Happy Passover

.

Yahweh's factual inspired words relative to the passage above that are to stand forever in avoiding the woman to please Yahweh:   "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

As we have seen ad infinitum, when the Hebrew or pseudo -christian finds their named god as disgusting and embarrassing in said gods primitive Bronze and Iron Age, relative to the 21st century, they have to pull out all stops to "try" and make what their gods inspired words state LITERALLY more acceptable to others.  Hence, rosends brings forth his "spin doctoring" to say that what a literal passages actually states, as shown in the example above, it really doesn't!  The irony is that the "nice little passages" regarding their serial killer gods in question supporting their brutal killing nature and disturbing passages, in a literal form as well, do not need to be reinterpreted to make them more acceptable in the 21st century!   LOL!

.

As we unfortunately see now in poor rosends post #34 relative to my blistering post #33 to him in showing him pitifully “trying to spin doctor” embarrassing literal passages of his Yahweh God away, where in turn, rosends is essentially calling his Yahweh god a LIAR to what He said literally!  LOL!  

Furthermore, we can see where he has finally given up by making child like and wimpish statements to me like: That would be the troll's undoing.” “Go troll, go!” 
As seen before, this is the first sign of defeat in rosend having to revert the conversation to these type of grade school antics. :(

Deep down, rosends knew when dealing with the Brother D., that it would eventually get to this embarrassing point for him in his trying in vain to rewrite Yahweh’s LITERAL words to be more acceptable in the 21st century, but he continued at his embarrassing expense.

Rosends homework tonight is to read and understand this following passage inspired by his Yahweh god herewith: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8). 

Obviously the passage above is referring to the passages in question in my post #33, AND, billions upon billions of LITERAL copied Hebrew writings as biblically shown throughout history where Yahweh's LITERAL word will stand forever, even though outright embarrassing at times!  

We’ll let rosends lick his wounds now, and to hopefully come back without anymore Satanic propositions this time, and to at least try and save face regarding his primitive Bronze Age Hebrew faith.  

Addressing your ever so weak post #36,

I can understand Ecclesiastes 7:26 in its LITERAL form as presented in your Hebrew Bible, get it? There is no need to use a crystal ball or a Ouija Board to simply understand literal passages!  Again, if you don't take this passage literally as shown, you are calling your serial killer Yahweh God a LIAR! (Isaiah 40:8)

Rosends, if I can be Frank, and you can still remain Rosends, as seen, you are having a very hard time in accepting the actual LITERAL passage of Ecclesiastes 7:26 for what it represents, and that YOU did not follow as your Yahweh god wanted you to do!  For this FACT, I am truly sorry for you, but as the passage most importantly says, you will NEVER please your Yahweh god because you sinned in allowing a woman to ensnare you!

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

Now, you can bring forth a myriad of “Wailing Wall Head Banging Jewish Apologetics” to try and spin doctor this passage away for what it LITERALLY says as you have shown in your post #26, but the fact remains, the documented proof that is explicitly shown below buries your Satanic notion in trying to spin doctor this revealing passage away.  Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up others to reinterpret said passage, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?  The passage stands alone at your embarrassing expense.

The two scenarios shown below are giving Ecclesiastes, 7:26 it's literal presence without spin doctoring it:

The English AND Hebrew written version in using their “chicken scratch” characters of  the language in the Hebrew Bible; Tanakh, of Ecclesiastes 7:26: https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME9IWYD

Seriously, if the truth were known, you are still upset that we Christians stole your Yahweh God and made Him into Jesus of the Christian faith as Yahweh god incarnate, whereas the truthful outcome is,  you Jews don’t have a god anymore! LOL!

Rosends, to save yourself from further embarrassment in front of the membership, you are now excused by Jesus and myself, you can thank me later.

.

Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Source: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."