[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > > > > > > far only a few physical locations and historical figured   
   > > > > > > > > > qualify. A very few.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Then nothing you ever say regarding it has credence.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > All I ever say is that it lacks verification. If you   
   > > > > > > > disagree state why. In detail, not generalities.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Since you lack the   
   > > > > > > > > knowledge of it as well as the understanding/ Also given as   
   the City   
   > > > > > > > > of   
   > > > > > > > > David   
   > > > > > > > > has been proven and verifiably so as well as the Temple at   
   shiloh.   
   > > > > > > > > Then   
   > > > > > > > > everything surround it must be true as well.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > The City of David is the ancient core of Jerusalem. As I   
   > > > > > > > have stated some physical sites have been verified.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Shiloh has been positively identified with modern Khirbet   
   > > > > > > > Seilun, a tell known in Modern Hebrew as Tel Shiloh. It is   
   > > > > > > > located 31 kilometres (19 mi) north of Jerusalem, in the   
   > > > > > > > West Bank, to the west of the modern Israeli settlement town   
   > > > > > > > of Shilo and to the north of the Palestinian town of Turmus   
   > > > > > > > Ayya. Another physical site that seems verified.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Such as what "around it"? The site alone says nothing about   
   > > > > > > > what may or may not have occurred there.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > To keep it simple, the site of the temple at Shiloh as I said   
   before   
   > > > > > > does   
   > > > > > > have many signs of what had occurred there. That it was a Jewish   
   Temple,   
   > > > > > > and   
   > > > > > > their practices were far different that any other religion of its   
   Day.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > I am glad to hear that you did do some limited research on these   
   things.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > No research is necessary. You are attempting to draw   
   > > > > > unwarranted conclusions.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > False as I told you or others here what a couple of the indicators   
   were.   
   > > > > They   
   > > > > were facts, and not conclusions drawn by me.   
   > > >   
   > > > So you say but I have yet to see any supporting evidence.   
   > > > How do I know you are not lying?   
   > >   
   > > When have you ever believed I was not lying and accepted what I said?   
   >   
   > I have never accepted what you said unless supporting   
   > evidence was included. Which means never.   
   >   
   > You assert a lot but fail to back up what you say.   
      
   That is easy for you to say as you instantly reject everything.   
      
   You use your little chant prayer about proof, and call all you oppose wrong.   
   Even when the facts are in front of your face, because then you just turn you   
   head so you don’t see it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > > What are the "many signs"? What "occurred there"?   
   > >   
   > > Go yo you tube and look for a video on the Shiloh digs and see for   
   yourself.   
   > > Then in the comment section you can argue with them about then not seeing   
   > > what they saw.   
   >   
   > It was your assertion. You do the work.   
      
   Shows you don’t care about proofs. You run and hide from it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)