you hear they found the tomb jesus and his family

[Bearcatt]

guy says they have found the tomb of jesus and his family .....wow has anyone heard anything about this please inform me ....

[Bearcatt]

i saw it on cnn

[zcwilly]

http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/foru...ill-there.html

[djetaine]

Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

[djetaine]

bible=truth
lolz

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by djetaine

bible=truth
lolz

Don't make me send Angry Jesus to your stoop.

[djetaine]

i am quite interested in finding out what "DNA" evidence they can have to prove this is the true tomb of jesus of nazareth. Seeing as how there are no known relatives of the family id like to know what they are comparing the DNA to.

[Bearcatt]

wow thats crazy man....holy war mayham

[djetaine]

Originally Posted by Rufus P. Funk

Don't make me send Angry Jesus to your stoop.

I forgot you were a cherub for a moment there. plz dont hurt me.

[Uhm]

Originally Posted by djetaine

bible=truth
lolz

Please tell me you are kidding with that statement. Now granted I am not a Bible scholar and as you might have guessed I am also not religious. No one knows for sure what is truth and what is myth. Plus, we know nothing of what was changed/added/deleted after King James got ahold of it.

We might never know this.

[Keith P]

They found the tomb of santa claus in 1982 too.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by DJ Uhm

Please tell me you are kidding with that statement. Now granted I am not a Bible scholar and as you might have guessed I am also not religious. No one knows for sure what is truth and what is myth. Plus, we know nothing of what was changed/added/deleted after King James got ahold of it.

We might never know this.

actually.... we know a lot about many of the book in both testaments. The texts that were translatde into the KJV etc etc.


But, you're right substantively that we cannot verify, as fact, pretty much most of it... well, detailed stuff. The broad facts like the Babylonian Captivity, etc etc etc are easily verifiable but the specific events within those larger events not so much.

[Uhm]

Originally Posted by xian

actually.... we know a lot about many of the book in both testaments. The texts that were translatde into the KJV etc etc.


But, you're right substantively that we cannot verify, as fact, pretty much most of it... well, detailed stuff. The broad facts like the Babylonian Captivity, etc etc etc are easily verifiable but the specific events within those larger events not so much.

But there's over 200 something books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet we have what 66 books in the Bible. There's a little bit of detail left out. Something tells me it wasn't KJ omitting the days in which Jesus had irritable bowel syndrome and Mary having her period.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by DJ Uhm

But there's over 200 something books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet we have what 66 books in the Bible. There's a little bit of detail left out.

There are actually over 800 texts in that batch. But, the fact that they exist doesn't mean that they should be in the Bible (doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't either.)

What I meant about the KJV is that the books in that version are fairly faithfully translated from old texts and are fairly representative of the oldest bible you can find. (or individual books).

That is distinct from the assertion you're making which is that the text is incomplete.

As to that... there is no argument against it for the OT. It is incomplete and that is recognized in the existence of an oral tradition which supplements the written tradition. With regard to the NT. The Bible was put together by a bunch of cats in Constantinople a long time ago - they decided what to keep and what to dump... 4 Gospels, a lot of Paul's writings and a few by a couple other people... that's it. If a text was known to them and discarded from inclusion then we can say......... blah blah blah - there's tons of scholarship on what went into the Bible and what was excluded. That things were excluded doesn't mean that the exclusion was improper etc etc.

[Bearcatt]

thank you