Can a Skeptic ever really know the proof they seek?
Can the vast evidence available ever be viewed by skeptics as proof positive of God and Creation?
I can prove that what skeptics call an "open mind" is in reality a CLOSED HEART to any evidence that doesn't support a preconceived viewpoint, and thus will not be viewed as "proof" of God's existence!
The Age of the Universe, a question ONLY ANSWERED BY THE BIBLE, but denied by the world.
WHICH PROVES WHAT?
It only proves the world is in denial of the facts that the universe reveals NOT that they KNOW anything for sure, it all boils down to what they are not willing to do, REPENT and receive a new mindset!
What good does it do for an Evolutionist to question the bible's age of the Universe and of the earth if they are UNWILLING to take the facts presented to them at ANY VALUE? They simply dismiss any fact that PROVES them wrong, any understanding BUT their own is attacked as 'quack-job science' or worse!
As with Atheists, Evolutionists have nothing in their bag but INSULTS, ATTACKS, AND PERSONAL CONDENSATION.
I cannot understand standing behind an invisible Vail of PROOF that doesn't prove anything but just how stubborn you can be while insulting the intelligence of those who don't agree with you. Its nothing more than school yard BULLING NOT TRUE SCIENTIFIC DIGGING FOR TRUTH.
The Resource Book
by Laurence D Smart BScAgr, Dip Ed, Grad Dip Ed
3 The Universe
Evolution Says .....
The universe is 20 billion years old, and it is expanding as a result of the Big Bang. The rotating, spiral galaxies were caused by the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The age of the universe under evolutionary theory is not set. Over the seven years to 1987, the various dates for the universe have been 15 billion, 12 billion, 19 billion, 8 billion, 20 billion, and finally 11 billion. The West Australian, July 7, 1987; New Scientist, February 9, 1984; NCSE Reports, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1991 p:17
(2) The work of Barry Setterfield with the decay of the speed of light has shown from his analysis of the red shift in the light from stars, that the age of the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p: 73-76
(3) The red shift actually occurs in evenly spaced values or jumps, not in a smooth manner as it would be if the universe was expanding. Scientific American, December, 1992 p:19-20
(4) Plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, is on record as saying that the Big Bang theory is not correct. He has stated that the huge conglomeration of galaxies could not have formed in 20 billion years. Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7; Eric Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(5) Many world class astronomers are challenging the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe. They contend that fresh analysis of the data suggests that the enormous clustering of galaxies, the two Great Walls of Galaxies, are too vast to have been formed from such an explosion. Nature, Vol. 349, No. 6304, January 3, 1991; Science News, November 25, 1989 p:340; Science, Vol. 263, March 25, 1994 p:1684
(6) "The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depths of frustration that this simple fact induced among scientists." Written by evolutionist James Trefil in "The Dark Side of the Universe", Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1988 p:55
(7) The evolutionary time-scale for the 'breakup' or dissipation of cluster galaxies is 2-4 million years, as there are too many cluster galaxies. This means that the universe cannot be 20 billion years old. In fact, exhaustive searches of the universe has failed to find any field galaxies - the independent galaxies that cluster galaxies disperse into. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p:68-70
(8) The observed speed of rotating galaxies is so fast that they cannot be more than a few hundred million years old. This is called the 'Winding-up Dilemma' and evolutionists have tried to explain it with the theory of 'density waves'. This wave theory has conceptual problems, and is a hypothesis which has not been confirmed by observation. H. Scheffler & H. Elsasser, "Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter", Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1987 p:352-353 & 401-413
(9) "We know of no process that can maintain a spiral arm [of a galaxy] for more than two galactic revolutions". Written by Hadley Wood in his book "Unveiling the Universe", American Elsevier Publishing Co: New York, 1968 p:188
(10) "If this theory is true, the universe is young, since it has so many rapidly revolving spirals." Written by C.B. Clason as a logical conclusion to the mechanical fact that galactic spiral arms cannot be maintained for more than 2 revolutions. Expressed in his book "Exploring the Distant Stars", G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York, 1958 p:326
(11) The age of the universe, recently calculated from the Hubble Space Telescope's data, is 8-12 billion years old. However, the objects in the universe are believed to be 16 billion years old. This means that there is a paradox - the objects are older than the universe. Nature, Vol. 371, 1994 p:741-742; Science News, Vol. 146, 1994 p:232-234; Science, Vol. 267, 1995 p:980-983; Nature, Vol. 372, 1994 p:304.
The real issue with Evolutionary thought is that there is no real thought, they assume that the evidence states that evolution is true even if the evidence really says no such thing, THEY TAKE FOR GRANTED WHAT THE FACTS SAY, and because those who do this have many degrees and letters after their names its understood they know it to be true so IT MUST BE TRUE.
But to properly understand anything we must do our own homework and not simply TRANSFER SOMEONE ELSE'S UNDERSTANDING INTO OUR MINDS because as a believer my thought pattern is meant to be the opposite, I try to disprove what I believe and God presents the facts to disprove ME, in that order. It is simple pride in your OWN UNDERSTANDING that prevents you from seeing the opposite understandings facts.
Does Evolution challenge my thoughts?
YES! Every day!
The real question is does that challenge EVER change my Faith and the answer is a resounding NO!
Evolution has never presented a challenge that could stand the Biblical test of proving God wrong. Why is that? Because as long as I can get an answer to the challenge that satisfies BOTH Scientific understandings and Scriptural FACTS, my Faith remains strong!
The COsmic Background Explorer (COBE), also referred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to cosmology. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and provide measurements that would help shape our understanding of the cosmos.
If you read the following article you can see the point as I stated above, they ASSUME the facts presented by COBE state that the Big Bang really happened, when the facts state no such thing!
The COBE space probe found ripples in the background of space which proves that the Big Bang occurred.
The Facts Are ..... (1) Images of space captured by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite have been labelled as the first hard evidence of the proof of the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. However, the patterns recorded were temperature gradients, which were only about 30 millionths of a degree warmer than the surrounding space - an infinitesimally minute gradient. Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/92
(2) The 30 millionth of a degree fluctuations in the temperature of the universe has recently had its validity challenged. A member of the team who designed the instrument that took the readings has categorically stated that it was not sensitive enough to take readings that small. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992 p: 14-15
(3) An article in Science says that the variations claimed in the COBE project are well below the level of instrument noise, a type of background interference that would cover up such readings. It went on to say that the readings were obtained by statistical methods which still need careful checking. Science, May 1, 1992 p:612
(4) George Smoot, the man in charge of the COBE project, admitted in Science that the readings may not be real, and that even if the measurements were real, they could have been caused by other effects such as the motion of our galaxy through the background radiation. Science, May 1, 1992 p:612
(5) Two Yale scientists have stated in Scientific American that the 'bumps' in the readings of background space radiation taken by COBE have no bearing on what the structure of the universe was like billions of years ago. Their theory is that the variations in readings were caused by gravity waves - a prediction of the Theory of General Relativity. Scientific American, October 1992, p:15
(6) An article in Nature concludes that all that can be said is that the readings are consistent with the doctrine of the Big Bang, and that it is a cause of some alarm that the media has announced that "we now know" how the universe began. Nature, March 30, 1992 p:731
The copyright for this publication belongs to Laurence D Smart.
Acknowledgements
All quotes included in this publication are the property of the various writers. Re-use of these quotes should include the relevant bibliographic acknowledgement.
Reproduction
This publication may be freely copied for personal use, or for distribution. Such reproduction must be without alteration, subtraction or addition, and in the exact format. The name of this author must always be visible. Reproduction may be in part or whole. Distribution price must only cover duplication and postage costs. first edition: - August 1995 revised: - May 1996 reprinted: - July 2000 Web version: - September 2000
Initially Published by Belconnen Baptist Church, Page, ACT, Australia THANKS: My thanks to Senior Pastor Linton Smith of Belconnen Baptist Church for the initial encouragement to create this book from my 6 years of research material.
FORWARD
The theory of evolution is believed to be an incontrovertible fact by the general public and most of the scientific community, and is taught as such by most educators. This should not be the case.
The theory of evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis, but the facts are that it has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be proven valid, the theory of evolution must undergo the scrutiny (rigours) of the scientific method. This, however, cannot be accomplished because the millions of years required for experimental testing are beyond the reasonable limit of human observation.
The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny. There would be indications that biased interpretation of data had occurred, as alternative theories could be presented to account for observed and tested facts.
The theory of evolution needs its facade of scientific immutability lifted, and exposed for what it really is - an unproven scientific theory.
My university training and experience as a research scientist, led me to do an analysis of the scientific data on evolution. This set of facts and quotes is my expose, and it is a step in the direction of lifting evolution's facade.
(15/4/95)
PREFACE
I have been teaching science for over 25 years, but I have had a number of problems with the theory of evolution.
1. I knew that there were no absolute proofs for evolution. 2. Almost all of my colleagues taught evolution as a fact. 3. All the textbooks presented evolution and the geological ages as facts. 4. The media presented evolution as a fact, announcing new 'proofs' with great fanfare, but not reciprocating when 'proofs' were falsified. 5. I knew that many of the 'proofs' of evolution were no longer regarded as proof by the world's leading scientists. 6. I knew that a lot of research was disproving evolution, but the results were either not reaching the teaching profession, or the teachers were biased and refused to present them to their students.
With this background, I decided to write this book. It was written as a resource for science teachers and students, as a collation of information that contradicts what is being taught in schools.
I have structured each section by addressing its basic premises and then replying from logic, research, and the world's leading scientists.
Each section is introduced with the statement, "Evolution says". I did this because this is the way it is imposed on school children, i.e. as an irrefutable dictum. I reply with "The facts are", presenting factual material that should be included in lessons in schools.
The material I present in this book represents the factual information that was available at the time of publishing. There will be a myriad of responses regarding their validity, age, etc., however, these will be personal opinions which do not restrict the contents from being considered by others.
"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with Evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ....."
"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"."
Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.
1 The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the'Big Bang' 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24
(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20
(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7
(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84
(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
You cannot prove
something spiritual to a NON spiritual mind, What I can do is present
proof from existing evidences in nature and history that his existence
is indeed possible, the rest is based upon 'knowledgeable understanding'
through faith as it should be. YOU REFUSE TO SEE IT SO HOW IS THAT MY
FAULT EXACTLY?
Atheists created an impossible idea and called it
PROOF, because they know the same thing, proof is in the eyes of the
beholder and anything can be denied so all you have to do is deny
everything without explanation and the Christian is left with nothing!
The
truth though is the opposite, the PROOF is there and ABSOLUTE, it never
changes, it never goes away, its your understanding of it that changes
and morphs not the evidence of God. You simply change the rules of
interpretation of the evidence to suite you any time it gets close...BUT
ITS STILL THERE NONETHELESS!
The ONLY reason the Bible bothers
Atheists is because the witness to truth cannot be refuted, therefore
its easier to eliminate the evidence than to deal with it. They would
rather take their chances with the secondary proof....Nature, History,
and Science because they can confuse the ignorant and create skepticism.
It
is you who must PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST since the evidence from smallest
to greatest indicates he is indeed possible! I will be waiting as I
have for over 30 years now!
We know that we exist because . We
are irrefutable evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe,
give or take a few of us.
So, is it really that much of a
stretch to think that there might be intelligent life capable of
creating a universe with form, structure and physical laws that always
seem to remain constant? Just as its not a stretch to think that a Car
that's designed might just have a designer.
The fact that we live
in a universe with reliable physical laws is a bit ironic, don't you
think? Considering that many scientists believe the universe evolved by
random processes that had no intelligence of their own.
How could
INTELLIGENCE come from nothing colliding with nothing over millions of
years? Life comes from life, that's simple science but you think that
life came from non-life...who's got more faith? Me or you?
To prove the existence of a higher power, we can begin by assuming there is no higher power.
What kind of universe would we have?
A random one, of course. Everything would happen without a purpose.
Nothing could be predicted; nothing could be relied on.
Mathematics
and science would have no value because nothing could be reliably
measured or have regularity, that's what random means and without God
everything in life if life could finally come together right would be a
mixed up puzzle WITHOUT A SET PURPOSE.
A belief that there are
NO ABSOLUTES only leads to disorder [Chaos] not order therefore
Evolution cannot be true simply because absolutes are not allowed, the
universe is FINE TUNED and even its chaotic elements obey certain order.
LAWS are proof absolutes exist, evolution obeys PHYSICAL LAWS so it
must have absolutes to function though it denies them outright!
And
please, stop with the nonsense about insults, you OF ALL PEOPLE cannot
talk, you trample peoples beliefs and feelings with each response here
and then cry when your told your ignorant about something, that only
means you don't know as much as you think you know, NOT that your stupid
or dumb! I stated before that you ARE smarter than your acting on here,
I know that's true!
*********************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
the only reason the big book of fairytales bothers us is because
the believers think its true and throw it in our faces as fact
all the time!
We do what? I didn't know you
existed before you opened YOUR TEXT to insult my beliefs, so I guess I
can use that same excuse on why I find Atheism repulsive?
Your
religion is just as bad as all religion so stop pretending to be pure
apart from religion, your in the same 'UNHOLY BED' with the hypocrites
you hate!
ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND, if you deny it, well how can you, you have become your enemy....now what?
Court rules atheism a religion Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group.
I
read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it.
Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock (Rockc3.com) and he did a post
discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.
We, as rational
individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and
only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then
we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion
out there.
For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in
reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually.
They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on
what they believe is evidential to their presuppositions.
Denying
what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to
swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
Atheism
IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much
evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it.
I’ve
heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing
baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair
color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying
something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist
readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A
religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or
worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some
monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic
(Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are
“anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless.
Consider this:
They have their own worldview.
Materialism
(the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through
which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded,
follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret
all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are
like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking
the sun is out.
They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy
is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are
orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In
brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of
unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is
acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy
is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many
years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the
unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the
“open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified.
Richard
Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for
apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
They have their own prophets:
Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah:
He
is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the
definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a
comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or
explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define
religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And
boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens
(Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in
hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him
Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking
converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
They have faith. That’s right, faith.
They
would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith,
condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a
faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or
dis-proven.
To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation
for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact
(atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why
there is such a thing as rational explanation.
There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
Why do we have self-awareness?
What makes us conscious?
From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There
are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most
ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are
days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become
atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe
because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.
bit.ly/AtheistReligion
I
posted this [With Credit to the Author] to prove to others that your as
phony as any hypocrite you've accused because its really sickening how
much contradiction there is in your postings.
You see after
becoming a Christian after being Atheistic in thought for years, I used
to live and let live UNTIL a group of hit and run Atheists wouldn't let
well enough alone on the insulting and moronic comments THEN I decided
from that moment on never to let ignorance rule a conversation. I, like
most people get SICK of the crappy presentations by those who hate God!
What should bother you is that pic
you used looks exactly like every Dr. of Atheism I've ever heard speak
along with quite a few dumb religious leaders as well, and that's a lot!
Atheism and Religion without relationship offers us nothing in return
for our souls, nice trade off!
You TALK BIG but present little proof of ANYTHING, ITS YOUR MENTAL PICTURE OF LIFE AND NOTHING MORE.
I
proved it was and is a RELIGION LOGICALLY its not MY BELIEF its the
facts presented, but instead of proving it you insult me and my Lord? A
religion doesn't have to believe in a god at all as was stated, you DO
BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Mother earth
and the Universe are your god because you exalt them as I would God.
THAT'S A BELIEF SYSTEM PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
It
is impossible to prove that there is no God. Don't believe me? Let's
take a look at the nature of the statement, "God does not exist."
Back
up for just a minute and think about the difference between positive
and negative statements of fact. The difference can be illustrated by a
simple example. Suppose there are 10,000 clovers in a field. Person A
declares, "There is a four-leaf clover in that field," while Person B
objects, "There are no four-leaf clovers in that field." Now, how many
clovers does each person have to observe and know about in order to be
certain that they are correct?
Since Person A must find only one single
four-leaf clover in order to be correct, in theory he could prove his
statement after observing only one clover, provided that it had four
leaves on it. But Person B, in order to know for a fact that she is
right, has a lot of work to do! That's because until all 10,000 clovers
have been inspected, there would still be the possibility that among the
clovers which remained "unknown" to her was one which boasted a fourth
leaf. She could never be certain that she was right until she knew
everything there was to know about that field and the clovers it
contained.
The same principle holds for statements such as,
"There is a God," and "There is no God," only this time on a cosmic
scale. In order to prove the claim, "There is no God in the universe,"
one would have to know everything there is to know about the universe.
As long as some body of knowledge remains unknown to anyone making that
statement, there will always be the possibility that sufficient evidence
for the existence of God is out there, despite the individual's
ignorance of it.
And since no one can seriously claim to know
everything, anyone who is honest will admit that they can never prove
there isn't a God. One Christian author put it this way: "Somewhere, in
the vast knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough
evidence to prove that God does exist. . . . If you insist upon
disbelief in God, what you must say is, 'Having the limited knowledge I
have at present, I believe that there is no God.'"**
It is the
word "believe" in the above quotation which brings us to the assertion
made in the title of this article: "Atheism is a faith-based belief
system." To be an atheist, you have to have to rely on belief, not
factual knowledge. You could never amass enough knowledge to prove the
nonexistence of God, so you must place your faith in the improvable
assumption that there is no God. My Christian brothers and sisters, do
not ever let an atheist deride you on the basis of your faith in God (as
if "faith" were a dirty word!), because atheism is no stranger to the
concept of faith, either. Ask your atheist friends what it would take
for them to accept God's existence. Then pray that the Lord will open
their spiritual eyes to see the beauty and glory of Jesus Christ, as
well as the depravity and hopelessness of their current situation,
guilty as they are of sin against a holy and just God. May the Lord
grant repentance to those who are strangers to His mercy and grace!
**Quotation taken from Ray Comfort's book, God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (1993), pp. 14-15.
Hey! I gave you a way out a long while back......STOP ANSWERING ME AND
I'LL NOT ANSWER BACK. It can't be all that boring to you or you'd have
blocked me a long time ago? Right?
Guess that lack of real
knowledge is getting you down? Don't feel bad we're all in that boat
together, the Atheist just spends their time in the boat ALONE BY
CHOICE!
If you desire to talk I'm here if not STOP ANSWERING ME, its that simple....no compulsion on my part!
********************************************* MY ATHEIST FRIEND: "the lack of knowledge is all yours. since this is my poll,why
don't you stop answering me? you are the guest,and they definitely
stink after 3 days."
************************************************ MY RESPONSE:
I will not stop answering until you do, your current poll has NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION!
You'll
notice I said plainly that we are ALL in that boat together you simply
choose to be alone with your little bit of understanding. I choose to
learn more and grow.
BLOCK ME THEN! But know I will not block
you, I believe blocking UNLESS FOR PERSONAL HARASSMENT is the Cowardly
way out! Anyone is allowed to attack a point made on either side, that's
the point of Sodahead in the first place.
********************************************** MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
"wow, a liar too! typical of
fanatics,they go on and on after anyone has lost interest. you
must have a sad boring little life."
************************************************
MY FINAL RESPONSE:
I beg to differ with you, and consider this my last response sense I'm bored with your lack of Interest!
You
have no interest? You can't lose what you never had!, which brings me
to the question WHY FIGHT IT IF ITS NOT REAL. There's something real and
you can't prove it's not, so it bothers you, get over it you'll never
prove God isn't there!
My
life is full of Joy because of Christ, and I'm CERTAIN with absolute
certainty that he is real. That's something you as an Atheist cannot say
about ANYTHING, if you do you have to admit that Absolute truth exists
and if it does that it points to an absolute idea in life.
Because
you reject the idea of a personal maker you must believe that an
impersonal one -- chance -- has determined your reality, that is truly
sad and boring!
Either:
1. There are no absolutes that
define reality. Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual
reality. There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is
positive or negative; right or wrong.
Or: 2. There are
absolutes that define what is real and what is not. Thus, actions can be
deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against these
absolute standards.
Hence, the chance that forms your reality
(which by definition has no standard or objective sense) is the only
"real" thing in the universe.
Everything is a chance occurrence, including your ability to understand who and what you are talking about!
Your "Meaning" is a fantasy. There is no way to derive a standard of truth that has any authority. Anything goes!
Because I believe that a personal God created all things, I can know:
--I was created for a purpose
--My level of fulfillment in life will be based on how well I accomplish the objectives ("will") of my Creator.
--Some actions are right, while others are wrong. I can discover this difference by learning about the Creator's plan.
--I am accountable to the Creator for my behavior.
Because you believe that "forces" of chance [Evolution] randomness created all things, you can know:
--That nothing is truly knowable, since there is no standard by
which to define reality or by which to measure the factual nature of any
given idea.
--That no action is any better than another, hence, all actions are meaningless.
--your then life has no value or purpose, because, in a very real sense, it is an accident
--you are not accountable for your behavior, because nothing you do matters.
THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE, BUT ITS WHERE YOUR UNDERSTANDING LEADS YOU. A BORING LITTLE LIFE!
Moses was raised Egyptian, or did that escape you? Of course his NAME
would be Egyptian....Duh! Really another Straw-Man? What does that
prove?
"Hyksos were not slaves, but wealthy merchants and rulers
of Egypt. The Hyksos, in fact, ruled Egypt for 108 years. They built
palaces and temples at their capital city of Avaris, and had far-flung
commercial operations." Hardly what the Bible describes in any way
Multiple
Land bridges? Wow!, you insult the man who discovered the one Land
bridge right where the Bible says the Hebrews crossed, then put on your
other mask and state there ARE multiple Land-bridges no one knew about
until he found that one. His theory isn't the be all end all, never said
it was. Science disagrees though and states there is a LACK of Land
bridges in the area, no multiples around ever!
Science
seems to agree it happened but wrongly assert something never said,
Moses was never said to have done the parting, God did the work since he
is master of physical laws that control nature.
"Winds may have
parted the Red Sea, and not the biblical and Koran's account of it,
according to a team of researchers. Based on computer simulations, the
famous "parting of the Red Sea" could have been caused by a strong
pattern of winds and other land phenomena supported by the theory of
"wind set-down" based on the laws of physics."
What they missed
was that the Bible said the SAME THING just not according to their
VIEWPOINT! The point is there is great president to prove it occurred,
and if it occurred then the Bible's description has as much a chance of
being the way as any other!
Your Idea of the Biblical accounts dates and times being wrong, based on
what? The History channel video, which I do not completely agree with
proved that the date of tradition could be wrong but that's not the
bibles fault that's a man made mistake.
Debunking "The Exodus Decoded" This is a very good rebuttal, I always look at both sides of an issue. http://www.biblearchaeology.o...
I'm
not saying its all perfectly in line we're still laying out the
understanding, some have one part, others get other parts of the puzzle
and its interesting to study!
Yes they were meticulous record
keepers about their GREAT HISTORY, but like all mere men of mortal
weakness they were PROUD and unable to record that slaves beat them
down. If The Egyptians were so proud, would they have admitted they were
beaten by their own slaves? Striking things from public record isn't a
modern occurrence only!
Here's an answer from Yahoo Answers:
Given that the Egyptians were excellent record keepers, where is their account of the parting of the Red Sea?
"Would
you chronicle how the God of slaves defeated your multitude of gods and
wiped out your entire army? Here is how they documented this event...
The
Egyptians picked and chose what they wanted to record. If you read the
account of the Merneptah stele, it notes that "Israel is laid waste; its
seed is no more.". True?
They do the same thing today. I went to Egypt and was shocked to discover that they actually won the Six Day War.
In
the ancient Egyptian days, yes, they were meticulous record keepers.
But they carried these records into the next life. Do you really think
they would carry an immense defeat--from SLAVES--at the hands of one
single God over their own myriad of gods?
A papyrus called the
Admonitions of Ipuwer describes a catastrophe like the Exodus. The
author of Admonitions complains of a lack of authority, justice and
social order as if the central authority no longer had the will or power
to keep control. He also complains about barbarians and foreigners as
if the country has been invaded. Nobody is planting crops because they
are not sure what will happen. The southern most districts are paying no
taxes.
He complains that the Nile has strangely turned to blood and "If
one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water."
He wrote, "Grain is perished on every side." Gardiner dated its events
to the FIP but it is conceded that the language and orthography belong
to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969c, p 442].
Velikovsky noted the
obvious similarities with the plagues of the Exodus and pointed out
that, contrary to Gardiner, Sethe dated the Ipuwer Papyrus to the SIP
[Velikovsky, 1952, p. 48-50]. Van Seters also argues for an SIP date
[Van Seters, 1966, p103-120].
There are also records beyond the
written letter you know. Ancient chariot parts were discovered in the
Gulf of Aqaba. The city of Python has lower bricks with straw, mid
bricks with stubble, and upper bricks with anything they could get their
hands on. Exactly as the event of Exodus chronicles."
There is
historical evidence that they tried to wipe out evidence of things that
the newest Pharaoh didn't want remembered. (i.e., Akhenaton and
Hatshepsut) So much for HONESTY in reporting!
You put so much
faith in the Egyptians record keeping when they had the most to lose by
being honest? All that pride and all. And despise Jewish record keeping
and they INCLUDE their own shortcomings along with the fact they
experienced God's miracles.....hmmmm! Seems like you don't like where it
all leads?
Your statement about the wheels is silly, really, it
means nothing, is that your story? Their trade routes did go up through
the sea and they wouldn't just throw away their chariots or give them
to other nations in trade, they traded food and supplies for slaves not
weapons.
Why is there no Egyptian record of a LOSS of a whole
armies Chariots in the sea? I'll tell you, because they had their butts
handed to them and pride has stricken it from the records!
*********************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
"there was NO MOSES! get it? it seems you really are desperate to prove the book of tall tales is true. "
The
following article is based on the book A New Approach to the Chronology
of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel and The Biblical
Chronologist Volume 2, Number 2.
Further details and references can be found there.
A Long Reign
Before
the account of the Exodus itself, the Bible tells of the enslavement of
the Israelite's and the first 80 years of the life of Moses. One
remarkable feature of this story is apparent from the following sequence
of events:
A new king comes to power in Egypt who "did not know Joseph." (Exodus 1:8)
This king orders the death of all newborn Hebrew boys. (Exodus 1:22)
Moses is born into this regime. (Exodus 2:2)
Moses is adopted by the Pharaoh's daughter. (Exodus 2:5)
Moses grows up, murders an Egyptian, and flees the country. (Exodus 2:12,15)
Moses marries Zipporah and they have a son. (Exodus 2:12,15)
Eventually, "in the course of those many days", the king of Egypt dies. (Exodus 2:23)
God meets Moses and sends him to the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 3,4)
Moses is 80 years old when he stands before the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:7)
The
Bible indicates that the same Pharaoh whose daughter adopted
three-month-old Moses died when Moses was nearly 80 years old! This
Pharaoh must have reigned for a very long time.
Pepy II
Only one pharaoh in the history of Egypt can meet this Biblical requirement---Pepy II.
Pepy II is traditionally thought to have governed the country for ninety-four years... (Grimal, page 89.)
Pepy II's Successor
From
the Biblical account we would expect the reign of Pepy II's successor
to be quite short. This pharaoh had to deal with Moses and the plagues,
and the Bible indicates that he drowned in the "Red Sea" with the rest
of his army. Grimal makes this mention of the pharaoh who followed Pepy
II:
The exceptional longevity of Pepy II resulted not only in the
gradual fossilization of the administrative system but also in a
succession crisis. The Abydos king-list mentions a Merenre II (also
called Antiemdjaf), who seems to have been the son of Pepy II and Queen
Neith.
This very ephemeral ruler, who reigned for only a single
year, would have been married to Queen Nitocris, who according to
Manetho was the last Sixth Dynasty ruler. (Grimal, page 89)
So
there is a good fit between the secular history of Egypt and the
Biblical account with these two pharaohs; an extremely long reign is
followed by a very short reign, as required.
More Evidence
The
Biblical account of the ten plagues is quite detailed. It describes the
pollution of the water supply, and devastation of the livestock and
vegetation of the land. The Israelites left, depriving the land of its
slave labor, and they carried away much of the land's wealth in the form
of silver, gold, and clothing (Exodus 12:36).
Also, the army
and the Pharaoh were drowned in the "Red Sea," leaving the country with
weakened defenses. The Exodus must surely have left a bold signature in
Egyptian history. What do the historians find following the reign of
Pepy II's successor?
Pepy II's successor was the final Pharaoh of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
Grimal
says: "The Old Kingdom ended with a period of great confusion." (page
89). Summarizing an ancient Egyptian literary/historical work called
Admonitions, which comments on Egypt following the reign of Pepy II's
successor, Grimal says:
It was the collapse of the whole society,
and Egypt itself had become a world in turmoil, exposed to the horrors
of chaos which was always waiting for the moment when the
personification of the divine being - the Pharaoh - neglected his duties
or simply disappeared. (Grimal, page 138)
This time period was
characterized by famine, an expected result of the plagues described in
the book of Exodus. This famine was limited to the Nile valley (Grimal,
page 139)---as the Bible's narrative would lead one to expect.
There
was anarchy and a struggle for political power. Egypt's foreign trade
ceased and Egyptian mining in the Sinai peninsula "also seems to have
been abandoned" (Grimal, page 139).
The nation of Egypt had
obviously suffered a severe blow---as one would expect from what the
Bible tells us of the events accompanying the Exodus. Chronology
The
match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the secular
history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom might possibly be brushed
aside as coincidence were it not for the fact that this match happens
at the right date according to modern Biblical chronology.
Dr.
Aardsma's chronology places the Exodus 2447+/-12 B.C. The current
"standard" chronology of Egypt places the end of the Old Kingdom---when
the evidence discussed above says the Exodus happened---around 2200 B.C.
The difference of 247 years between these two dates is close
enough for such ancient times to regard the dates as the same.
Uncertainties of a few hundred years in historical/archaeological
chronologies are normal at such early times in the history of
civilization.
Nicholas Grimal notes that "The chronological span
of the First Intermediate Period [which must be known to date events in
the Old Kingdom accurately] is also a problem." Haas et al. have
suggested, based on an extensive suite of radiocarbon dates (totally
independent of Dr. Aardsma's work), that the First Intermediate Period
should be lengthened by about 260 years.
This would push the
secular date for the end of the Old Kingdom back to around 2460 B.C.,
indistinguishable from Dr. Aardsma's Biblical date of 2447+/-12 B.C. for
the Exodus. Pottery analysis in the Sinai Peninsula by E. D. Oren and
Y. Yekuteli is also supportive of this adjustment.
Thus the
qualitative match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the
secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom is supported by
quantitative chronology. Conclusion
Evidence for the Exodus
from Egypt is plentiful---as long as one has their Biblical chronology
right, and thus knows to examine Egypt's history around 2450 B.C.,
rather than around the traditional 1450 B.C.
References
Grimal, Nicolas A History of Ancient Egypt Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1993.
NOTE: YOU CAN NOTICE THAT THE MORE EVIDENCE I PRESENT ABOUT THIS THE MORE SHE DENIES ITS TRUE, THIS IS TYPICAL ATHEISTIC MINDSET [IN CONCRETE] THEY DO NOT WANT THE ANSWER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR GOD TO BE REAL, JUST REARRANGING THE PUZZLE TO FIT EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT!
[Its interesting how every site I go to, too find answers from is biased but hers, which are Atheistic thought are right on accurate]
No direct
archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the
400-plus years in Egypt, or the Israelites’ miraculous exodus from
slavery.
No physical trace has been found of 40 years in the Sinai
wilderness, and nothing outside of the bible shows Moses existed. The
exodus cannot be treated as history because there is no support for it
except the bible.
The authors of Exodus would have been familiar with
Egyptian conditions if the book had been written in Egypt, and exodus
first appeared when the Ptolemies in the third century BC translated the
scriptures into Greek for the library of Alexandria.
The exodus was
then composed from a Persian account of Jews being Egyptian slaves
because Canaan had been an Egyptian colony for centuries. Israelite
settlements showed no Egyptian culture in their archaeological remains.
They were uniform with those of the Canaanites, so they were not
immigrants from Egypt but native Canaanites. A reply to Christians who
seek to justify the biblical exodus."
Excuse me,....... that's the dumbest statement I've ever heard, as if
you regularly read from Christian sites, YOUR BIASED! YES IT HAS ARE YOU
JUST IN DENIAL OR WHAT, I'VE PROVED IT OVER AND OVER.
Atheists
are simply avoiding the evidence by denial, your not even fair in your
criticisms....WOW its mind numbing how blind you are!
You just
argued before, that Orthodox [RELIGIOUS] Jews would not be secular in
their practices under penalty of death TO PROVE YOUR ISSUE ABOUT
PALESTINE, NOW YOUR SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE EGYPTIAN PRACTICE AND
CULTURE WHICH WAS AGAINST THEIR GOD, IN THEIR REMAINS? That is insane
rambling at best!
From
1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive
archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284
sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of
ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with
larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the
group.
They found that the larger center sites were "base sites" where
central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the
medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites
were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at
these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said "In
most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks
as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos."
Gerald
E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were
made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the
first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and
Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well.
Chronological Issues
So
why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the
pottery they've found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while
the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago. They
assume that this pottery must not be from the Exodus because of its
date.
But the traditional date for the Exodus is wrong. Dr.
Aardsma has shown that a full millennium has accidentally been
overlooked by biblical chronology scholars in the past. (See What is the
missing millennium discovery? http://www.biblicalchronologi... When the overlooked millennium is restored to biblical chronology, the problem of the missing Exodus pottery shards disappears. Conclusion
Because
the archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time
period, they haven't found it. Unfortunately, they have then gone on to
conclude that the Exodus must never have happened. This is the wrong
conclusion. When you look in the right time period, there's plenty of
evidence to show that, in fact, the Exodus did happen, just as the Bible
describes it. The foregoing article was based on research reported
on in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1
[http://www.biblicalchronolog... Number 6 and The Biblical Chronologist
Volume 2 [http://www.biblicalchronolog... Number 1. Full details and
references to the scholarly literature can be found there."
What's
amazing to me is that you REFUSE to believe even though I've proven it
over and over again to you, this man is so much smarter than both of us,
you saw his credentials! This is the answer you needed but you refuse
to look at from a scientific mind, your mind is drowning in unbelief of
even solid evidence.
Exo 17:3-7
"
And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured
against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up
out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?
And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with
thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the
river, take in thine hand, and go.
Behold, I will stand before
thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and
there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses
did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
And he called the
name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the
children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the
LORD among us, or not? "
RIGHT WHERE IT IS SAID TO BE IS:
About
3,000 years ago someone put up pillars at the site marking the place of
the crossing. It was King Solomon's pillars, he was very aware of the
site and it says it in the bible here: "In that day there will be an
altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the
LORD near its border." Isaiah 19:19.
You can see the shadow on the Egyptian Side Here: 28°58'11.58"N -
34°38'32.86"E The pillar on the Saudi side was removed after Ron Wyatt
showed the authorities where it was. Why? Because it proved Israels
crossing there, talk about biased?
There is a place marker there
set in concrete. There were inscriptions on that pillar that said:
Pharaoh, Mizraim (Egypt), Moses, death, water, Yahweh, Solomon, Edom
RIGHT WHERE IT WAS SAID TO BE:
The
Evidence is overwhelming against your claims YOU KNOW IT and I know it,
but you'll do what you always do DENY, DENY, DENY its all you have!
THESE EVIDENCES ARE PHYSICAL THINGS FOUND ALONG THE EXODUS ROUTE AND
THERE ARE MANY MORE!
I mean really what are the odds that The
name Nuweiba is short for Nuwayba' al Muzayyinah which means "Waters of
Moses Opening" wow they named it after a non-existent man? Amazing! At
the exact spot where the crossing took place, we have the site confirmed
by maps.
Funny
how historical physical remains don't match your mental picture of
things but that's life! Denial has its problems when you don't have an
open mind, but that's expected from a closed universe of the Atheist.
top Israeli archaeologists contest Jewish ties to Jerusalem [ 08/08/2011 - 05:43 PM ]
OCCUPIED
JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Top Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has
denied the existence of Jewish roots in the city of Jerusalem, contrary
to Israel’s claims that have prompted continued Judaization of the city.
Finkelstein,
a professor at Tel Aviv University, said Jewish archaeologists have
failed to unearth historic sites to support some of the stories in the
Torah. Among those stories are the Jewish Exodus, the forty-year
wandering in the Sinai desert, and Joshua’s victory over the Canaanites.
He also said there was no archaeological evidence that concludes that the alleged Temple of Solomon ever existed.
For
his part, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University Raphael
Greenberg said that the Israelis should have found something after
digging for six weeks in the City of David in East Jerusalem’s Silwan
district, but have found nothing in two years of continuous excavations.
Prof.
Yoni Mihrazi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Finkelstein’s findings,
saying that top settler organization Elad had not stumbled upon even a
banner saying “welcome to the city of David”, given that claims were
made to have been relying on sacred texts to guide them in their work. "
************************************************************ MY RESPONSE:
Moronic, just moronic, I just proved that every thing contained in your rant was not so, proved it by thousands of proofs and all you can do is RE POST the same nonsense, over and over again.
The mounting evidence against your thought process is getting high but still no proof against it only hearsay evidence from self hating Jews and Atheists who have a vested interest in keeping it under wraps.
Of course their are Jews who have vested interest in selling out their own country, its as simple as 'Goggling them' but it proves only that. There is little evidence for completely different reasons that you imply.
The Muslims, that you love so much are destroying thousands of priceless artifacts all the time, but no response from you except defending their cowardice on that I'm sure.
They don't want the evidence to surface and neither to these archeologists you mention here, even if they did they know full well the difficulty digging in those areas and that they may never move beyond a small area where they are now, its insane to take the word of people who know that what their saying is greatly qualified by circumstances beyond their control.
WHAT IF THE EVIDENCE IS IN ANOTHER PLACE? CAN WE GET TO IT? NO, SO THIS POINT IS MUTE FROM THE START. THIS IS ONLY PROVES THAT THE ARABS AND SECULAR ZIONISTS DON'T PLAY FAIR WHEN TRUTH IS UNDER SCRUTINY!
SINCE 1999 THE MUSLIM WAKF, which was granted de facto day-to-day control of the Temple Mount by the Israeli government in 1967, has been conducting illegal construction of an underground Mosque on the southern third of the Temple Mount. In the course of this illegal construction the Wakf has been using heavy tractors to excavate the earth. Both the construction and the excavation have been conducted without any archaeological supervision, rendering both aspects of this violation of the holy site illegal. The stated purpose behind the Wakf's actions has been both to "create facts" on the ground, rendering the Mount a "Moslem only" site, and to destroy any archaeological evidence of the first and second Holy Temples which stood on the Mount. This is part and parcel of a consistent policy of the Palestinian Authority to deny that the Holy Temple ever existed.
Although many have protested the brazen assault on this holiest of sites, the Israeli government has consistently followed the policy of acquiescence. Even the archaeological community which has been outspoken in its protest, has done little more than throw up its arms in resignation. A young archaeologist by the name of Zachi Zweig, however, refused to stand idly by. Led by Dr. Gabriel Barkay, Zachi organized and oversaw the transfer of the debris from where it was dumped, (illegally), in the Kidron Valley to an alternative location, where a crew of volunteers under Dr. Barkay's supervision have been painstakingly sifting through the dirt and rubble looking for signs of the past. This constitutes the first archaeological "dig" on the Temple Mount in history. Ironically, archaeological research has been forbidden on the Mount due to the sensitivity of the location for religious, (read, political), reasons.
The Moslem attempt to obliterate any remaining physical evidence of the Holy Temple has actually enabled Zachi and Dr. Barkay to uncover priceless links to the past. It must be kept in mind, however, that the wanton Wakf destruction has severely impaired the ability of archaeologists to properly analyze the discoveries, due to the fact that they were removed from their original location.
And, of course, the archaeologists are not able to study those remnants that were pulverized into dust by the Wakf bulldozers. Yet, despite the adverse conditions, significant discoveries have been made of artifacts from both the first and second Temple era.
Bronze coins dating from the Great Revolt against the Roman authority in the year 70 CE. have been uncovered. Below are three other fascinating discoveries made by Zachi's crew. Those of us who believe in the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible do not require archaeological evidence to bolster our convictions, just as those that are willing to employ any and all methods in an attempt to pervert, deny, and obliterate the truth certainly won't be moved by a few archaeological finds, however startling they may be. Yet these discoveries, as you will see below, can bring us tantalizingly close to a period in human history of nearly a thousand years, when the Holy Temple stood on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem."
"In an unbelievable disregard for holy respect, scientific principles and simple decency, see what is permitted to go on at the Holiest site on Earth!"
THE VERY FACT THAT THIS IS GOING ON IS PROOF THAT FEAR OF FINDING EVIDENCE IS FOREMOST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO DO THIS COWARDLY THING!
Muslims KNOW that this site is Jewish alone and fear that it can and will be proved someday so they do what all cowards do they bully and intimidate those who look for that proof!
"Despite Israel's victorious return to the Temple Mount in the miraculous Six Day War of 1967, Moslem authorities have embarked upon a campaign to destroy the Jewish people's historical and Divinely-appointed connection to this holy site. Their efforts have reached a fever pitch, and nothing is being done to stop them!"
Each place you mentioned unsurprisingly like East Jerusalem`s Arab village of Silwan which is called by Israelis "The city of David" are in dispute so excavations are difficult if not impossible. And with Arab sanction to destroy anything that would prove the Land belongs to the Jews how can anyone expect to get to the truth?
Its interesting how you find the only places where there are no freedoms to dig without great issues being raised, but avoid the obvious evidences I've presented. You quote moronic people with little self respect or historical method but avoid dealing with those whose credentials are solid. Interesting but not surprising to anyone!
Prior to any construction, laying of infrastructure or development in an area designated as an antiquities site, the developer must underwrite a “salvage excavation”. The purpose of such an excavation is to reveal archaeological remains and document them before they are destroyed or covered by modern construction. By contrast, research excavations are undertaken in order to address specific research issues at sites that may not be in danger of destruction. A dig undertaken for tourism development is termed salvage work, because although some of the remains are preserved and accessible, the motive for excavation and the methods used are often not oriented toward research.
Occupation layer
An archaeological site is composed of superimposed deposits or layers. Layers containing remains of material culture such as pottery or stone vessels, especially when they can be related to structures, are identified as occupation layers, i.e. strata that represent daily human activities. The term distinguishes it from layers of earth that piled up over this layer after it was abandoned. Floor
A floor that abuts a wall and does not cover it or is not cut by it may reasonably be assumed to date to the same period as the wall. Finds on this floor would therefore serve to date the walls that it abuts. Finds made on, in or beneath floors are archaeologists’ main dating tools. In situ finds
A find discovered in its original location. Often, archaeological artifact are displaced by human activity or natural processes. In order to associate an artifact with the place in which it was found, it is necessary to confirm that it is “in situ” (in its place). If it is not in its original place due to past events such as erosion, theft or an unsupervised excavation – the significance of the find is compromised."
Get real here even if half of this is the case it is clearly done to block, obstruct or otherwise slow down evidence from surfacing and ANYONE JEWISH OR ARAB SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN!
"you have NOT proven anything. tel Dan Inscription of the Aramean King Hazael?
Three
fragments of a 13-line Aramaic inscription discovered by archaeologists
of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in 1993/4
purportedly refer to the "House of David." One interpretation is that
stele records King Hazael's 842 BC killing of "Jehoram, son of Ahab,
king of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David.
I set their towns to ruin, their land to desolation."
The
inscription appears to confirm that a chieftain called David was not
pure invention yet even so, it contradicts the biblical story that it
was Jehu who assassinated the tribal leaders in Jezreel.
"And
Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his
arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his
chariot ... But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the
way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite
him also in the chariot." – 2 Kings 9:24,27
But this
interpretation of the fragments has been challenged, both by a
realignment of the 3 fragments and a corrected rendering of the word
"BYTDWD" – not "House of David" but a place-name meaning "House of
Praise".
One problem with the early Aramaic of the inscription
(which pre-dates the adoption of the square-form developed in Babylon)
is the absence of a dot separating words. "DVD" could mean many things,
including, for example, uncle, beloved and kettle.
"The
desire to read the letters bytdvd as house of david is ... a classic
example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than
forwards from the evidence."
– M. Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p129.
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in
the Land of Israel ... the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which
is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small
tribal kingdom."
(Ha'aretz Magazine, October 1999) In
contrast, to the myth of the Israelite empire, the cities of Assyria,
Phoenicia and Nabatea have left extant and extensive ruins "
I DON'T DISAGREE that the evidence SO-FAR is sparse, but it is nevertheless there with more to be found as time goes by! You say in Contrast as though there has been NO DESTRUCTION of important artifacts by rival Nations around Israel which if you honest you know IS AND HAS HAPPENED.
This evidence is only a small fragment of the total evidence and will no doubt bring out the nay-Sayers in herds, but its only their desperate attempt to save their secular view from banishment!
“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription
A new restoration of a famous inscription reveals another mention of the “House of David” in the ninth century B.C.E.
The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the “House of David” (that is, the dynasty of David) is indeed sensational and deserves all the publicity it has received.a The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., was originally part of a victory monument erected at Dan, apparently by an enemy of both the “King of Israel” (also referred to in the fragment) and the “[King of the] House of David.”
The inscription easily establishes the importance of Israel and Judah on the international scene at this time—no doubt to the chagrin of those modern scholars who maintain that nothing in the Bible before the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy.
This so-called evidence by you proves little as well, its conjectural at this point not PROOF.
"The desire to read the letters 'bytdvd' as house of david is ... a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence."
This alone is suspect because it can be said of their results as well, they are working backwards from a secular base instead of a Christian or Jewish one.
So that being said your statements are biased in your favor since it is interpretative at best! I NOT SAYING IT ISN'T TRUE, I'm saying its not in any way a fact as yet so stop using it as a fact.
The House of David Inscription
The House of David Inscription (also known as the “Tel Dan Inscription”) was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.
The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David” (probably Ahaziah). The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
House of David Inscription
Was king David's name inscribed on this black stone slab?
An inscription containing the words "house of David" was found on a black basalt stone slab called the Tel Dan Stele, from Tel Dan, Israel, 9th Century B.C.
It was a victory stele erected by an Aramaean king north of Israel. The inscription contains an Aramaic writing commemorating his victory over Israel. The author is most likely Hazael or his son, Ben Hadad II or III, who were kings of Damascus, and enemies of the kingdom of Israel. The stele was discovered at Tel Dan, previously named Tell el-Qadi, a mound where a city once stood at the northern tip of Israel.
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem House of David Inscription, Biblical Archaeology
1 Kings 2:11 - And the days that David reigned over Israel [were] forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.
Material - Basalt Stone Stele Israel Period of the Kings Date: 858-824 BC Language: Aramaic Height: 32 cm Width: 22 cm Depth: Tel Dan, Galilee Excavated by: Avraham Biran 1994 Location: Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Excerpt
The Aramaic Stele
Fragments of the Aramaic stele
Fragments of a large inscribed basalt stele were found in the square located in front of the Israelite city gate complex. The largest of these fragments measures 32 x 22 cm. and, of the original inscription, thirteen lines have been partially preserved. The language is ancient Aramaic.
The 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE were marked by military conflicts between the kings of Israel and the expanding kingdom of Aram-Damascus. (1 Kings 15:20) Thus the stele was erected by one of the Aramean kings of Damascus who captured Dan - although which king cannot be ascertained as yet. It is probable that in lines 7-8 two kings of Israel and Judah, who ruled at the same time, are mentioned: Jehoram, king of Israel and Ahaziah, king of Judah, referred to as a king of the House of David. These two kings were allies and were defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5)
The stele describing Hazael's victory over his enemies was, in all probability, erected by him when he conquered Dan in the mid-9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that Jehoash, king of Israel, who fought the Arameans three times and defeated them (2 Kings 13:25) recovering territories previously lost, including the city of Dan, symbolically smashed the stele erected there by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus.
Although the broken stele raises serious historical problems, it is one of the most important written finds in Israel and the first non-biblical text which mentions the House of David by name. It is hoped that more fragments of this unique stele will be uncovered in future excavations.
A line by line translation by André Lemaire is as follows (with text that cannot be read due to being missing from the stele, or too damaged by erosion, represented by "[.....]"):
1'. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................] 2'. [.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....] 3'. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-] 4'. rael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king. 5'. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................] 6'. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-] 7'. riots and two thousand horsemen. I killed Joram son of Ahab 8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g 9'. of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................] 10'. their land ...[.......................................................................................] 11'. other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-] 12'. led over Is[rael...................................................................................] 13'. siege upon [............................................................]
Look, I know you don't agree but I am compelled to try to convince you,
NOT TO AGREE WITH ME, but with the point and purpose of Jesus' life and
death.
Because he did not come to ARGUE about anything he came
to seek you out and save your essence from destruction and death. He did
not have to do it but wanted to leave glory to be born in this mess so
that God could experience what we have to go through.
His love
for all of us is so much greater than our hatred for him and not until
we open our hearts to see it can we experience that love.
I
remember well sitting in a church back in 1979 Drunk and High out of my
mind, immersed in the Darkness of Witchcraft, not having any thought
about a god existing, I had wandered in at the behest of two Christians
who lived in my Dorm with me.
At some point during the service
some spiritual force overwhelmed my mind in an envelope of light, a
warmth of Love I had never felt before. I am certain that the drugs and
the Booze didn't affect me during that time because seconds after I was
totally sober of both, that was my first miracle from that God I didn't
believe cared at all.
For the first time in years I could think
clearly and understand God's care and Love for me, tears fell from my
eyes and I weep for a long time, getting out all the abandonment and
pain that I had built up in my soul.
I'm not SELLING anything,
its a free service that God provides and you keep the power to reason
and think for yourself, God requires you to choose for yourself, he
requires thinking, skeptical Human beings to come just as they are
without giving up anything but their dark souls to him so he can give
them light.
If you wish NEVER to speak again I'll fully
understand and respect your choice. But please know that I care about
you from my heart, you matter in the larger scheme of the universe. I
will leave you with this FINAL PLEA!
"well your compulsion will get you nowhere! nada ,zilch ,zero! you cannot convince me of what i KNOW is a lie!
love??
love doesn't create a world such as this with hucksters and
shysters sucking the life out of people so they follow what
you claim without proof. there never was any proof and there
never will be any proof. thats why its called FAITH! because you
want to believe its true.
see your problem is you are desperate
to convince someone,me,of something i absolutely KNOW is false.
i KNOW this as surely as you don't know it. a creator would
not create a soap opera for anyone to follow. what ever created
this universe has moved on."
You know very little if anything at all, what you do is a disservice to
Atheism, you prove nothing, you present NO evidence to prove it and then
CLAIM you know something, that's called circular reasoning my friend
and your infested with it!
In order to prove the assertion 'No God exists' experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality.
Comprehensive
knowledge which you claim to have because you said you knew ABSOLUTELY
that God didn't exist, that's called omniscience. One would need to be
omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient
one would, by definition, already be God!
According to Atheism THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH which would include Atheistic thought which means you know NOTHING absolutely!
So,
based on empirical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the
existence of God would be God himself! Pesky fact if you ask me!
Atheism exalts reason, but it is actually irrational.
Atheists
tend to put a lot of stock in the empirical method and in logic. One
cannot disprove God exists using the empirical method.
You might reply: "But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either."
Granted,
one can NEVER disprove anything exists. The atheistic position of
denying God's existence, if based on the empirical method, is
absurd...plain and simple, its a 'Straw Man' builder nothing else.
And
just so you know I am not the desperate one here, judging from your
lack, complete and utter lack of proof [Because insults are no
substitute for substance] Its simply a matter of my evidence vs your
accusations and which one wins in the minds of those who see these
comments!
Your right its not love that made this world the way it
is it was DISOBEDIENCE TO THAT LOVE that God gave. The 'hucksters and
shysters' you speak of are human beings WITHOUT God's love in control of
their lives that's just plain fact, no matter what they claim to be.
You
cannot prove God at fault at all, it US NOT HIM, so where do you go
with this lame excuse against God? Atheists have always used FALSE
religious principles as an evidence against God but that is utter
nonsense since the Bible speaks about these people NEVER HAVING BELONGED
TO HIM in the first place.
People who speak in his name CANNOT
disprove what is already clear in black and white, they represent NOT
GOD but their own agendas, false religious people are not in ministry to
acknowledge themselves at Gods expense.
Job 8:13
"So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish:"
Isa 9:17
"Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall
have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an
hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this
his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."
Pro 11:9
"An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered. "
God hates hypocrisy NOT the person but the act!
What
is hypocrisy? It is acting like one thing while claiming something else
as your intention, kind of what you did pretending to be sympathetic to
the plight of the Orthodox Jew to advance an agenda of Palestinians.
One of the ways that Atheists TRY to disprove God is the riddle of Epicurus a simple straw man creation.
"Is
God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then
why call him God?"
In its first step, Epicurus states, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."
God
is either able to prevent evil, or He is not, this is one of those
paint a Christian into a corner arguments that fizzles out once certain
facts are seen.
# 1 You are presupposing that there is a God who
can't do everything, that seems strange since he doesn't exist to do
anything in the first place!
# 2 You assume that God IS willing
to eradicate Evil AND THAT GOD MUST DO IT THE WAY WE THINK HE MUST DO
IT! How arrogant of the Atheist with no understanding of God whatsoever
to predetermine how to deal with evil in a world looking for a way to do
it. LET'S HEAR JUST HOW TO DO THAT FROM ATHEISTS IF YOUR SO SMART?
God's
way is nothing like our way, we do not and will not get it, so who are
we to know the WAY of God plainly shown in scripture and how do Atheists
know it isn't working?
The second step says "Is he able, but not
willing? Then he is malevolent." this is another bad reasoning on your
part, that God could but won't deal with evil.
Malevolent means
wanting to cause harm: having or showing a desire to harm others,
harmful or evil: having a harmful or evil effect or influence hence
according to Atheists God is Evil. Again they ignore the Devil in
scripture who is plainly that very thing.
NOT TRUE on any count,
the Bible reveals that God hates evil and that he made a place for evil
to be SELF tormented, no different than our prisons which were built to
KEEP EVIL FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD.
Hell is not a torture chamber
that God uses to 'get off' torturing us forever. The torture of hell is
SELF INDUCED BY US KNOWING THE JUSTICE OF GOD FOR SIN. We would truly be
tortured if we went to heaven instead of hell, because Hell was created
for the specific of keeping evil within its hold, hence God is both
willing and able and IS ERADICATING EVIL! In fact God is the sole
eradicator of evil in existence.
Step three of the riddle states, "Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil?"
A
straw man argument in the making, the bible clearly states that EVIL
came from the heart of Lucifer, the first lawbreaker, evil is
disobedience to the Laws that God created to contain creation within its
perfect operational function, NOT TRAP IT AS EVIL DOES IN A
DYSFUNCTIONAL TAILSPIN!
This argument only works with those who
can't think their way out of a straw-man creation, it assumes to much is
true without proof that this is how God acts against evil!
The
Bible is completely ignored with this argument, the chief evidence to
refute it, how typical. Its obvious to anyone that you have to assume to
much so what is the point here?
The FORTH and last part of
this nonsense riddle [Straw Man] "Is he neither able nor willing? Then
why call him God?" For one thing Why not knowing this is based upon
faulty reasoning and character assassination, totally against the facts
of scripture!
This was enough to disprove God to the
unintelligent listening to the so-called intelligent?, in the arena of
human reason and logic that's amazing!
