首页
登录
职称英语
(1)Who has never heard of King David? There are probably not too many Christ
(1)Who has never heard of King David? There are probably not too many Christ
游客
2023-10-31
56
管理
问题
(1)Who has never heard of King David? There are probably not too many Christians who have not heard of King David. What many Christians probably do not realize is that, until recently, other than David’s occurrence in the Bible, there has never been actual proof that he ever existed. Over the years this has given fuel to certain groups wishing to view the Bible as a huge trip into the allegorical. However, all of this changed in 1993. Recently, your author learned for the first time what I am going to attempt to tell about here. You might think that given your faith, it doesn’t really matter whether there is proof of David or not. But think for a moment of the implications of our Bible being definitively proven by actual physical evidence. It would be like having your cake, and someone putting icing on it!!!
(2)In 1993(as told in the March/April 1994 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review), Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists unearthed a piece of stone with fragments of writing on it. In the writings was the words "House of David". It was the first mention of David in ancient inscription outside the Bible. The fragment was found at Tel Dan which lies by the head waters of the Jordan River, near Israel’s northern border.
The large piece of basalt was part of what must have been a large monumental inscription. It contains 13 lines, but no single line is complete. The surviving letters are clear, however. Line 9 contains the words "House of David". After the complete translation, it was determined that the fragment was part of a victory stela erected in Dan by an Aramean boasting a military victory over the House of David. Many questions are raised as well as many possibilities upon comparing the fragment with the Biblical history. For instance the victory of the Aramean would conflict with the episode in the Bible. However as BAR points out, there were probably many battles and not all were recorded in the Bible. We do know that Israel must have regained control of Dan. This find would perhaps seem simple and to the point, but that is far from the truth. The find began a debate in earnest.
(3)Immediately following the find, many came forward to state that the stone did not actually mention the "House of David." Along with this claim came the accusation that those believing that it did mention David were "Biblical Maximizers." The arguing was fast and furious. The debate inspired letters to the editors displaying the anger, emotion, and dismay from Christians. How could this new proof be denied? While the verbal debate raged, researchers and scientists quietly built a case on the very evidence the naysayers demanded. Another scholar, Andre’ Lemaire wrote an article in BAR stating that there was another mention of David in an earlier find. It was called the Mesha Stela proclaiming victory for the Moabite king Mesha over the Israelites.
(4)Then in the Impact section of our own The State in December of last year, an article appeared proclaiming that scientists have found that the Bible is built on facts as well as faith. Many fragments have been found in the same area, all mentioning David. Finally, scholars have reached the consensus that David was real, something many of us have never doubted, even before the stelas were found. Although scholars are not ready to admit the Bible is historically true across the board, they are willing to concede that the "Bible has a sound historical core." One thing is certain, these finds don’t only have repercussions in a religious sense, they reach into many domains—political, personal faith, historical. I can’t say in learning about these finds that my faith has grown any stronger, I can say that I have a new appreciation for the Bible as an accurate historical record as well as a basis of faith. [br] According to the second paragraph, the first mention of David outside the Bible was found ______.
选项
A、on a monument
B、outside David’s house
C、about David’s victory in a war
D、in the Jordan River
答案
A
解析
第2段第9句中的stela是一个生词,结合上下文和下一段第1句中的the stone可以推断victory stela是一个“胜利纪念碑”,因此本题应选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3144915.html
相关试题推荐
Howwelookandhowweappeartoothersprobablyworriesusmorewhenweare
Howwelookandhowweappeartoothersprobablyworriesusmorewhenweare
(1)WhohasneverheardofKingDavid?ThereareprobablynottoomanyChrist
PASSAGETHREE[br]Whatdoestheword"non-demented"inParagraph2probablymea
PASSAGEFOURTheywouldprobablybecomeabusiveparents.根据最后一段最后一句可知,即使是最好的父母,在睡眠
FamousChristmasPlacesTherearemany【T1】______traditionsinChristmas.【T
FamousChristmasPlacesTherearemany【T1】______traditionsinChristmas.【T
FamousChristmasPlacesTherearemany【T1】______traditionsinChristmas.【T
FamousChristmasPlacesTherearemany【T1】______traditionsinChristmas.【T
FamousChristmasPlacesTherearemany【T1】______traditionsinChristmas.【T
随机试题
Howmuchphysicalactivityshouldteenagersdo,
LanguageandHumanityLanguageispowerfula
[img]2018m1x/ct_eyyjsbz2016j_eyyjsbreadd_0150_201712[/img]Itisobvioustha
编制土方工程预算时,1立方米夯实土体积换算成天然密度体积的系数是()。A.1
假设某商业银行存在负债敏感型缺口,则市场利率上升会导致银行的净利息收入()。
下列关于档案管理,说法错误的是( )。A.信贷档案实行集中统一管理的原则 B
患者,男,35岁,左下肢皮肤溃烂,向周围浸淫,剧痛,局部红肿,伴口干口渴,大便秘
根据变电一次设备标准缺陷库,分散式电力电容器本体电容器组群爆,多只电容器同时爆炸
更换断路器储能电源前应断开()或拆除电源线,并确认储能空开两侧无电压。上级电源空
下列保险标的中,属于建筑工程保险主要保险项目的是()。A:工程所有人提供的物料及
最新回复
(
0
)