Which Bible is Inerrant?

why thank you jar, I do enjouy the debates (even if some never get anywhere)

So sorry to break it to you, but the fact that place existed, doesn't give evidence for an event, that would be like me saying "england exists so that must mean that Arthur must have existed just as mort d'Arthur said!" most logical people would look at me like I needed help, Well just to ask, do you believe that semite=Jew?, or Hebrew?
the arabs are semites, a lot of people are semites, not just the hebrews, despite what media says. link of this please, I am interested in this, but I'm not sure i can agree with you, till i get a link or something where does it say this in eyptian history? till you provide evidence, it is speculation. Really? you mean theres no statues to rameses? no records of his reign, no monuments? please post something other than speculation

It seems that you are maybe blind so I'll REiterate...maybe the second times the charm....read very carefully...Contemporary inscriptions show Semitic laborers making brick. (Ancient Records of Egypt, II, par. 758 f.)"That Palestine and the Semites early brought a significant influence to bear upon Egypt is clear from Semitic traces in the LANGUAGE of the Nile country. It is also the opinion of
"many scholars" that, shortly before the dynastic period opens, the use of copper spread to Egypt through Semitic neighbors; and that the cultivation of corn and wheat and wine came both to Babylonia and to Egypt from Palestine - the tiny land which inconspicuously stood as the hub and spiritual center of the ancient world". (See H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, 1920, pages 89 and 90.)There are however several hieroglyphic documents which refer to the existence in Egypt of a category of workers called the 'Apiru, Hapiru or Habiru'. In this category were construction workers, agricultural labourers, harvesters, etc.Under Tuthmosis III, they are referred to in a papyrus as 'workers in the stables'.However, this may be, under Ramesses II, the Hebrews (according to the Bible) or the 'Habiru (according to the hieroglyphic texts) took part in the great works ordered by the Pharaoh, which were indeed 'forced labour'. (in the dictionary of the hieroglyphic language by Ranke.)Did you get it this time?

You have still not supported your assertion.You have simply repeated other vague assertions.I am not going to debate with you beyond saying that unless you can provide evidence that semite equals Hebrew and that Hapiru equals Hebrew you have no evidence.Please also take the time to read some of the basic sources for your claims such as the Armana Tablets.In your next post in this thread I hope that you will finally provide some links to your supporting evidence.

So sorry to break it to you....Ready? Most historians accept King Arthur was a REAL LIFE KING!Let me educate you in the difference between a LEGEND and a MYTH.Legend is something that did happen but that through time lots of the actual story was either forgotten and/or lost as to the story now having a lot of possible fictitious parts.Myth is something made up to explain something....somewhat of like a THEORY.Then, to your very dumb statement about WHICH SEMITE? LOL! Of all historic record WHERE DO YOU FIND THAT THE "ARABS" WERE EVER ENSLAVED BY EGYPTIANS? NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SO IT WAS "OBVIOUS" IT WAS THE "HEBREW" SEMITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And to the "link please" request.... look again the link or reference is there. (in the dictionary of the hieroglyphic language by Ranke.) Look for it. That is what a bibliography is for....references for YOU to look up...

quote:

---

Most historians accept King Arthur was a REAL LIFE KING!

---

Oh, this isn't true at all. There isn't much consensus at all about whether Arthur was real king, or even a real person.Off topic, except to point out that you really need better historical sources.

It is like saying Christobar Colon is not Christopher Columbus!!!The English culture refer to him as CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS.....The Spanish culture refer to him as CHRISTOBAR COLON...........The Egyptian culture referred to them as HABIRUS....descriptions of these people fit the Hebrew people and confirmed the Hebrew account...The Hebrew culture referred to themselves as the Hebrews....sons or descendants of EBER.Gosh, where is your brain?

Your posting privileges are suppended for awhile to let you consider how best to support an assertion.

---

Perhaps, but apparently you don't read too well, because what he said was:

quote:

---

so that must mean that Arthur must have existed just as mort d'Arthur said

---

Now, some or even many historians may accept the historical reality of Artur Pendragon, a Romano-Celt, but nobody accepts that he:1) Wielded a magic, lake-bourn sword called "Excalibur";
2) had "knights of the round table", or of any shape of table;
3) sent out anybody on a crusade for the Holy Grail;
4) had a magic buddy named "Merlin";or any of the rest of the obviously fantastic inventions of the Arthurian myth.As for your ridiculous myth/legend dichotomy - how do you tell one from the other on the face of them?

where does anyone show this? by the way I was refering to the way most people think of arthur, just like crashfrog said, whether history had a few people that would fit is beside this debate Where does it say anywhere that Semite = Hebrew?, like i said a lot of people are semites. How do you know other people were not enslaved by the egyptians? How do you know they were not equating 'Apiru, Hapiru or Habiru' with slaves they had? really?, the only thing thats "OBVIOUS" is you want Semite to equal hebrew, funny i thought the person putting forth the assertion had to provide all the information, not just a reference and page number and say "go look it up, its not my job to do it"

It seems that you are maybe blind so I'll Reiterate...
Maybe the second time's the charm...
Read very carefully...Are you quoting Hugh Odhner?Try and come up with an answer by the time you get back...