Skip to comments.
Experts call Biblical artifact a fake
USA Today ^
| 06/18/03
| Associated Press
Posted on 06/18/2003 6:47:53 AM PDT by bedolido
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
JERUSALEM (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artifact; biblical; experts; fake; ossuary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-125 next last
1
posted on
06/18/2003 6:47:53 AM PDT
by
bedolido
To: bedolido
He has trouble with the notion that Jesus might have really existed
2
posted on
06/18/2003 6:58:08 AM PDT
by
Norse
To: bedolido
No agenda here, move on.
To: bedolido
How is the authenticity important? How would anyone validate it's authenticity?
4
posted on
06/18/2003 6:59:27 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
To: stuartcr
I don't think that the stone's authenticity is that important. Faith is belief with the absence of evidence. Dang, what is the Bible verse that addresses that?
Anyway it is interesting that the box has generated so much discussion...which I guess is a good thing.
To: stuartcr
How is the authenticity important? How would anyone validate it's authenticity?
Missing from the USA Today version of the Associated Press story is this rather important sentence that helps explain how it was determined to be a fraud: "The James inscription cut through the ancient limestone box's patina, a thin coating acquired with age, the experts said, proving the writing was not ancient."
As to whether its authenticity is important, I guess it depends on whether one thinks that the truth matters or not.
6
posted on
06/18/2003 7:07:04 AM PDT
by
drjimmy
To: drjimmy
What truth are we talking about, and how would anyone know if it's true?
7
posted on
06/18/2003 7:11:44 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
To: SoothingDave
I'm sure all the folks who relied upon this ossuary as definitive proof that Jesus had a biological brother, and that Mary, therefore wasn't really a virgin, will now be flooding your freepmailbox with apologies.
8
posted on
06/18/2003 7:12:11 AM PDT
by
Mr. Lucky
To: bedolido
I will wait until Hershal Shanks - the man who brought us the dead sea schrolls - gives up hope.
The timing issue is bogus. As to the two hands, it is simply the carver switching from block letters to curesive. Not a deal killer.
To: drjimmy
As to whether its authenticity is important, I guess it depends on whether one thinks that the truth matters or not. Or whether the ossuary matters or not.
10
posted on
06/18/2003 7:14:57 AM PDT
by
ProudGOP
To: bedolido
They called it a fake on another ongoing thread, as well. What a cooincidence.
11
posted on
06/18/2003 7:15:09 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: TontoKowalski
Hebrews Ch. 11 V. 1
12
posted on
06/18/2003 7:16:42 AM PDT
by
azhenfud
To: bedolido
I just saw a news report on this. What seems to be the killer here is the patina. Basically, there is a patina on the rest of the piece, but not on the questionable inscription. Through 2,000 years of exposure, there should be a patina on the inscription, but it is missing, leading experts to believe that is was very recently carved.
To: bedolido
I've been waiting to use this since I heard it in a sermon last Sunday evening:
"Our problem is not with evidence, it's with obedience".
14
posted on
06/18/2003 7:18:31 AM PDT
by
BSunday
(My other post is a pulitzer - winner)
To: ProudGOP
Our faith in the Sovereign was just fine all those years without the thing. It really shouldn't make any difference now.
15
posted on
06/18/2003 7:19:29 AM PDT
by
azhenfud
To: bedolido
Could not read any further than "EXPERT" and forgeries, anybody can buy an "EXPERT" these days, wonder how much the "EXPERT" charges?
To: stuartcr
What truth are we talking about, and how would anyone know if it's true?
The guy who owns it claims it is "authentic," meaning the ossuary and the inscription on it dates from Jesus' time, so it could very well have held the bones of Jesus' brother, James. The scientific evidence shows that the inscription is probably a modern forgery intended to make people believe it was done in antiquity.
17
posted on
06/18/2003 7:40:14 AM PDT
by
drjimmy
To: Norse
He has trouble with the notion that Jesus might have really existed He does? Where's this in the article?
To: BrooklynGOP
It's obvious
19
posted on
06/18/2003 7:51:59 AM PDT
by
Norse
To: MissAmericanPie
No agenda here, move on. Interesting. So unless Israel's Antiquities Authority certifies everything - real or not - you are going to blame it on "agenda"???
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-125 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson