From the article: This is rare evidence in a nonbiblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible. OMG! In a SOOPERDOOPER-RARE instance, some clay tablet confirmed the existence of one guy from the OT who was not a king. What does this show? That even a broken clock is right twice a day! Funny how you spin it here to seem like it shows just how accurate the OT is, when the article specifically uses the word "rare." If we count the hits, shouldnt we also count the misses? Swing, batter batter! So the OT has a batting average just barely above 0. All-star it aint.
You'd almost be led to believe, by Aaron's moronic rant, that so much other "ancient history" had all this incredible, corroborative evidence, mounds of it, that offered additional proof that the records pointed to real, not imaginary people.If he took half a minute (or second) of reflection, he might consider how that the biblical record is corroborative of the individual on the tablet. If not for the biblical record, the only "proof" of this man's existence would be the name on a tablet--perhaps it was a fake chit!"Rare" vs. conjecture. "Rare" but consistent corroboration. All the rarities add up. There is nothing like it in all the world's history.But if you've already decided on the matter, what's a bit of corroboration that invalidates your "pack of lies" thesis? Something to sweep under the rug.Aaron, here's your broom...
"Funny how you spin it here to seem like it shows just how accurate the OT is."Perhaps you'd like to explain how we spin it, Aaron.Evan lifted the title of the post direct from the title of the original article, and simply added a hyperlink to the article. No editorial comments on our part whatsoever.You must feel terribly threatened by this article to act so defensive and engage in psychological self-projection. You're like a cat hissing at its own reflection in the mirror. Thanks for revealing your atheological insecurities for the general public to see.
Aaron somehow doesn't know or understand that there haven't been any misses. No archaeological discovery to date has disproved any portion of the Biblical historical narrative.You show me one place where the Bible has definitively been proven wrong, using proper methods of logical proof. Right, I thought so. I think we'll keep believing the people that were there at the time and wrote what they saw.
Thanks for posting this! Any evidence - I mean any evidence whatsoever - will help me sleep better at night! Good going!!
Don't you mean: yet another reason not to DIS-believe?I could never be an atheist--too many reasons not to, too much evidence I'd have to dismiss out of hand.For example, just observe this small post and the comments. Any reasons or counter-claims been given? Nope.In fact this whole website is the historical chronicle of our turn-of-the-century villiage idiot atheists' non-responsive responses. An endless series of intellectually bankrupt dodging of no-holds-barred argumentation.