Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

OK, although I see nothing wrong with a faith informed by science. Any reading of something akin to the Plaut Commentary or the works of Nahum Sarna should suffice in making this clear.

Always nice to see some rationality from religious folks.

Apparently, if the tower was built 800 years or so after they think it was, that is evidence of a mighty kingdom.

If gentiles built the tower, they must have been a bunch of shmucks who didn't want their neighbors fucking with their water supply.

semiopen wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:28 am Always nice to see some rationality from religious folks.

It's rarely nice to see it met with petty sarcasm.

I think my problem was that your post inspired me to look at the article.

Already, preliminary results on a massive tower that defended the city’s main water source – which was thought to have been built in the Middle Bronze Age, nearly 4,000 years ago – have shown the structure likely dates back only to the ninth century B.C.E. (i.e., about a thousand years later). That discovery alone reignited the heated debate on when Jerusalem became a major city.

Making the very generous assumption that the 9th century BCE is correct, that misses the United Kingdom by a few hundred years in the other direction.

It's never nice to criticize without looking at the details. But at least our religious friends apparently have four years of funding to figure out an inspiring story.