Why do we use BCE/CE? Check out our video "Why BCE/CE is Better than BC/AD (Even for Christians)" ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.htmlsi=GMh9pkdrOeXDrVFf
That drives me crazy..BC and AD served us well.. Any time I see that other crap it makes me think the presenter is anti Christian.. There is simply no need to re-invent
Good stuff Dr. Bob. A nice brief summary of the most important finds this year. The amount of work people put into these finds is amazing and I think it escapes the attention of most people.
Thank you so much. I work with a great team, including Jordan Jones, who produces these videos, and Mary Kate Lichty, who wrote the draft for this video. It's important to me that students are a learning how to work with this material-both the archaeological and biblical data, and how to produce this public-facing content.
Again, I use both BC/AD and BCE/CE. I explain why scholars (both confessional and non-confessional scholars) use BCE/CE in the following two videos: ruclips.net/video/Ll-qe-zugu8/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.html. It has to do with historical accuracy and problems with the dating of the birth of Jesus than it does with trying to "eliminate" Jesus from the conversation. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC, then it means Jesus was born at least 4 BC. That is, Jesus was born 4 years "before Christ." So instead of redating everything, scholars just say "common era" and continue to base everything on the traditional dating (which is tied to the life of Jesus), but don't have to worry about the awkward problem of Jesus being born at least 4 years "before Christ."
@@bibleandarchbut they still have the issue of the dating system being several years off (most scholars say 2-6 years). It’s still a compromise of principle for what one stands for and what the other modern terminology stands for. In Christ, Mikey
The truth remains, no matter what the world labels the time period...BCE&CE can't conceal what is the same thing as BC&AD... Dating because of the Lord's arrival in the flesh, and His Resurrection from the dead... Can't be hidden from the inquiring minds...He Lives and, His Word will be fulfilled... Blessed be our Lord and Savior ✝️ Jesus Christ.... Amen and Amen 🙏🌹🕊️
Again, I use both BC/AD and BCE/CE. I explain why scholars (both confessional and non-confessional scholars) use BCE/CE in the following two videos: ruclips.net/video/Ll-qe-zugu8/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.html. It has to do with historical accuracy and problems with the dating of the birth of Jesus than it does with trying to "eliminate" Jesus from the conversation. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC, then it means Jesus was born at least 4 BC. That is, Jesus was born 4 years "before Christ." So instead of redating everything, scholars just say "common era" and continue to base everything on the traditional dating (which is tied to the life of Jesus), but don't have to worry about the awkward problem of Jesus being born at least 4 years "before Christ."
Very good. Two notes, Azekah started in 2012 including with the host of this program, and to heighten the significance of the deep sea find, it changes our understanding of ancient nautical abilities, not just port hopping but crossing the deep sea Ther are other wrecks to come, for sure. This was only discovered thanks to the tremendous investment in deep sea drilling in technological equipment and their willingness to advance archaeology.
Avitz and Govrin published an article in Maarav 28.1-2 that disagrees with some of Lipschits et. al’s claims. The lmlk stamps being Neo-Assyrian would be significant, but I think there should be caution with that claim.
Very nice video. Since you're asking, the list could have been trimmed a bit: I think it may have been Mark S. Smith who correctly said "anything CE is just journalism" 😊
As a Christian channel will you please stop using the secular terms BCE & CE and use the proper terms BC and AD? It's very annoying and a real turn off. In fact if I hear it a third time I switch off the video!
@@JohnDWalsh-y7c why do you think BCE/CE are secular? Do you have any evidence to support this notion? It's very annoying and a real turn off. Do you know what AD means?
@DarrenGedye BCE (before common era) CE (common era) started 1700. secular, because many who used it , didn't accept Christ as their Lord . AD in Latin (year of our Lord). BC ( Before Christ).
@@carmenfolch9636 BCE/CE was developed by Christians for Christians in 1615. Sure, many who use it don't accept that Jesus was the Christ, but many who use BC/AD don't accept that either. It seems to me that saying Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ has the bigger problem. However if people prefer BC/AD I don't have a problem with them using it. I am however disappointed by those who abuse the video maker because of their own ignorance.
Because it is the academically correct nomenclature to use. Pure and simple. It is not an academic's job to decide who the Messiah is or who the Lord is. Jewish scholars have used BCE/CE for hundreds of years. It's not new. Just to be clear "BC" means "Before Christ" "Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah." It's not a name. For Jews, it is still BC. AD stands for "Anno Domini" which means "in the year ("anno") of the Lord. "Domini"). An academic cannot impose religious beliefs onto data. It's also necessarily historically inaccurate because if Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he could not have been born later than 4 BCE because that is when Herod died.
@@Ken_Scalettait’s disingenuous to time to say CE and BCE. What is considered the common era? And what’s considered before a common era? What makes the common era so common? Are we closer/ have more in common to the beginning of the common era than 1000 BCE. Yeah, didn’t think so. It’s intellectually stupid. It’s okay to be honest, but at least be consistent with the meaning of words. Btw, Herod’s death in 4 BC isn’t set in stone. There’s proponents out there that believed he died around 2-1 BC, thanks to his Sons who didn’t claim Kingship until later, so 4 BC isn’t a fact, just a consensus among scholars.
@@clearskybluewaters they’re guesstimates. It’s called a consensus, most agreed upon time frame. The church fathers all imply 2-3 BC, modern scholars imply 4-6 BC (some even 1 BC). The point is: After 2000 years we have narrowed it down to a span of 5 years, which is accurate in of itself. The book gives you a historical time reference with the rulers. The problem is we have in between time gaps outside of the Bible that don’t give us absolutes, which us modern people like to have. Bonus: If you use the entirety of the NT, instead of just Luke and Matthew, Revelation implies an astrological date around ~Sept 11, 3 BC which also fits into the narrative requirements Lastly it’s BC for you 😂
@@niswr7319 We haven't narrowed it down to anything. We have no actual data whatsoever. There are two different dates given in the Gospels. Matthew dates the birth at 4-6 BCE. Luke has it at 6 CE. That's a ten year difference. Nobody in academia dates it to 2 BCE or 1 CE because there is no data to support that and those dates would contradict both Gospels. The truth is we havbe no idea when Jesus was born and neither did the authors of those Nativities. Luke's Gospels originally didn't even have a birth story. In the earliest version of Luke, Jesus just drops down from the sky right before his baptism. Luke's nativity is a later ecclesiastical redaction probably inserted to combat Marcionism (this puts canonical Luke-Acts into the mid 2nd Century).
@@neilschmid4991 In 1605 Laurentius Suslyga presented arguments that Jesus was born around 4 BC. In 1615 Kepler linked that with his observations of a nova which he thought might be the star of Bethlehem. It probably wasn't, but that isn't really the point. Kepler understood that Dionysius Exiguus may have made a mistake when he fixed the BC/AD date. So Kepler referred instead to "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" and linked the date to the common understanding of Jesus's birth prior to Suslyga's work. That way we can agree on what year it is even if we do differ on the precise year of Jesus's birth. However BCE/CE uses the same numbers as BC/AD because it is still based on Jesus. How this conspiracy theory started that it is a modern atheist plot is beyond me.
I consider the top 2 archaeological finds would be the Frankfurt Silver Inscription, and the Meggido Mosaic - which of course was discovered a number of years ago, but its significance is only now being realized.
I had the exact same thought! Just like the charred scroll was discovered many years ago but is only now being understood for its significance, these two items put this top 10 to shame. BC/AD...I won't play about the secular historical "re-imagining."
No matter what explanation is used, its B.C. and A.D. The other IS used to invalidate Christ! But, to make it better, I think of it as B.C.E.= Before Christ Existed, C.E.= Christ Exists. Its the same as saying Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas.
I suppose this was OK as a summary, but it was disappointing in the lack of detail. I would like to know more-if you had added 45 minutes to the total, you could have made this video so much informative.
You should watch ABR ( Archaeology for Biblical Research) on RUclips. They actually go into detail and have 100’s of videos out and explains it easily. First time and last time watching this guy.
Misleading, there isn’t a language called paleo-Hebrew it’s just Phoenician and people use location and context to differentiate a paleo-Hebrew script from a Phoenician one as both share an origin. These people were so close that it’d be hard to say they had a separate language, it’s more likely they had different regional accents.
I’m sorry, but I find it rather silly to be so concerned about whether BC or BCE, AD or CE is used. If you want to use BC you’re basically saying Jesus was born before 4BC or earlier.
Hey, if we're being forced to have to stomach BCE/CE let's change it from 'current' to 'CHIRST'! Before Christ Era, Christ Era. Let Academia choke that down. Isn't the Era we're still defining based on the Lord, or was omitting (or obfuscating) Him the point? And seriously, if obfuscating BC/AD in the date is solely for academia, apply it to the site name and remove the word 'Bible' so we know the focus is Archaeology and not Jesus. "King James Bible But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." I guess I never saw the 'academia exemption'. Unless the 'C' is defined current=coward interchangeably. Sometimes when people get initials in front of their name, it's at the expense of a spine. The condition unfortunately follows them after death when they have to account for themselves at the feet of the Lord God Almighty.😢 Rev 21:8 reveals cowards don't go to heaven- a scripture many have swept under the rug.
@@livingbygraceinthephilippi6574 it isn't for "Academia", and you are correct that the Common Era is still based on the birth of Jesus, who I believe was the Christ. In 1605 Laurentius Suslyga presented arguments that Jesus was born around 4 BC. In 1615 Johannes Kepler linked that with his observations of a recurring nova which he thought might be the star of Bethlehem. (It probably wasn't, but that isn't really the point). Kepler agreed that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake when he fixed the BC/AD date. So Kepler referred instead to "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" and linked the date to the common understanding of Jesus's birth prior to Suslyga's work. That way we can agree on what year it is even if we do differ on the precise year of Jesus's birth. However BCE/CE uses the same numbers as BC/AD because it is still based on Jesus. If I believe Jesus was the Christ why would I want to say that Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ? How this conspiracy theory started that it is a modern atheist plot is beyond me.
@@DarrenGedye The thought that there is a 4-year discrepancy in the date so we should push the name of Jesus to the side for 'accuracy's sake' and use 'current' in place is not a good response. We don't know when Jesus was born. Many scholars and theologians have deduced by many clues in the Gospel of Luke it was most likely in late June to early July is more accurate. Also, Christian holidays were overlaid on Pegan ones (specifically Christmas and Easter), so to suggest we push those days of celebration off the calendar for accuracy's sake' so we could reduce arguments with atheists, theologians, scholars or anyone would be equally ridiculous. Keeping it 'BC/AD' still has merit. What's someone's argument? "you're off by 4 years on the birth of Jesus". In that, they would still have to agree Jesus was born. Before Christ, Year of our Lord is not ambiguous and puts it clear the Lord is the focus and definition of the timestamp. BCE/CE pushes Jesus in a shadow. Only a rare few would wonder that defined the 'era'. On a secular site, I would chalk it up to ignorance (lack of knowledge) or indifference. On a 'Christain' site trying to put Jesus as the center, it's counterproductive.
@@livingbygraceinthephilippi6574 Yes BC/AD still has merit, I still use them in some situations, and if you want to keep using them then please feel free because I don't have any problem with that. My only problem is with the demonstrably false claim that BCE/CE is a modern woke atheist conspiracy worth unsubscribing from this channel over, or even worse being used as a shibboleth to determine the user's faith! It's true that BCE/CE doesn't contain the term Christ. I suspect that when Kepler used the term in 1615 CE it would never have crossed his mind that some people would one day become so ignorant that they wouldn't know what the numbers in their calendar referred to. Until this discussion I wouldn't have believed it either, or that a Christian would claim that AD stands for After Death! As the old Chinese curse has it, we live in interesting times!
The original Administrative Center of King Chezkiyahu (Hezekiah) was obviously destroyed during the Assyrian siege of the Holy City since this hill was outside the walls of the City.
Perhaps I am just ignorant, but I am not seeing how many of these connect with the Bible other than it is involving cultures mentioned in the Bible. If something was found providing the existence of someone or something only known through scripture, as has been done, it hi list would be sweet. But as it is it is cool history, I am just not seeing a clear biblical connection in these cases.
FYI - saying "CE" or "BCE" is a very bad thing because it's part of the ploy to control the language and remove christianity from any public talk. Note how it just appeared, the academics insisting on it without a hint of care for tradition and who it might offend so long as it didn't offend their particular "protected" group. Don't participate in this foolishness. While it might seem like a small thing, that's exactly what you're supposed to think. Nobody ever ponders how an inch is a small thing, but they add up to miles.
@@threeriversforge1997 As I've pointed out in another comment, BCE/CE hasn't "just appeared." Kepler believed that Jesus was born four years earlier than commonly thought, and that anno Domini was a misnomer so in 1615 he used the Latin "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" to refer to the *common* understanding of Christ's birth (as opposed to whenever it actually was). So we can call this year 2024 years since the common understanding at that time of Christ's birth, and not get bogged down in quibbling over exactly when it might have been. If it were really an attempt to remove Christ from the dating system why would they keep the year number exactly the same? Whether you call it AD 2024 or 2024 CE, it still raises the question "2024 years since what?" Christ is still the dividing line.
@@DarrenGedye While that might be the case "technically", we have to be watchful for the little things. From a psychological standpoint, what you bring up (the "since what" question), is part of the second order. In other words, someone has to go one more step to get there. In media, it's referred to as "above the fold" because they long realized that people only get the messaging that is above the fold far more often than not. Headlines matter for this very reason. We can all say that Christ hasn't been "removed" because we are aware of the technical details. However, the average person never gets to that second stage. Most of them don't even know what AD or BC stood for. Who did know, though, were the academics who pushed to change things. That's where the worry comes from because those people, on average, I'd be willing to bet are not friendly towards christianity and their motivations were not good. More to the point, who amongst us was asked? When was the vote taken? I never got to have any say in the matter even though this is something that is part of my tradition and culture. Did you get any say? The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. Even if there was no ill intent behind the decision to change the thing, I can't help but notice it and wonder why this was thought to be such an important thing to do. Of all the changes to tradition people could have fought for.... they picked the one that removed Christ's name from the equation? That' a curious thing, and one I'll never believe was grounded in good wishes.
Before common era and common era. Has no reference to Christ. Unlike the traditional Before Christ BC And Anno domini AD meaning year of our Lord. @@DarrenGedye
@@threeriversforge1997 I wouldn't have believed you that some people don't know what BC/AD stands for if I hadn't witnessed exactly that elsewhere in this discussion! I'm a teacher so I'm shocked and appalled, but I admit I was wrong, and in that case you may well be correct about the significance of the BCE/CE split being lost. Actually on reflection, the fact that so many people took offence at the video's use of BCE/CE should show me that you are correct, and that understanding is being lost. At first I thought it was just one ignorant person and I tried to help, but then there was another, and another... and this is a channel about Biblical Archaeology! If there is that level of ignorance here then what must it be like in the general population! However in that case I'm not sure that keeping BC/AD will be any help, since some people apparently don't know what they mean either! That's a depressing realisation to come to. Leaving that aside, you asked about choices, and yes I believe that I do get to choose: I can say that I think Christ may have been born 4 years Before Christ, or I can say that I think Christ may have been born 4 years before the Common understanding of when he was born in the Era when the calendar was changed to celebrate the birth of my lord and saviour. I actually use both depending on my situation. I grew up an atheist using BC/AD, but after becoming a Christian and learning more about his birth I started using BCE/CE when I was around people who I presumed also cared about when Jesus was born. The further into my past my atheism recedes, the more I find myself using BCE/CE. However sometimes when I'm not thinking about God the old BC/AD slips out without my really thinking about it. I can't singlehandedly stop the western world slipping into stupidity, but I can choose whether or not I join them! So my takeaway from this whole experience is that I'm going to make an effort to be more consistent in my use of BCE/CE, and if other people can't be bothered to find out what those terms mean then sadly that is their choice. I suppose I'll get used to people not understanding, but since this was the first time it has happened to me it came as a bit of a shock. Sorry for the very long posting, but it's helped me process this experience. Shalom.
@@DarrenGedye I was never an atheist, but I am fairly agnostic. Certainly wouldn't call myself a christian. That said, I do like to study things, people included, and watch for the patterns. As a wise man once said, history might not repeat.... but it sure does rhyme. The BC/AD usage never bothered me. It's what we've done all our lives and was a rather nice bit of tradition. Where it came from wasn't really important until I noticed academics demanding that it be changed to something new. This BCE/CE jive doesn't sit right with me because it is actually working to remove Chris in every way possible. When reading excerpts from those who support it, the talk is always about being more inclusive and other such buzzwords. The worry's always about possibly offending yet another ephemeral 'someone'. For someone on the outside looking in, it's rather disconcerting to see christians give up yet another thing. Small bricks build big walls, yet no single brick seems at all consequential. I caution against the BCE/CE usage because it is yet another brick being stacked up. As a christian, why wouldn't you want to say, "Anno Domini"? Aside from simply being a cool term, it's a constant reference to Jesus. Whether it's accurate in some historical sense isn't really relevant, in my opinion, because the idea is to simply serve as a reminder to all that time is split by this very significant event - Before Christ and After Christ. There's power in that, just like there's power in stripping it away. When I look at the state of what was once Chistendom today, it's appalling to see how far it has fallen... and interesting to see how the fall didn't come in one great catastrophe, but by tiny little steps. One seemingly inconsequential step at a time, and often steps wholly embraced by christians. Keeping BC/AD might not help, as you note, but it certainly won't hurt. Switching it out for BCE/CE, however, does hurt because it's one more way of removing Christ from the equation. Instead of giving ground, you should be fighting to hold the line or retake territory already lost. Being a christian, I would expect you to believe in the dark forces working to twist and abuse the proper order of things. Might I suggest that the rationalization behind switching to BCE/CE is a tactic of those forces? Seems weird, maybe, but there's truth to the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can rationalize things all day long, and often support the idea with all manner of arguments that speak of truth, justice, fairness, righteousness, and the like. That doesn't mean it's a good thing in the long-term, just that it seems good in the moment. As I read your response, it seems that you're doing just that - justifying the use of the new term and how the old term isn't right and proper. I have to admit that it's a weird thing. The Jews will fight to support and defend their jewish ways. The muslims will fight to support and defend their muslim ways. But christians? They will bend the knee in a skinny minute, always fearful of offending outsiders or being thought mean, when they should be standing proud, ready to fight for their faith even in the smallest ways. The use of BC/AD should be insisted on as the norm simply because it keeps Christ right there for all to see. Sure, not everyone will know what that means or understand the significance, but we can say that about a lot of things. Burying the connection to Christ even deeper, "Below the Fold" as it were, helps no one and diminishes those who believe in him. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen this pattern repeat all of my life. It's always the little things, small steps, and it's not turning out so well.
I was going to share this video to a Christian group but once you used BCE and CE you lost me. For a professor for Bible and Archeology you sure don't act like it.
Really disappointed that you have succumbed to the new woke world system. BC and AD is the only way I want time recognised. Common Era is marked by the birth of Jesus, whether they like the word of not. Get it together!
It's unfortunate that a channel with the word Bible in its name needs to hear this but please use the correct terminology when referencing dates. Before Christ = BC and After Death = AD. The change to Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) is one of the most absurd attempts to eliminate Jesus Christ from our lives and from the record. If the reason the new timeline identifiers were implemented was genuinely because the science community wanted to establish a standardized dating independent from the Christian faith, then they wouldn't have continued to break the timeline into two periods before and after. By maintaining this distinction, they are, in fact, also recognizing Jesus Christ's birth and his death. If Jesus Christ did not live, and more importantly, if He did not rise again, there would be nothing to warrant restarting the calendar year to 0001. I do not know offhand what the current year would be, but I do know the scientific community agrees it is the year of Our Lord, 2024. Why they are using the calendar of our Lord but are using different labels defies logic.
@@sandilou2U It's unfortunate that this needs explaining to people who follow a channel with the word Bible in its name, but as you yourself pointed out, if this were really some atheist conspiracy they would hardly keep the birth of Jesus as the dividing line! Since you don't even know what AD means ( its NOT death!) that seems to me a pretty strong argument for changing it from Latin to something easier to understand! The BIRTH of Jesus was, and still is, the dividing line. However since the exact date of Jesus's birth is debated we base our calendar on the Common understanding of when Jesus was born. That way we won't have to change our calendar if it turns out Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE (ie 4 years before when they used to commonly think he was born when they changed the calendar).
@@kathrynquinn3255 Common to the *common* understanding of Christ's birth in AD1615 or 1615CE so we can tell the date without having to debate exactly when we believe Jesus was born. Jesus is still the dividing line. It astonishes me that so few people seem to know this.
@@lindakynokephalos1136 This year is 2024 CE, ie 2024 years since the common understanding of Jesus's birth. If it turns out that Jesus was actually born 4 years earlier in 4BCE then this year is probably AD2028. If he was born in 2 BCE then this year is probably AD2026. Doesn't that seem a little confusing to you? That's why the idea of BCE/CE started in 1615 CE: we can admit that actually they might have got the birth of Jesus off by a a couple of years without having to change the calendar.
@@DarrenGedyeActually not.The idea of BCE and CE started when atheist started to take Jesus out from counting the time before Him and after Him. BC means before Christ, but BCE means before common era which does not make sence. AD means Anno Domini, the year of the Lord, but CE means common era, which again does not make sence. BCE and CE are modern atheistic innovations of counting periods of time and should not be used by Christians and even not by Jews or those who believe in God. I have a degree in archaeology and history and have never heard the people in the past have used these modern terms. It was always BC and AD untill recently and it should stay like that.
I’m sorry guy, but it’s hard to give you credibility when you are using BCE/CE (atheist terms for time periods). I boycott programs that use those terms because it’s just one More Way,. Society is trying to push Christ out of our culture. The correct terms for time periods is BC/AD.
10. A firm possibility of a definite maybe. 9. Barbequed scroll 8. Mirror, mirror on the wall. 7. Bronze Agers worshipped deities. 6. Rome occupied Palestine. 5. Ramses the Great enshrined on a sword. 4. Ramses enshrined in stone. They evidently liked him. 3. Stone seal with occult figures 2. Not the Titanic. 1. Jar handles!!!! _Exactly ZERO "biblical" archaeological finds._ 3.
Actually Azekah is a great find. Egyptian and Canaanite artifacts dating to the 16th to 12th century. Shows the Egyptians maintained an admirative center or a small fortress there. Confirming Egypt ruled Canaan from the 16th to the 12th century.
@@jenna2431 Biblical archaeology is the field that studies that cultural milieu of the Biblical Authors, of which Rome, Rameses, and Phoenicia are definitely a part. If there would have been some massive new discovery of an ancient Bible manuscript, then that would have definitely been at the top of the list, but nothing like that has happened in the past year
I love this stuff .. as a believer I used to think that academics twisted archeological findings like blind puppets whose strings were in Satan’s hands. Turns out I was the muppet all along 😅. Of course missing from the top 10 list is a scrunched up piece of metal with creases & scratches that some conservative scholar can claim are ancient inscription saying “shiny Moses woz ‘ere”
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do we use BCE/CE? Check out our video "Why BCE/CE is Better than BC/AD (Even for Christians)" ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.htmlsi=GMh9pkdrOeXDrVFf
Nope. Not buying it.
Stop using BCE and CE!!!!
Don't be ashamed of your Lord!
That drives me crazy..BC and AD served us well..
Any time I see that other crap it makes me think the presenter is anti Christian..
There is simply no need to re-invent
Dump the CE/BCE CRAP! The only reason it exists is to eliminate Christ's title from the year designation. It is dishonest, degenerate and evil.
I wonder how many people watched that video and were satisfied with the reason you use those terms.
As a follower of the way, I love how archeology is bringing the bible to life historically
The process of virtually unwrapping the scrolls is an amazing feat of modern mankind. ❤
Read if you haven't already Daniel 12:4
Good stuff Dr. Bob. A nice brief summary of the most important finds this year. The amount of work people put into these finds is amazing and I think it escapes the attention of most people.
Thank you so much. I work with a great team, including Jordan Jones, who produces these videos, and Mary Kate Lichty, who wrote the draft for this video. It's important to me that students are a learning how to work with this material-both the archaeological and biblical data, and how to produce this public-facing content.
Thanks!
Great video! 😊
Fascinating! Thank you.
Please use BC and AD
Again, I use both BC/AD and BCE/CE. I explain why scholars (both confessional and non-confessional scholars) use BCE/CE in the following two videos: ruclips.net/video/Ll-qe-zugu8/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.html. It has to do with historical accuracy and problems with the dating of the birth of Jesus than it does with trying to "eliminate" Jesus from the conversation. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC, then it means Jesus was born at least 4 BC. That is, Jesus was born 4 years "before Christ." So instead of redating everything, scholars just say "common era" and continue to base everything on the traditional dating (which is tied to the life of Jesus), but don't have to worry about the awkward problem of Jesus being born at least 4 years "before Christ."
@@bibleandarch all I hear is compromise...👎
@@colinodonnell8975Grow up!
@@bibleandarchbut they still have the issue of the dating system being several years off (most scholars say 2-6 years). It’s still a compromise of principle for what one stands for and what the other modern terminology stands for.
In Christ,
Mikey
@@bibleandarchbro just say AD and BC, we do not care about the 4 discrepancy
Thank you for sharing with us!
The truth remains, no matter what the world labels the time period...BCE&CE can't conceal what is the same thing as BC&AD... Dating because of the Lord's arrival in the flesh, and His Resurrection from the dead... Can't be hidden from the inquiring minds...He Lives and, His Word will be fulfilled... Blessed be our Lord and Savior ✝️ Jesus Christ.... Amen and Amen 🙏🌹🕊️
I love that.
It's CE, get used to it. The bible is proven fairytales.
Amen
Again, I use both BC/AD and BCE/CE. I explain why scholars (both confessional and non-confessional scholars) use BCE/CE in the following two videos: ruclips.net/video/Ll-qe-zugu8/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/axbaKTNr80w/видео.html. It has to do with historical accuracy and problems with the dating of the birth of Jesus than it does with trying to "eliminate" Jesus from the conversation. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC, then it means Jesus was born at least 4 BC. That is, Jesus was born 4 years "before Christ." So instead of redating everything, scholars just say "common era" and continue to base everything on the traditional dating (which is tied to the life of Jesus), but don't have to worry about the awkward problem of Jesus being born at least 4 years "before Christ."
You clowns don't know what year Jesus was born.
I am a believer in JESUS and like your efforts to bring to light the relevant archelogical findings.
wow awesome thanks
Fascinating!
Amazing 😮
Before Christ Entered and Christ Eternal! No matter what labels are used, turn it to glorify God! The devil can't steal my joy!🫡✝️🙌
Or: Before Christ Era and Christ Era
Why do you use the term B.c.e if we all know the correct term is B.C
Please see above.
Pretty cool Dr Cargill. Glad to find you online after BAR!
CE? How about BC?
Very good. Two notes, Azekah started in 2012 including with the host of this program, and to heighten the significance of the deep sea find, it changes our understanding of ancient nautical abilities, not just port hopping but crossing the deep sea Ther are other wrecks to come, for sure. This was only discovered thanks to the tremendous investment in deep sea drilling in technological equipment and their willingness to advance archaeology.
Avitz and Govrin published an article in Maarav 28.1-2 that disagrees with some of Lipschits et. al’s claims. The lmlk stamps being Neo-Assyrian would be significant, but I think there should be caution with that claim.
Why do you use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD? It is very irritating.
Well, maybe because it's archeology terminology
@@juliebollman3944Lol, no it’s not. It’s terminology of people trying to avoid the colossal impact of Christ on history.
Will you make a video about the different hominin, ancient human bones found?
THANKYOU
Very nice video. Since you're asking, the list could have been trimmed a bit: I think it may have been Mark S. Smith who correctly said "anything CE is just journalism" 😊
I agree. It's like we are conforming to the lost and unregenerate still alienated people outside of God and Christ!
I agree with other viewers anyone who says BCE or CE doesn’t have my support anymore.
Choose your battles
Why is Christ out of your date’s? Why not use BC/AD?😮
As a Christian channel will you please stop using the secular terms BCE & CE and use the proper terms BC and AD? It's very annoying and a real turn off. In fact if I hear it a third time I switch off the video!
@@JohnDWalsh-y7c why do you think BCE/CE are secular? Do you have any evidence to support this notion? It's very annoying and a real turn off. Do you know what AD means?
Amen!!!
@DarrenGedye BCE (before common era) CE (common era) started 1700. secular, because many who used it , didn't accept Christ as their Lord . AD in Latin (year of our Lord). BC ( Before Christ).
@@carmenfolch9636 BCE/CE was developed by Christians for Christians in 1615. Sure, many who use it don't accept that Jesus was the Christ, but many who use BC/AD don't accept that either. It seems to me that saying Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ has the bigger problem. However if people prefer BC/AD I don't have a problem with them using it. I am however disappointed by those who abuse the video maker because of their own ignorance.
These archeologists are as Christian as Jews!
Very interesting
Why are you using BCE & CE?
Because it is the academically correct nomenclature to use. Pure and simple. It is not an academic's job to decide who the Messiah is or who the Lord is. Jewish scholars have used BCE/CE for hundreds of years. It's not new.
Just to be clear "BC" means "Before Christ" "Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah." It's not a name. For Jews, it is still BC.
AD stands for "Anno Domini" which means "in the year ("anno") of the Lord. "Domini").
An academic cannot impose religious beliefs onto data.
It's also necessarily historically inaccurate because if Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he could not have been born later than 4 BCE because that is when Herod died.
@@Ken_Scalettait’s disingenuous to time to say CE and BCE. What is considered the common era? And what’s considered before a common era?
What makes the common era so common? Are we closer/ have more in common to the beginning of the common era than 1000 BCE. Yeah, didn’t think so.
It’s intellectually stupid. It’s okay to be honest, but at least be consistent with the meaning of words. Btw, Herod’s death in 4 BC isn’t set in stone. There’s proponents out there that believed he died around 2-1 BC, thanks to his Sons who didn’t claim Kingship until later, so 4 BC isn’t a fact, just a consensus among scholars.
@@niswr7319 NT seems to imply 4-6BCE or something lol
@@clearskybluewaters they’re guesstimates. It’s called a consensus, most agreed upon time frame. The church fathers all imply 2-3 BC, modern scholars imply 4-6 BC (some even 1 BC). The point is: After 2000 years we have narrowed it down to a span of 5 years, which is accurate in of itself. The book gives you a historical time reference with the rulers. The problem is we have in between time gaps outside of the Bible that don’t give us absolutes, which us modern people like to have.
Bonus: If you use the entirety of the NT, instead of just Luke and Matthew, Revelation implies an astrological date around ~Sept 11, 3 BC which also fits into the narrative requirements
Lastly it’s BC for you 😂
@@niswr7319 We haven't narrowed it down to anything. We have no actual data whatsoever. There are two different dates given in the Gospels. Matthew dates the birth at 4-6 BCE. Luke has it at 6 CE. That's a ten year difference. Nobody in academia dates it to 2 BCE or 1 CE because there is no data to support that and those dates would contradict both Gospels. The truth is we havbe no idea when Jesus was born and neither did the authors of those Nativities. Luke's Gospels originally didn't even have a birth story. In the earliest version of Luke, Jesus just drops down from the sky right before his baptism. Luke's nativity is a later ecclesiastical redaction probably inserted to combat Marcionism (this puts canonical Luke-Acts into the mid 2nd Century).
A shame all of the comments are people complaining about common academic terms.
Fantastic video professor, hope to see more from you in 2025!
Didn't realize unrolling a scroll was such a Herculanem task...
Well done! Best one I've heard in a while. Kudos
😂
You talk about "biblical archeology" but then deny the Bible and Christianity by using the false BCE/CE
@@neilschmid4991 In 1605 Laurentius Suslyga presented arguments that Jesus was born around 4 BC. In 1615 Kepler linked that with his observations of a nova which he thought might be the star of Bethlehem. It probably wasn't, but that isn't really the point. Kepler understood that Dionysius Exiguus may have made a mistake when he fixed the BC/AD date. So Kepler referred instead to "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" and linked the date to the common understanding of Jesus's birth prior to Suslyga's work. That way we can agree on what year it is even if we do differ on the precise year of Jesus's birth. However BCE/CE uses the same numbers as BC/AD because it is still based on Jesus. How this conspiracy theory started that it is a modern atheist plot is beyond me.
Great job each and every find is a blessing to the world family of believers!!
I consider the top 2 archaeological finds would be the Frankfurt Silver Inscription, and the Meggido Mosaic - which of course was discovered a number of years ago, but its significance is only now being realized.
I think the Meghido mosaic was discovered in 2005 by Dr Yotam Tepper. It's gotten a lot of interest this past year, though.
I had the exact same thought! Just like the charred scroll was discovered many years ago but is only now being understood for its significance, these two items put this top 10 to shame. BC/AD...I won't play about the secular historical "re-imagining."
Thanks for the presentation, although it seems to me Number 2 should have been Number 1.
No matter what explanation is used, its B.C. and A.D. The other IS used to invalidate Christ! But, to make it better, I think of it as B.C.E.= Before Christ Existed, C.E.= Christ Exists. Its the same as saying Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas.
This invokes an error, as Christ has always existed.
How about:
BCE = Before Christ Entered
CE = Christ Entered
?
@theelizabethan1 I'll take it 👍
Dude... Why are you referencing C.E. ???
What's your take on the Mt. Ebal curse tablet claims?
I quit watching and unsubscribed after the second time you said "CE." If you want to be on our team, you must stop using the atheist's terminology.
It's not "atheist". It was used in 1615 by Johannes Kepler who was a Christian.
I mean he is an atheist and if hes like an agnostic or deist hes definitely not christian. you havent watched any of his videos lol
Not all Monotheists who even have a relationship with Israel's G-d are Christians.
@@DarrenGedye And who uses it today? For what purpose? Exactly.
@@clearskybluewaters Apparently not.
I suppose this was OK as a summary, but it was disappointing in the lack of detail. I would like to know more-if you had added 45 minutes to the total, you could have made this video so much informative.
You should watch ABR ( Archaeology for Biblical Research) on RUclips.
They actually go into detail and have 100’s of videos out and explains it easily. First time and last time watching this guy.
Dig it 😎
BEFORE CHRIST
AFTER CHRIST
* AD. After Death
@@lisamelander3262 Actually, AD stands for anno domini, the latin for year of our Lord. I mean, 1 to about 33 AD is before Jesus died.
Arguably All of The Above Really.
Agree ! CE and BCE are ridiculous and if you want our viewership then stop the bull jive.
Misleading, there isn’t a language called paleo-Hebrew it’s just Phoenician and people use location and context to differentiate a paleo-Hebrew script from a Phoenician one as both share an origin. These people were so close that it’d be hard to say they had a separate language, it’s more likely they had different regional accents.
I’m sorry, but I find it rather silly to be so concerned about whether BC or BCE, AD or CE is used. If you want to use BC you’re basically saying Jesus was born before 4BC or earlier.
What about the temple that says “Jesus is God?” Is that older than 2024?
Hey, if we're being forced to have to stomach BCE/CE let's change it from 'current' to 'CHIRST'! Before Christ Era, Christ Era. Let Academia choke that down. Isn't the Era we're still defining based on the Lord, or was omitting (or obfuscating) Him the point? And seriously, if obfuscating BC/AD in the date is solely for academia, apply it to the site name and remove the word 'Bible' so we know the focus is Archaeology and not Jesus. "King James Bible
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." I guess I never saw the 'academia exemption'. Unless the 'C' is defined current=coward interchangeably. Sometimes when people get initials in front of their name, it's at the expense of a spine. The condition unfortunately follows them after death when they have to account for themselves at the feet of the Lord God Almighty.😢 Rev 21:8 reveals cowards don't go to heaven- a scripture many have swept under the rug.
@@livingbygraceinthephilippi6574 it isn't for "Academia", and you are correct that the Common Era is still based on the birth of Jesus, who I believe was the Christ. In 1605 Laurentius Suslyga presented arguments that Jesus was born around 4 BC. In 1615 Johannes Kepler linked that with his observations of a recurring nova which he thought might be the star of Bethlehem. (It probably wasn't, but that isn't really the point). Kepler agreed that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake when he fixed the BC/AD date. So Kepler referred instead to "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" and linked the date to the common understanding of Jesus's birth prior to Suslyga's work. That way we can agree on what year it is even if we do differ on the precise year of Jesus's birth. However BCE/CE uses the same numbers as BC/AD because it is still based on Jesus. If I believe Jesus was the Christ why would I want to say that Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ? How this conspiracy theory started that it is a modern atheist plot is beyond me.
@@DarrenGedye The thought that there is a 4-year discrepancy in the date so we should push the name of Jesus to the side for 'accuracy's sake' and use 'current' in place is not a good response. We don't know when Jesus was born. Many scholars and theologians have deduced by many clues in the Gospel of Luke it was most likely in late June to early July is more accurate. Also, Christian holidays were overlaid on Pegan ones (specifically Christmas and Easter), so to suggest we push those days of celebration off the calendar for accuracy's sake' so we could reduce arguments with atheists, theologians, scholars or anyone would be equally ridiculous. Keeping it 'BC/AD' still has merit. What's someone's argument? "you're off by 4 years on the birth of Jesus". In that, they would still have to agree Jesus was born. Before Christ, Year of our Lord is not ambiguous and puts it clear the Lord is the focus and definition of the timestamp. BCE/CE pushes Jesus in a shadow. Only a rare few would wonder that defined the 'era'. On a secular site, I would chalk it up to ignorance (lack of knowledge) or indifference. On a 'Christain' site trying to put Jesus as the center, it's counterproductive.
@@livingbygraceinthephilippi6574 Yes BC/AD still has merit, I still use them in some situations, and if you want to keep using them then please feel free because I don't have any problem with that. My only problem is with the demonstrably false claim that BCE/CE is a modern woke atheist conspiracy worth unsubscribing from this channel over, or even worse being used as a shibboleth to determine the user's faith! It's true that BCE/CE doesn't contain the term Christ. I suspect that when Kepler used the term in 1615 CE it would never have crossed his mind that some people would one day become so ignorant that they wouldn't know what the numbers in their calendar referred to. Until this discussion I wouldn't have believed it either, or that a Christian would claim that AD stands for After Death! As the old Chinese curse has it, we live in interesting times!
Why just jar handles....?
New book RE: Reason for and meaning of Christmas:
“Promise and Hope: Good News of God’s Anointed One” (2024)
Believe, act, share
The original Administrative Center of King Chezkiyahu (Hezekiah) was obviously destroyed during the Assyrian siege of the Holy City since this hill was outside the walls of the City.
I was just about to post the same thing. Just tell me you’re not a Christian without saying I’m not a Christian.
Perhaps I am just ignorant, but I am not seeing how many of these connect with the Bible other than it is involving cultures mentioned in the Bible. If something was found providing the existence of someone or something only known through scripture, as has been done, it hi list would be sweet. But as it is it is cool history, I am just not seeing a clear biblical connection in these cases.
FYI - saying "CE" or "BCE" is a very bad thing because it's part of the ploy to control the language and remove christianity from any public talk. Note how it just appeared, the academics insisting on it without a hint of care for tradition and who it might offend so long as it didn't offend their particular "protected" group. Don't participate in this foolishness. While it might seem like a small thing, that's exactly what you're supposed to think. Nobody ever ponders how an inch is a small thing, but they add up to miles.
@@threeriversforge1997 As I've pointed out in another comment, BCE/CE hasn't "just appeared." Kepler believed that Jesus was born four years earlier than commonly thought, and that anno Domini was a misnomer so in 1615 he used the Latin "annus aerae nostrae vulgaris" to refer to the *common* understanding of Christ's birth (as opposed to whenever it actually was). So we can call this year 2024 years since the common understanding at that time of Christ's birth, and not get bogged down in quibbling over exactly when it might have been.
If it were really an attempt to remove Christ from the dating system why would they keep the year number exactly the same? Whether you call it AD 2024 or 2024 CE, it still raises the question "2024 years since what?" Christ is still the dividing line.
@@DarrenGedye While that might be the case "technically", we have to be watchful for the little things. From a psychological standpoint, what you bring up (the "since what" question), is part of the second order. In other words, someone has to go one more step to get there.
In media, it's referred to as "above the fold" because they long realized that people only get the messaging that is above the fold far more often than not. Headlines matter for this very reason.
We can all say that Christ hasn't been "removed" because we are aware of the technical details. However, the average person never gets to that second stage. Most of them don't even know what AD or BC stood for.
Who did know, though, were the academics who pushed to change things. That's where the worry comes from because those people, on average, I'd be willing to bet are not friendly towards christianity and their motivations were not good.
More to the point, who amongst us was asked? When was the vote taken? I never got to have any say in the matter even though this is something that is part of my tradition and culture. Did you get any say?
The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. Even if there was no ill intent behind the decision to change the thing, I can't help but notice it and wonder why this was thought to be such an important thing to do. Of all the changes to tradition people could have fought for.... they picked the one that removed Christ's name from the equation? That' a curious thing, and one I'll never believe was grounded in good wishes.
Before common era and common era. Has no reference to Christ. Unlike the traditional Before Christ BC And Anno domini AD meaning year of our Lord. @@DarrenGedye
@@threeriversforge1997 I wouldn't have believed you that some people don't know what BC/AD stands for if I hadn't witnessed exactly that elsewhere in this discussion! I'm a teacher so I'm shocked and appalled, but I admit I was wrong, and in that case you may well be correct about the significance of the BCE/CE split being lost. Actually on reflection, the fact that so many people took offence at the video's use of BCE/CE should show me that you are correct, and that understanding is being lost. At first I thought it was just one ignorant person and I tried to help, but then there was another, and another... and this is a channel about Biblical Archaeology! If there is that level of ignorance here then what must it be like in the general population! However in that case I'm not sure that keeping BC/AD will be any help, since some people apparently don't know what they mean either! That's a depressing realisation to come to.
Leaving that aside, you asked about choices, and yes I believe that I do get to choose: I can say that I think Christ may have been born 4 years Before Christ, or I can say that I think Christ may have been born 4 years before the Common understanding of when he was born in the Era when the calendar was changed to celebrate the birth of my lord and saviour. I actually use both depending on my situation. I grew up an atheist using BC/AD, but after becoming a Christian and learning more about his birth I started using BCE/CE when I was around people who I presumed also cared about when Jesus was born. The further into my past my atheism recedes, the more I find myself using BCE/CE. However sometimes when I'm not thinking about God the old BC/AD slips out without my really thinking about it.
I can't singlehandedly stop the western world slipping into stupidity, but I can choose whether or not I join them! So my takeaway from this whole experience is that I'm going to make an effort to be more consistent in my use of BCE/CE, and if other people can't be bothered to find out what those terms mean then sadly that is their choice. I suppose I'll get used to people not understanding, but since this was the first time it has happened to me it came as a bit of a shock. Sorry for the very long posting, but it's helped me process this experience. Shalom.
@@DarrenGedye I was never an atheist, but I am fairly agnostic. Certainly wouldn't call myself a christian. That said, I do like to study things, people included, and watch for the patterns. As a wise man once said, history might not repeat.... but it sure does rhyme.
The BC/AD usage never bothered me. It's what we've done all our lives and was a rather nice bit of tradition. Where it came from wasn't really important until I noticed academics demanding that it be changed to something new. This BCE/CE jive doesn't sit right with me because it is actually working to remove Chris in every way possible. When reading excerpts from those who support it, the talk is always about being more inclusive and other such buzzwords. The worry's always about possibly offending yet another ephemeral 'someone'.
For someone on the outside looking in, it's rather disconcerting to see christians give up yet another thing. Small bricks build big walls, yet no single brick seems at all consequential. I caution against the BCE/CE usage because it is yet another brick being stacked up.
As a christian, why wouldn't you want to say, "Anno Domini"? Aside from simply being a cool term, it's a constant reference to Jesus. Whether it's accurate in some historical sense isn't really relevant, in my opinion, because the idea is to simply serve as a reminder to all that time is split by this very significant event - Before Christ and After Christ. There's power in that, just like there's power in stripping it away.
When I look at the state of what was once Chistendom today, it's appalling to see how far it has fallen... and interesting to see how the fall didn't come in one great catastrophe, but by tiny little steps. One seemingly inconsequential step at a time, and often steps wholly embraced by christians.
Keeping BC/AD might not help, as you note, but it certainly won't hurt. Switching it out for BCE/CE, however, does hurt because it's one more way of removing Christ from the equation. Instead of giving ground, you should be fighting to hold the line or retake territory already lost.
Being a christian, I would expect you to believe in the dark forces working to twist and abuse the proper order of things. Might I suggest that the rationalization behind switching to BCE/CE is a tactic of those forces? Seems weird, maybe, but there's truth to the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can rationalize things all day long, and often support the idea with all manner of arguments that speak of truth, justice, fairness, righteousness, and the like. That doesn't mean it's a good thing in the long-term, just that it seems good in the moment. As I read your response, it seems that you're doing just that - justifying the use of the new term and how the old term isn't right and proper.
I have to admit that it's a weird thing. The Jews will fight to support and defend their jewish ways. The muslims will fight to support and defend their muslim ways. But christians? They will bend the knee in a skinny minute, always fearful of offending outsiders or being thought mean, when they should be standing proud, ready to fight for their faith even in the smallest ways. The use of BC/AD should be insisted on as the norm simply because it keeps Christ right there for all to see.
Sure, not everyone will know what that means or understand the significance, but we can say that about a lot of things. Burying the connection to Christ even deeper, "Below the Fold" as it were, helps no one and diminishes those who believe in him. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen this pattern repeat all of my life. It's always the little things, small steps, and it's not turning out so well.
....GREAT CONTENT....MORE ABOUT SHILOH FINDS.....
The Mediggo mosaic should have been #1
Is using "CE" making you sound intelligent to the heathens. AD mate!!
and not a single discovery shows that their imaginary friend exists.
Yeah me too tired of hearing all this CE and BCE
@@scottbenton9669 it started in AD1615, so if you have been around since then I can totally understand why you would be feeling tired.
Your tied of people who don't accept jesus as the lord. That shows how intolerant you are to those who are not Christian.
I was going to share this video to a Christian group but once you used BCE and CE you lost me. For a professor for Bible and Archeology you sure don't act like it.
How are these finds related with the bible? They’re just ancient finds the guy himself never mentions the bible at all?
Really disappointed that you have succumbed to the new woke world system. BC and AD is the only way I want time recognised. Common Era is marked by the birth of Jesus, whether they like the word of not. Get it together!
King Darius over threw the Egyptians in his second reign which the bible speaks about around 1101BC
Bro… BC and AD what are you doing playing the enemies word games????
Why in the world did you omit BETHSAIDA? Your opinion is not shared by all of us!
Why “CE” !? Don’t you believe in Christ?
What is ce , woke bs
It's unfortunate that a channel with the word Bible in its name needs to hear this but please use the correct terminology when referencing dates. Before Christ = BC and After Death = AD. The change to Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) is one of the most absurd attempts to eliminate Jesus Christ from our lives and from the record. If the reason the new timeline identifiers were implemented was genuinely because the science community wanted to establish a standardized dating independent from the Christian faith, then they wouldn't have continued to break the timeline into two periods before and after. By maintaining this distinction, they are, in fact, also recognizing Jesus Christ's birth and his death. If Jesus Christ did not live, and more importantly, if He did not rise again, there would be nothing to warrant restarting the calendar year to 0001. I do not know offhand what the current year would be, but I do know the scientific community agrees it is the year of Our Lord, 2024. Why they are using the calendar of our Lord but are using different labels defies logic.
AD = Anno Domini, not After Death
@@sandilou2U It's unfortunate that this needs explaining to people who follow a channel with the word Bible in its name, but as you yourself pointed out, if this were really some atheist conspiracy they would hardly keep the birth of Jesus as the dividing line!
Since you don't even know what AD means ( its NOT death!) that seems to me a pretty strong argument for changing it from Latin to something easier to understand! The BIRTH of Jesus was, and still is, the dividing line. However since the exact date of Jesus's birth is debated we base our calendar on the Common understanding of when Jesus was born. That way we won't have to change our calendar if it turns out Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE (ie 4 years before when they used to commonly think he was born when they changed the calendar).
Stopped the video as soon as I heard him say “CE.”
Common Era. COMMON TO WHAT?
Lol it makes no sense
@@kathrynquinn3255 Common to the *common* understanding of Christ's birth in AD1615 or 1615CE so we can tell the date without having to debate exactly when we believe Jesus was born. Jesus is still the dividing line. It astonishes me that so few people seem to know this.
... one more CE???? Good bye******.
It is not BCE and CE. but BC and AD
@@lindakynokephalos1136 This year is 2024 CE, ie 2024 years since the common understanding of Jesus's birth. If it turns out that Jesus was actually born 4 years earlier in 4BCE then this year is probably AD2028. If he was born in 2 BCE then this year is probably AD2026. Doesn't that seem a little confusing to you? That's why the idea of BCE/CE started in 1615 CE: we can admit that actually they might have got the birth of Jesus off by a a couple of years without having to change the calendar.
@@DarrenGedyeActually not.The idea of BCE and CE started when atheist started to take Jesus out from counting the time before Him and after Him. BC means before Christ, but BCE means before common era which does not make sence. AD means Anno Domini, the year of the Lord, but CE means common era, which again does not make sence. BCE and CE are modern atheistic innovations of counting periods of time and should not be used by Christians and even not by Jews or those who believe in God. I have a degree in archaeology and history and have never heard the people in the past have used these modern terms. It was always BC and AD untill recently and it should stay like that.
How on earth can you call a Roman coin "biblical?" What does the bible have to do with it? Crazy Christian.
I’m sorry guy, but it’s hard to give you credibility when you are using BCE/CE (atheist terms for time periods). I boycott programs that use those terms because it’s just one More Way,. Society is trying to push Christ out of our culture.
The correct terms for time periods is BC/AD.
So I watched about 3 and realized none of this was biblical. Coins?? Thats not biblical.
10. A firm possibility of a definite maybe.
9. Barbequed scroll
8. Mirror, mirror on the wall.
7. Bronze Agers worshipped deities.
6. Rome occupied Palestine.
5. Ramses the Great enshrined on a sword.
4. Ramses enshrined in stone. They evidently liked him.
3. Stone seal with occult figures
2. Not the Titanic.
1. Jar handles!!!!
_Exactly ZERO "biblical" archaeological finds._
3.
Actually Azekah is a great find. Egyptian and Canaanite artifacts dating to the 16th to 12th century.
Shows the Egyptians maintained an admirative center or a small fortress there.
Confirming Egypt ruled Canaan from the 16th to the 12th century.
@@jenna2431 Biblical archaeology is the field that studies that cultural milieu of the Biblical Authors, of which Rome, Rameses, and Phoenicia are definitely a part. If there would have been some massive new discovery of an ancient Bible manuscript, then that would have definitely been at the top of the list, but nothing like that has happened in the past year
ABR is better iykyk
@@niswr7319 ABR is a 🤡 show
BCE? Get rid of the woke BS …It’s BC
Correct
cool!
Selling tools?! Fake Account!!!!
Using C.E. sounds atheistic. Thumbs down for this.
I love this stuff .. as a believer I used to think that academics twisted archeological findings like blind puppets whose strings were in Satan’s hands. Turns out I was the muppet all along 😅.
Of course missing from the top 10 list is a scrunched up piece of metal with creases & scratches that some conservative scholar can claim are ancient inscription saying “shiny Moses woz ‘ere”
Someone "found" another piece of metal scribed by a drunk ant? What is it this time?
Listen to real time from Jesus life please. Seriously
Simple answer, he is no Christian. If he was, he would not be comfortable saying BCE and CE. 👎
Those who are ridiculous enough to use BCE never cease to crack me up 😁🤣
I stopped watching after I heard CE and BCE.
DONT TRUST AI ITS THE MARK OF THE BEAST, ITS ALREADY CHANGING THE WORDING OF THE BIBLE
Before Christ Entered and Christ Eternal! No matter what labels are used, turn it to glorify God! The devil can't steal my joy!🫡✝️🙌