SoulGrind

No, lets put it another way. The three answers to prayer are yes, no and not now but whatever the outcome , somehow it is always considered Gods will. Do I not get the same result when I pray to a rock? If outcome is based on the result of Gods will, the terrorists on 9/11 not only had THEIR prayers answered they prayed to a DIfferent God and not only did he grant their petition he gave them bonuses as well as the success of their endeavors were rewarded beyond their wildest hopes in their words. Juggernaut, do you believe in God? If you're honest, you'll answer no - because everything you write states you do not believe in God. Therefore, because you do not believe in God, you do not have "FAITH". And because of this, you can pray (with your prideful, arogant heart) until your blue in the face - nothing will happen. It is ONLY when you pray with a REPENTANT heart, with FAITH in God, that you will see RESULTS. Cheers

If you believe what you wrote how do you reconcile the obvious errors in the following? Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it: MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. The number of beasts in the ark? GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. How many stalls and horsemen? KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. These are but a very few examples of errors in the bible. There are a number of excuses one could use to resolve the issues but claiming the bible is without error is not one of them. I have also gone to apologetic sites claiming they have in fact answered the claim that there are errors in the bible and they claimed to solve them but what I found was that the errors THEY alluded to were never found as issues on atheist or skeptics sites or pointed out by non believers or they were so insignificantly important as to not be worth mentioning. You and your contradictions... Go read "When Critics Ask" written by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe and then get back to me. I don't have the time, the energy, or the desire to even start to answer all of this mess especially when you can do a little research on your own (isn't that what you advised me to do?).

I have heard this on rare occassion, but as of yet, not one who has mentioned it has ever offered up any proof of this. The works of Josephus are considered a forgery by most Christian scholors and you can find this out by yourself. Here is a list of reasons why this is so. First Josephus was a Jew working as an historian for the Roman govt. He was considered the final authority where accuracy was concerned and others sought him out as such. Being a Jew and under Roman authority he would certainly have never written about Jesus in that manner and expected to keep his job. That is not hard to understand or accept. Secondly you have to ask yourself if these words existed WHY did not the early church fathers use these words as verification for their beliefs. When you put forth new ideas and claims having authoritative support goes a long way. Only when the works of Josephus are in the hands of Christian apologists do these words come to light. When you read the words in question you need to read before and after and you will see that the words do not flow as they seem they should. It would be like going down the highway at 65 mph then hit a speed zone of 20 the go back up to 65. It doesn't flow with the way Josephus wrote. On top of that Josephus wrote pages on ordinary criminals and only few paragraphs on the man who shook up the world. Where do you come up with this dribble? You can find plenty of information on Josephus in most Bible bookstores - therefor, I contend that there are plenty of Christian scholors who recognize Josephus' works. You ask why early church fathers didn't use his works - who knows, maybe for the same reason we didn't know about the Dead Sea Scrolls until 1947. Recall, Jesus wasn't a threat to the Roman government - only to the Jews. The Jews are the ones who stirred the pot and got the romans involved. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no crime and put the blood of Jesus on the hands of the people. Sounds like a "common criminal" to me that was escalated to the level of "heinus" by the people, not the government. So why not write about it? If you really want to prove Josephus wrong (or the Bible), throw out proof, not your personal opinion. Names of scholars and academic circles and quotes from their papers would be a good start.

Just about EVERY Christian I know can quote this verse. It's the foundation that Christianity stands upon. "...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [John 3:16-18 - KJV] We are taught in these three passages of scripture that Christ died for ALL persons so that ALL persons may have eternal life. However, for those persons who CHOOSE not to believe (such as yourself), they too shall have eternal life - just not in Heaven with God. Where is the ambiguity in that? Oh? And I suppose that out of all mankind, down through the ages, you are the chosen one to say what or what does not constitute the qualifications for the messiah? I THINK NOT! Quite provable through archaeology, historical evidence, medical science, mathematics, astronomy, biology, zoology, anthropology (with relevance to culture, not evolution). The list goes on... You are oh so very CORRECT in this statement. Hmmm... So you think someone who heals the sick, teaches love and compassion for one another, and gives hope to a hopeless world is a bad person? Sheesh - I'd hate to see what you think to be a good person!

YOUCH! You seem very miinformed How do you explain this then: "...Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" [Matthew 28:16-20 - KJV] The disciples asked this same question of Jesus. "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" [Matthew 13:10 - KJV] "He (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." [Matthew 13:11 - KJV] "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." [Matthew 13:13 - KJV] Jesus is not withholding the truth from some; He isn

Oh, I totally agree with you - I was just trying to avoid all the doctrinal elements to express the reasons Christians are so adament about witnessing. It's because we love our fellow man, just as Christ loves us.

I have heard this on rare occassion, but as of yet, not one who has mentioned it has ever offered up any proof of this.

Are you referring to the "article" on this thread, or the "article" on wikipedia? The article on Wikipedia states the date that Josephus lived and the history of who Josephus was. With this information, all we need to do is look at history to realize when Josephus was alive - just after Christ was crucified. Then we look to where Jospephus was from - the same region where Christ was crucified. And who was Josephus - a pharisee - who were the pharisee's? Those who persecuted Christ. It's pretty simple to draw the line between them. However, it is some of Josephus' books that discuss Christ - which was the purpose of the discussion between secondeve and myself. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (A.D. 33, April 3.) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (April 5.) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3

No offense taken. I hope that after 20 times, you have some understanding where Christians are coming from them. Peace to you!

Dude! Can I vote for you for President?

Most news that we see, hear, or read about in today's society is also second hand. The news comes from "Eye Witness" testimony. Very rarely do the reporters who write up the stories actually witness the news they are reporting about (unless it's like 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc.). No one ever checks to see if witnesses are credible. They take them at their word. They were present, therefore, they must have seen what happened. Even years after something has passed, when journalists start researching a story, they typically don't rule out eye witness testimony just because the person is dead and they were quoted in a single weekly news paper in some backwater town. No - we give them the benefit of the doubt and say to ourselves, they gave a testimony to a local newspaper - they must be legit. If we give such respect to some "nobody", quoted in some dinky weekly paper from some po-dunk town, why is it so hard to give credit to the Biblical account written by 40 different authors, some of which who even persecuted Christians at one point in time or another? And Josephus - He was a Jewish Pharisee! For crying out loud - he was in with the people who were AGAINST CHRISTIANITY - what motive would he have for lying about Christ, especially in light of the fact that at that time, Jews hated Christ and persecuted those who pledged their alegance to Christ. Additionally, Josephus was a Jewish historian - it was his job to report such things. "Josephus (c. 37

The Bible states that Christ is perfect - His mission was not to make everyone perfect, His mission was to be presented as atonement for our sins so that through repentance and acceptance of Him, we would be welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven - at which time we shall be made perfect - AMEN! "...Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." [Hebrews 4:14-15 - KJV] The presence of sin dictates imperfection, and Christ was without sin. P.S. - UPDATE: I just read Observer of Dreams followup post where he acknowledged his statement of "Noone is perfect not even Jesus" as a typo. I just left this post here so everyone else could see what the Bible has to say about it. Sorry Observer of Dreams.

I'm afraid that's not the way things are tested in science. The way testing is done is part of that big conspiracy against religion. Lepaca, Please explain to everyone, using "science" how you would test (and prove) that you love your family.

What I find interesting here AAA, is that you refer to having "a basic understanding of psychology" as if the science of psychology (as we know it today) has been around for as long as man has been around - which is not the case. What I think is even more interesting however, that a general observation of the human condition is recorded in the Biblical account, that just so happened to be written a few thousand years prior to our modern psychology. Food for thought - nothing more

Where did you find this definition? While I agree that vrspock's definition of "perfect" was confusing (hence the reason I posted the definition), I do understand where vrspock is coming from. When a person is solely dedicated to God, they will outwardly display their dedication through both their talk and their walk. Hence the scriptures referring to the bearing of fruit. "...Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." [Matthew 7:15-20 - KJV] So in a sense, when you live soley for God, you have become "transparent" to those who observe you and they shall see you for what you are - a follower of Christ. And when you do not live soley for God, you have become equally "transparent" to those who know what a Godly person behaves like. You shall know them by their "fruit."

Just some definitions of the word "perfect"... pur'-fekt, per-fek'-shun (shalem, tamim; teleios, teleiotes): 1. In the Old Testament: "Perfect" in the Old Testament is the translation of shalem, "finished," "whole," "complete," used (except in De 25:15, "perfect weight") of persons, e.g. a "perfect heart," i.e. wholly or completely devoted to Yahweh (1Ki 8:61, etc.; 1Ch 12:38, Isa 38:3, , etc.); tamim, "complete," "perfect," "sound or unblemished," is also used of persons and of God, His way, and law ("Noah was a just man and perfect," the Revised Version margin "blameless" (Ge 6:9); "As for God, his way is perfect" (Ps 18:30); "The law of Yahweh is perfect" (Ps 19:7), etc.); tam, with the same, meaning, occurs only in Job, except twice in Psalms (Job 1:1, 8, 2:3, , etc.; Ps 37:37, 64:4, ); kalil, "complete," and various other words are translated "perfect." Perfection is the translation of various words so translated once only: kalil (La 2:15); mikhlal, "completeness" (Ps 50:2); minleh, "possession" (Job 15:29, the King James Version "neither shall the prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth," the American Standard Revised Version "neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth," margin "their produce bend to the earth"; the English Revised Version reverses this text and margin); tikhlah, "completeness," or "perfection (Ps 119:96); takhlith (twice), "end," "completeness" (Job 11:7, "Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" 28:3, "searcheth out all the Revised Version (British and American) the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "to the furthest bound"; compare Job 26:10, "unto the confines of light and darkness"); tom, "perfect," "completeness" (Isa 47:9, the King James Version "They shall come upon thee in their perfection," the Revised Version (British and American) "in their full measure"). the Revised Version margin gives the meaning of "the Urim and the Thummim" (Ex 28:30 etc.) as "the Lights and the Perfections." 2. In the New Testament: In the New Testament "perfect" is usually the tr of teleios, primarily, "having reached the end," "term," "limit," hence, "complete," "full," "perfect" (Mt 5:48, "Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"; Mt 19:21, "if thou wouldst be perfect; Eph 4:13, the King James Version "till we all come .... unto a perfect man," the Revised Version (British and American) "full-grown"; Php 3:15, "as many as are perfect," the American Revised Version margin "full-grown"; 1Co 2:6, Col 1:28, , "perfect in Christ"; 4:12; Jas 3:2 margin, etc.). Other words are teleioo. "to perfect," "to end," "complete" (Lu 13:32, "The third day I am perfected," the Revised Version margin "end my course"; Joh 17:23, "perfected into one"; 2Co 12:9, Php 3:12, , the Revised Version (British and American) "made perfect"; Heb 2:10, etc.); also epiteleo, "to bring through to an end" (2Co 7:1, "perfecting holiness in the fear of God"; Ga 3:3, "Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "perfected in the flesh," margin "Do ye now make an end in the flesh?"); katartizo "to make quite ready," "to make complete," is translated "perfect," "to perfect" (Mt 21:16, "perfected praise"; Lu 6:40, "Every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher"; 1Co 1:10, 2Co 13:11, , "be perfected"; 1Th 3:10, 1Pe 5:10, , the Revised Version margin "restore"); akribos, "accurately," "diligently," is translated "perfect" (Lu 1:3, "having had perfect understanding," the Revised Version (British and American) "having traced .... accurately"; Ac 18:26 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "more accurately"). We have also artios, "fitted," "perfected" (2Ti 3:7, the Revised Version (British and American) "complete"); pleroo, "to fill," "to make full" (Re 3:2, the American Standard Revised Version "perfected," the English Revised Version "fulfilled"); katartismos, "complete adjustment," "perfecting" (Eph 4:12, "for the perfecting of the saints"). Perfection is the translation of katartisis "thorough adjustment," "fitness" (2Co 13:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "perfecting"); of teleiosis (Heb 7:11); of teleiotess (Heb 6:1, the Revised Version margin "full growth"); it is translated "perfectness" (Col 3:14); "perfection" in Lu 8:14 is the translation of telesphoreo, "to bear on to completion or perfection." In Apocrypha "perfect," "perfection," etc., are for the most part the translation of words from telos, "the end," e.g. The Wisdom of Solomon 4:13; Ecclesiasticus 34:8; 44:17; 45:8, suntelia "full end"; 24:28; 50:11. The Revised Version (British and American) has "perfect" for "upright" (2Sa 22:24, 26, twice); for "sound" (Ps 119:80); for "perform" (Php 1:16); for "undefiled" (Ps 119:1, margin "upright in way"); for "perfect peace, and at such a time" (Ezr 7:12), "perfect and so forth"; for "He maketh my way perfect" (2Sa 22:33), "He guideth the perfect in his way," margin "or, `setteth free.' According to another reading, `guideth my way in perfectness'"; "shall himself perfect," margin "restore," for, "make you perfect" (1Pe 5:10); "perfecter" for "finisher" (Heb 12:2); "perfectly" is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) (Mt 14:36); "set your hope perfectly on" for the King James Version "hope to the end for" (1Pe 1:13). 3. The Christian Ideal: Perfection is the Christian ideal and aim, but inasmuch as that which God has set before us is infinite--"Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48)--absolute perfection must be forever beyond, not only any human, but any finite, being; it is a divine ideal forever shining before us, calling us upward, and making endless progression possible. As noted above, the perfect man, in the Old Testament phrase, was the man whose heart was truly or wholly devoted to God. Christian perfection must also have its seat in such a heart, but it implies the whole conduct and the whole man, conformed thereto as knowledge grows and opportunity arises, or might be found. There may be, of course, a relative perfection, e.g. of the child as a child compared with that of the man. The Christian ought to be continually moving onward toward perfection, looking to Him who is able to "make you perfect in every good thing (or work) to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen (Heb 13:21). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia James Orr, M.A., D.D. General Editor John L. Nuelsen, D.D., LL.D. Edgar Y. Mullins, D.D., LL.D. Assistant Editors Morris O. Evans, D.D., PhD. Managing Editor Melvin Grove Kyle, D.D., JJ.D. Revising Editor 1844-1913 ed.

AMEN! Ain't God Good!

I just wanted to shed some light on WHY Christians make every attempt to spread their beliefs. It's because Christian's believe so firmly in the fact that there is an afterlife that consists of both Heaven and Hell and that there is an almighty God who loves us and does not wish us to go to Hell. Obviously, Heaven is "paradise" and obviously Hell is a place of eternal torment. The primary reason we tell others about our beliefs is so all will have a chance to be in Heaven. It's akin to a stopping guard who tells children when it's safe to cross the street and when it's not. It's because when someone dies, and if we know they are not a believer, deep inside, we grieve for that person's immortal soul. It's because we love each and every person and we don't want to see anyone experience eternal torment. It's simple really. We (Christians) may not be perfect, but we do care about YOU. You can argue over science vs. religion, whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe if Heaven or Hell exists or not. You can debate Biblical doctrine until your blue in the face. When it comes down to the nitty gritty - what matters is that first God, and secondly his followers; Christians, love you and your eternal soul. Jesus Christ (whether you believe He was "just some guy" or the actual Son of God) loved man kind so passionately that He gave up His very life so that all persons might have eternal life in Heaven. That's an amazing sacrifice from somebody who lived 2000 some odd years ago and was put to death in His 30's just because He loved everyone with every ounce of His mind, His flesh, and His spirit. Whether you believe that Christ is "God" or not should not matter - He did what He did with your eternal soul in mind. This deserves respect, even if you believe His efforts were "misplaced." And even if you believe that those who follow Christ (Christians) are "mis-guided", they still deserve some respect, because they too care about your eternal soul. You don't have to believe. You can think it's all a bunch of myth and legend from antiquity if you so choose. Please, just keep in mind - God and Christian's only have your well being in mind. Grace to you all.

If you can't wrap your head about the possibility of your god's nonexistance, how can you possibly hope to understand our beliefs? Because your "beliefs" are based on the science of the natural world for which you can "test" against. Christian beliefs, while including the beliefs of the natural world ALSO include the belief of the supernatural world, for which science cannot test.

I am so sorry to hear that - When I hear things like that, I alsways have to wonder, were they ever truly saved? I can't help but think of the parrable about the farmer who sows his seed... "...And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold." [Matthew 13:3-8 - KJV] So sad indeed. It is sad but people always ask what you asked, were they truly saved? The answer is Yes, he was truly saved. He took the bible very seriously, he took the afterlife very seriously, he approached God very seriously. He was not lukewarm; that's for sure. Answer this if you can - it's difficult, and I still struggle with it too: How can a true beleiver turn from God? Ray Comfort does a great job of explaining this in his "Hell's Best Kept Secret" series... there's a CD that talks about "False Conversion" and "Backsliding". You can find this information at http://www.wayofthemaster.com There is a prayer list here on WB - Put your husband up for prayer. I feel for you.

I am so sorry to hear that - When I hear things like that, I alsways have to wonder, were they ever truly saved? I can't help but think of the parrable about the farmer who sows his seed... "...And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold." [Matthew 13:3-8 - KJV] So sad indeed.

Lepaca - I think it's time I offered up an argument in defense of myself here. Thus far, my intentions have been to avoid using the "goddidit" cop out that you keep eluding to. Thus far, have YOU seen anything on this thread that I have posted that uses this cop out? NO - because I have intentionally avoid that argument. I'm building up to it however, but only after I have proved the integrity of the information found in scripture. Once the integrity of scripture is validated, then we can say that God exists, then we can say "GOD DID IT!" - Do you agree with this premise? Careful how you answer this - based on your answer you will either make or break EVERY piece of litterary work ever published. Therefore, until I do jump to the "godditit" conclusion, I would ask that unless you have something to offer this thread in the way of EVIDENCE based on VERIFIABLE FACTS and not you're personal bias, please take your off-topic, unreleated ramblings somewhere else. As for the Flood and the Ark - I keep hearing you spout off how impossible it is. Thus far however, you have yet to drum up a single, verifiable piece of evidence to back anything up - something I plan on doing at some point in time here. If you're going to post on this thread, be prepared to buck up and present your evidence. I started this forum to dicuss the evidence, not the lack of. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Yes, you do have a "confrontational" style. And yes, it does bother people when you only spout off opinion without any factual basis. I don't mind confrontation - however, do it with arguments based on pros and cons backed up with verifiable evidence from credible sources. I'm only asking this of you because this is what I have done on this thread - thus far, I have only posted VERIFIABLE, CREDIBLE FACTS based on archaeological and historical evidence. And if I do state "personal opinion" - I make sure it's well noted as such so the reader does not confuse it as fact. I ask that you do likewise. If you can't play by the rules of this thread, then don't participate here. It's all very simple.

Personally, I'm of the opinion, that IF there were no God, there would be no man, therefore, there would be neither good nor bad. You're missing the point. What if there was no God, but man still existed? Imagine that, then answer her question. That's the problem... In order for me to imagine that there is no God is to remove man from the equation entirely. It's not like imagining there's no lettuce on a hamburger and yet the burger still tastes good. These are two things we can clearly see and demonstrate. The knowledge of "what" God is tells me He is THE creator of all. With out a creator, nothing can be created. Cause and effect, therefor, I cannot imagine something being "created" without a root cause. Sorry - I'm not the right candidate for this question.

Personally, I'm of the opinion, that IF there were no God, there would be no man, therefore, there would be neither good nor bad.

Ok - I had a chance to check the web site from which you quote. Looks pretty solid. I don't recognize the author personally - so I'm still planning on cross referencing the findings, however... Ok, let's clarify what the author was saying here... According to Josephus, Pharaoh's daughter's name was Thermuthis. - History states the names of the two daughters are Neferubity and Hatshepsut. - History states that Hatshepsut became Queen and bore the title 'King's daughter'. - History states that Hatshepsut married her stepbrother Thutmose II. - History states that after Hatshepsut's father (Pharaoh Thutmose) died, her husband Thutmose II became Pharaoh and Hatshepsut was known as "Queen Thutmose II". Therefore, Josephus' account of Pharaoh's daughter's name being Thermuthis makes a lot of sense, as it is reasonable to expect that in that particular time, she would have been recognized as "Queen Thutmose II" and not "Queen Hatshepsut" because she took on her father's (and ultimately her husband's) title of "Pharoah Thutmose". Furthermore, due to the fact that she was royalty, it is also quite possible that Josephus used the "title" form of her name out of respect. I of course, will need to confirm that before I label that as fact. So far, we are not out of step here, nor have we confirmed the case that Hatshepsut did or did not raise Moses. Thus far, all we have confirmed is the possibility that Hatshepsut is Thermuthis who became Queen Thutmose II. If this is correct, then this would confirm the legitamacy of the Biblical claim. Therefore, further research must be done. We will of course, need to take a closer look at the cultural methods used in describing family members, especially with relevance to royalty. As for the Jewish name of "Bathya" that you mention, this will take some further research as you have supplied no point of reference for this statement.