evidence" itself.
The BOM example maybe like or sound similar to some event, that you can get real creative about and say it was the event - but the fact is, Joseph Smith did not write about the same events that were discussed on the website. And, even though there are many agnostic or athiest archeologists and historians, they still reference the Bible because it is a historically accurate book, so much so that there are many archeological discoveries that would not have been made but for the references in the Bible. That cannot be said of the BOM, though many LDS researchers have spent their lives trying in vain to make any such credible discoveries. At this point, even LDS professors at BYU will not have their credibility questioned by arguing that the BOM is historically accurate.

[DelphiUser]

>>Yes.
>>The "evidence" itself.

LOL!! You have evidence, therefore you are wrong! Oh this is good!

Well you sound like a Lunatic, or may be similar to a lunatic, that doesn’t make you a lunatic.

Have you heard of Cleon Skousen? He wrote a rather exhaustive series starting with the first thousand years and ties all sorts of historical, and archaeological information together to make very interesting reading on what is a very easily dry subject. He uses the Book of Mormon extensively (When he gets there in time) and is highly respected.

Now as for BYU, I have several relatives who work for BYU (Large Families…) There are many Professors who, in an mistaken attempt to follow their religion, have undertaken several archaeological expeditions to South America, which by all accounts have been highly successful due to leaning on the Book of Mormon.

When faced with Evidence, you misquote, when called on it you name call, when called on that, you claim the evidence is the problem (How dare it exist)

At this point I leave you with a quote from Star Trek “You do not discuss but only gibber”.

As I said once before, some questions, Like whether or not I exist lose the attraction of interesting conversation after a while (So who are you arguing with anyway :-).

In my last post to you I asked for proof Auntie Dem was wrong, you responded that the evidence itself is the problem. If you ever do have anything interesting to say, give me a ping, as for now, I will ignore you until you do. This thread is making me sleepy.

[BibChr]

I'm not sure whether you're having a focus problem, or what. The dialog you cite, I think, didn't involve me at all. And even if you did, everything you say is utterly irrelevant to your post.

Here, once again, is what you said to me:

You don't know Chritianity [sic]. You know what passes for Christianity.

I requested specifics (to prove that I know nothing of Christianity), and you responded with a lot of blather about Incans and Mayans or whatever. Which, even if true, is unresponsive.

Did you want to try again, aim a little closer to the subject you brought up with me?

Dan
Why I Am (Still) a Christian

[Auntie Dem]

Did you want to try again, aim a little closer to the subject you brought up with me?

Give it up. You have posted many times about your opinion that the Mormon Church is false, and only your version of Christianity is correct. I believe the opposite.

I disagree with your opinion, because I have arrived at a different conclusion from my own study of the (purportedley) same scriptures you read. You interpret your version of the Bible through your own "private interpretation". I believe it is clear the New Testament predicted there would be an apostasy from the "True" gospel, and a secularized version substituted in its place. You are a living fulfillment of that prophecy.

You post your inanities in an attempt to prove I am wrong. I simply throw your gratuitous assertions back at you and say YOU are the deceived one. Is that childish? Certainly, but you started it.(neener neener)

I long ago gave up the citing of chapter and verse in these so-called religious wars, because it accomplishes nothing. For me religion ceased to be about High School Debate with its endless appeals to authority a long time ago, and I prefer to live by the spirit that giveth life rather than the letter which killeth. Also, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I have satisfied myself, both intellectually and spiritually the "True" gospel is found only in the LDS Church. I recognize that both people on different sides of any argument can be sincere, and that honest differences of opinion can exist, and where honesty exists education can often resolve those differences.

My experience with the Mormon Bashers here on FR has convinced me though that many are not honest, and merely echo the discredited arguments of the professionally paid Anti-Mormon crowd. I have zero patience for such dishonest stupidity.

Regarding the Mayan carvings. I merely provided the Non-Mormon decipherment of what the ancients carved, and noted the amazing parallels with Book of Mormon events, dates and names. You are free to provide your own Non-Mormon archaeologist to come up with some other decipherment that bears absolutley no similarity with Book of Mormon events, dates and names, and we will see if his/her peers agree with his/her opinion. This thread is not intended to be a fully footnoted research paper, but the link I provided to you contains much useful information about Mayan artifacts and history, much too voluminous to discuss here. I gave you a specific book "Forest of Kings" to read, yet you say I gave you no evidence. You will say that no matter how much evidence I present.

[DelphiUser]

Don't forget the book of Jasher!

I was given an on-line link to it on this thread!

If I really wanted to have fun I could postulate that only the Catholics, and the Mormons have a Prayer of being the true church (Pun intended) but I do not think some on this thread have much of a sense of humor :-)

[carumba]

I have looked over the pages you referenced but they do not compare with the Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary available in the scripture sets available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Subject after subject, pages on pages of cross references that lead me to believe it is harmonious and provided by the same source. And this is not all but I will leave it at that.

[Free Baptist]

Oh, sorry for my mis-read. We speak Chinese as well. We were inside for five years and worked with a congregation of Christian Chinese merchants in Eastern Russia for two years. We have also worked with Chinese in the Philippines and will be going back inside China after this furlough. Are you not just a little frustrated with much of the reporting and posting on China topics?

[Free Baptist]

Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christ (Campbellites) and a segment of Baptists called "Baptist-Briders" (who believe that the Bride of Christ is a Baptist church just because John the Baptist was called "the Baptist") all must be the TRUE Church. Do Mormons make as much use of Matthew 16:13-19 trying to prove that they are the true ("restored") Church as do the other three in this list? Just curious.

I spend much more time refuting the Baptist-Bride error than I spend on any of the other three.

[FatherofFive]

Just curious -

What is your personal interpretation of Mat 16:17-19?

[Free Baptist]

Very brief and light:

1. The word "Church" must be interpreted from the context where it is found.

2. In Matthew 16 the disciples did NOT even yet understand the purpose of the sufferings that Christ would undergo (read the remainder of the chapter), and yet there was no argument about the idea of a "church."

3. Jesus connects the usage of "church" with the Davidic Kingdom promised to the Nation of Israel in the Old Testament.

4. The Holy Spirit calls the Old Testament assembly of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai a "church" in Acts 7:28.

5. The Body of Christ (THE Church; the TRUE Church of this current dispensation) is a mystery revealed by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians ch. 3; Colossians ch. 1; Romans 16; etc.).

6. Israel, as a unit/assembly "called-out" (Greek: ec - out; clesia - called), matching the Hebrew for "call" (kahal) referring to that Nation's assemblies/congregations.

7. The Twelve Apostles (minus Judas; plus Matthias - Acts ch. 1) will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL (Matthew 19:28), NOT the Church of the current dispensation. Peter is in the lead with the keys of the [Davidic] Kingdom.

8. The Church of the current dispensation is NOT a Kingdom, per se, even though those saved are translated out of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son. (See Colossians 1:13)

9. The Lord Jesus Christ was announced and proclaimed by His apostles and by the seventy as the King, and they were preaching "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." They were NOT, during His earthly ministry, preaching that the church of this current dispensation was at hand. The current Church (the Body of Christ) was yet un-revealed, and Israel was being given an opportunity in the presence of their Rightful King to repent.

10. Had Israel repented, the Davidic Kingdom would have been established in their lifetime, and there would have been no Church dispensation as we know it today.

11. I believe that the Church of Matthew 16 is the called-out assembly of Israel as a believing nation (a re-assembled and regenerated nation), which will be in existance after the current Church (the Body of Christ; principally Gentile Church) is removed ("raptured") and after the judgments of the 70th Week of Daniel have run their course.

12. Matthew 16, therefore, looks to the back side of our current dispensation when there will be a humbled, penitent, believing remnant of the Jewish Nation who will receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah/Redeemer/Savior/King. They will be the re-ASSEMBLED (i.e. "Church") Nation who will take the keys of the Kingdom...the Keys of David...and enter in to Christ's Millennial Rest (e.g. Hebrews ch. 4 along with many O.T. references), the Millennial Kingdom.

[Free Baptist]

In my last, in my point #4, that would be Acts 7:38.

[FatherofFive]

“Matthew 16, therefore, looks to the back side of our current dispensation when there will be a humbled, penitent, believing remnant of the Jewish Nation who will receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah/Redeemer/Savior/King. Jesus connects the usage of "church" with the Davidic Kingdom promised to the Nation of Israel in the Old Testament.”

This doesn’t make sense in context.

This saying, Matthew 16, directed to the Twelve, is from Luke 22:29-30. “and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Since it is connected here with the time when the Son of Man will be seated on his throne of glory, language that Matthew uses in Matthew 25:31 for the time of final judgment, it shows that what the Twelve are promised is that they will be joined with Jesus then in judging the people of Israel.

Your timeline doesn't fit with the rest of scripture, and implies that there is no “church” until judgment day.