I know the existence of this town Dalmanutha has been disputed as well as seeking determinations in the Aramaic, and geography as it was some 2,000 years ago,etc. But there are two factors involved in Mark 8:10 and Matthew 15:39. Both references say that Jesus went to the 'parts' or 'district' of these two towns.
The articles do not bring out the 'area' reference relative to the cities of Matthew and Mark.
They were close together and both writers wrote from their own perspectives. One says the 'area of Dalmanutha' and the other the 'area or district of Magdala.' These were harbor cities with boat multiple boat landings in each district (I have seen the 2,000 year old boat uncovered on the shore area in the region under discussion) for commerce. I have been there. It would be impossible to say at the exact point they came to the shore so each writer told their readers it was in the area of this city and the other in the area of this city. Both cities must have been known then by their readers,but each wrote to a broader audience also beyond Palestine; so placing both city locations together as an 'area' or 'parts' it showed approximately where the boat landed. Mark in his experience may have been more familiar with Dalmanutha and Matthew was more drawn to use- based on his knowledge- Magdala as his reference point; but neither would or could pinpoint the specific landing location for this particular boat journey then; so somewhere between these two towns to give a geographical perspective.
In one place the gospel writers say' in the area of Tyre and Sidon' towns known then or two thousand years ago and today thanks to excavations. Since the exact location could not be shown (today a writer could use photos) two cites that were close to each other gave the early reader a picture of where the event took place.
Some have thought that both cities then were known by those two names. Not a first in history. Some still call Vallejo Water Town in the past but others for the most part it is Vallejo- a N.CA city.
For there to be a real contradiction there must be no way to reconcile the opposite observations or views.
The point being?
The point is that if two cities, even two villages have been found then Jehovah is real and therefore we know the creator of the Universe by his first name. Proof had been a little sketchy up to now but this seals it. It's as clear as the water he walked across.
No, the point is that all that this proves is that two villages mentioned in the Bible actually existed. There is no logical or causal link other than that.
Sure. Just like they found noah's ark, and the shroud of turin?
And so even if it's true*, they basically sloppily, barely, not-really-officially, kinda-sorta figured out that like 0.0001% of the bible wasn't a complete lie.
Good job, but you got a little more to go I think.
*which it is not, lol
While the article is interesting from an archaeological perspective, the proof of existence of any town in the Bible only proves that the place existed. I am sure that many of the towns noted in Greek mythology existed and still may exist, but that does not prove, for instance, that Icarus flew too close to the sun.
You are an excellent poster, and respectful ;and I took your criticism of me as to expressions in my posts to heart;so hope I can and will do better. Thank you. I tried to post that my objective was to counter some erroneous concepts that this city or that city did not exist and the Biblical references are in error. That's all.
I just brought out when false assumptions about atheists are expressed I try and correct that person/s then and there as much of it or even all of it is based on misguided information, etc.
One of my best ever and most delightful associates was an atheist. We did our work yes, but we jested talked about everything and had a great time working together.
I never heard of this town you mention, and really your post was so rambling and incoherent I'm still not sure what town you say has been found.
When your excavations uncover how Jesus could be born under the rein of King Herod (who died in 4 BC) and also while Quirinius was governer of Syria (which began in 6 AD), you let us know.
I wonder if these towns are near this one.
Hello. This had been dealt with as per my reply from the Israel archeological Authority who wrote to me saying for them 'first century Nazareth is not a matter of faith, but fact. 'Dr. Dark and other professionals who have done the actual on site work( unlike a writer who sits behind a computer and denies this fact)believe the same. There is mounting evidence the old no first century city is time worn and does fit the latest emerging facts. At least for those who keep up with such matters.
The Incan city of Vilcabamba was rediscovered a few hundred years after its destruction in the late 1500’s thanks to archaeologists and the study of some documentation by the Spaniards that sacked it. This is a fact. However I am not trying to infer somehow that the God Viracocha is real. There were thousands of people who believed that He was. They did so for hundreds of years.
I suspect though that you are an Atheist when it comes to believing that Viracocha (praise be his name) is real or that he created the Sun and returned to the sky after visiting the Earth. There is more evidence for His existence than for your gods.
I will try to keep up, please keep the peer reviewed facts coming.
Please- let's not read into this more than is warranted as to my objectives, etc.
The Bible itself claims to be inspired and most know this. If it is then any geographical references or even data which must agree with sound long standing scientific facts no matter how small must be held up to a different standard. The Bible, of course, is not a Book on science ,or archeology as it does not profess to be; but when it touches on these and other subjects(it said the earth is spherical in the Hebrew version or original long, long before this fact was discovered as just one example) it should be held accountable. So I am not referencing South American discoveries and extrapolating them out to prove miracles or Aztec theology. I am focused on the Bible here,and something that was dismissed as false and later confirmed. That's all no proof of miracles, etc., It's OK to post claims of Biblical falsities(much of this based on ignorance), incorrect data,etc.,etc. This is OK, but don't try and defend against these so called 'facts 'and assertions or we will attack you? No,I can and will as long as the good webmaster here permits.
If I hear false assertions about atheists I speak up on the spot- freedom of speech, but be sure it is correct whether you agree or disagree with the individual. Their rights must be protected. All have the right to believe or disbelieve as they wish just as I do even in unfriendly territory.
(it said the earth is spherical in the Hebrew version or original long, long before this fact was discovered as just one example
If you believe that you have lost whatever credibility you may have had. The people that wrote the bible did not know the world was round. You can reply and argue the meaning of "Chuwg" or "Dur" if you want but you are still wrong. Your doctorate was earned where?? I have had this stupid argument from so many Jehovah Witnesses. Yes, in the middle of all the barbaric acts by a vengeful god he take a break to impart some scientific knowledge. A childish belief.
,and something that was dismissed as false
Dismissed by whom?