There’s so much wrong in that article one doesn’t know where to start. The author uses more speculation than evolutionists. Quibbling about whether it was a stable or a house then stating it was part of the house where the animals were kept. What does he think a stable is? Either way Jesus was born where the animals where normally kept and placed in a trough where animals ate.
A stupid article that adds nothing and quibbles over semantics.
There’s so much wrong in that article one doesn’t know where to start. The author uses more speculation than evolutionists. Quibbling about whether it was a stable or a house then stating it was part of the house where the animals were kept. What does he think a stable is? Either way Jesus was born where the animals where normally kept and placed in a trough where animals ate. I think it did a good job making it's points based on scripture, word usage and middle eastern custom and traditions. If it were a case being built on circumstantial evidence it would be pretty strong. What the traditional view has going for it is that mostly it's a strong tradition.
A stupid article that adds nothing and quibbles over semantics.
I think it fleshes out the origins of Jesus and makes him more real but I see where you're coming from.