Answering A Skeptic: PART 2- From Ezra to Hitler and beyond!

And he says: "But it gets worse!

According to him that is! He begins to use NOT scripture but commentaries on the Torah and arguments not proven as fact to make the Jews look bad. Not a very good argument at best and anti-Semitic in its worst form since Hitler wasn't in his right mind in the first place!

Ezra the Scribe

HERE IS THE TRUTH ABOUT EZRA, NOTHING LIKE THIS NONSENSE!

 

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111905/jewish/Ezra-the-Scribe.htm

Led the return to Israel in 3413 (348 BCE)

http://www.ezra.mobi/2010/01/life-of-ezra.html#comment-form

The order in which Ezra took the various measures attributed to him is uncertain. He probably presented the Law to the people during the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn, most likely in the year of his arrival.

He also took action against mixed marriages and succeeded in persuading the people to divorce their foreign wives voluntarily. His efforts reached their climax when the people engaged in solemn covenant before God to enter into no more mixed marriages, to refrain from work on the Sabbath, to levy on themselves an annual tax for the support of the Temple, regularly to present their tithes and offerings, and otherwise to comply with the demands of the Law.

NOTHING HE DID WAS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT GOD WOULD HAVE HIM DO

"Judaism has known for “thousands” of years that Ezra rewrote Torah and Jeremiah was telling the people that the scriptures were corrupted, Jeremiah chapter 7 & 8. So poor Marcion was on the ball when he said there was something wrong with the god of the Jews."

The scriptures were corrupted but not in any way as this Atheist intimates it was, God from the beginning wanted His people of whatever people groups they were to be SEPARATE from people's who did not serve God, that is the simple idea herein mutilated by nonsensical conclusions!

Ezra was a priest of God who was under great pressure to reinstate the Jewish way of worship in a time when his people were scattered in another land in subjection to a people who hated their God and worshiped many gods, so to accuse him this way flies in the face of reason.  If anyone was guilty of this it was the opponents of Ezra not Ezra himself.

"Ezra created god in his own image. In the image of a racist, Zionist, blood thirsty MONSTER, created he god.

Racism was invented by the Jewish Priest Ezra!"

This racist nonsense is straight from Hitlers warped mind, not Ezra but this argument about scripture taken entirely out of its context and reformed into this hate filled understanding of Gods prophet and his motives in saying certain things to his people is really taking it to far even for an Atheist!

"You don’t believe me?

Mein Kampf is the German version of the Book of Ezra. "

There is literally NO MENTION of this statement on the internet except a few atheists and this person BOB the Atheist, so it is obvious there is no proof of this overstated concept......it is the Bob doctrine alone and deserves no other response but the historical rather than the hysterical record of an Atheist!

Here is an interesting article about this book from the Jewish Encyclopedia: Especially the section on the SUPPOSED fabrications in this book!

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5968-ezra-book-of

http://www.tektonics.org/af/divforce.html
 

"In his Edict to the returned Jews from Babylon he stated:"

 

Please note here: Ezra was a scribe as well as a hereditary priest. As a scribe he was trained as all before him, in the minutiae of religious law and was qualified to translate and interpret those laws. Remember Jews were taught from early on to absolutely memorize the scriptures, so Ezra being a preist of God and a Scribe would not have been one to misquote God lightly if at all.

"Not only did Ezra demand that the foreign wives of Jewish men be cast off, he demanded that all the children of such marriages be sent away.

His edict was multi-generational. Children, grandchildren and great grandchildren were to be cast off, never again to see their families. And wives, who had been with.  their husbands only a few years, as well as those who had spent a lifetime with their mates, must also be sent away. No one whose blood was contaminated with non-Jewish blood could stay."

As you can see this Atheist is overplaying the sympathy card here on purpose, obviously in order to use the emotional element of this idea to sway his audience in favor of what he's saying!

But using this form of tactic is not right sinse he was not there to witness it first hand and the text he's referring to doesn't mention any of this happening at all, so it's simply made up emotional happening from his mind. It's fair to say that his argument is EMOTIONALLY based and not logically based!

HERE'S A GREAT ARTICLE EXPLAINING IN BETTER DETAIL WHY.

http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/402/jbq_402_wolakfinal.pdf

It must be completely understood that to be Jewish was multiracial by nature, many different people groups made up the Jewish people throughout their history as well as now, Jewishness ISN'T BASED UPON SKIN COLOR BUT RELIGOUS DEVOTION AND OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S LAW, so to state that it was unusual for God to require separation from unbelieving people is simply absurd and stupid.

There is no contradiction in Ezra only a misunderstanding and accusation from an Atheist LOOKING for such contradictions. It is possible to find contradiction in any given text if seen in a wrong spirit or ignorance so the point he is making is lost amid the true understanding!

He further states:

 

"The policy instituted by Ezra was more severe and contradicted the Deuteronomic Law which said: “You shall not detest an Edomite… you shall not detest an Egyptian…The sons of the third generation who are born to them enter the assembly of the Lord.” Deuteronomy. 23:8

 

 

I THOUGHT I MIGHT TAKE THE liberty OF PASTING THIS ENTIRE worthy ARTICLE TO CLEAR UP THIS ATHEISTIC MESS once and for all!

 

Did Ezra the Scribe Tamper with the Law of Moses?

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/ezratamp.htm

 

In Deuteronomy 16:2 it says, "Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and of the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there."    Yet in Exodus 12:5 it says, "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats."   Says one writer, the reason for this difference is that Ezra the scribe re-wrote Moses' words in Deuteronomy 16, and changed the Law.   What is the truth?

Is there a contradiction between Exodus 12:5 and Deuteronomy 16:2?

 

Why does Exodus plainly tell us the Passover had to be a kid or a lamb, but Deuteronomy says even an animal from the 'herd" -- a bullock -- can be sacrificed? What gives? Why does Deuteronomy say "of the herd"? 
 

This used to puzzle me. At one time I thought that perhaps the reference to the "herd" might have referred to a "herd of goats." Obviously, goats don't "flock" together like sheep do -- they are too independent. But we do speak of a "herd of goats."

 

 

However, in studying Ezekiel's description of the millennial Temple of YEHOVAH God, I discovered another answer to the enigma.

In Ezekiel 45:21 we read, "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." During these seven days of Passover, YEHOVAH God commanded various "Passover" sacrifices to be offered at the Temple, or sanctuary.

 

On the first day of the feast, two young bullocks and one ram and seven lambs were to be offered for a burnt offering to the LORD (YEHOVAH) (Numbers 28:16-19). These would be the "Passover" offerings, and fell on the first high holy day, when the Passover was to be eaten. They included two bullocks.

 

These sacrifices on Passover would fulfill the commandment in Deuteronomy 16:2 about the sacrifices "of the herd," which were to be made on the Passover. However, as the commandment in Exodus plainly states, the Passover sacrifice itself had to be a young sheep or goat of the first year, unblemished. Obviously Deuteronomy 16:2 is discussing a different sacrifice than the regular Passover lamb! 

 

 

Another answer to this question, however, has also come to light. In studying in preparation for the Passover this year, I ran across a reference to Deuteronomy 16:2 which cleared up the whole problem. I discovered that the "Passover" sacrifice mentioned in Deuteronomy 16:2 could also refer to a special offering which often accompanied the Passover lamb itself, when it was sacrificed on Nisan 14. In The Secrets of the Haggadah: A Commentary on the Passover Haggadah, by M. Glazerson, we read the following:

"When the Pesach Sacrifice is offered, a Peace Offering is offered with it on the fourteenth day of the month, either from the bullocks or the sheep, large or small, male or female. This is called the 'Chagigah of the Fourteenth.' Of it, the Torah states: 'And you shall bring the Pesach as an offering of a meal to Hashem, your God; from the flock and the herd...' (Devarim 16:2). Scripture did not make this mandatory, but optional...

"When is the Chagigah brought together with the Pesach Sacrifice? They are offered together only in a state of ritual purity on weekdays when the Paschal lamb is too small for all those eating. It may be eaten for two days and one night. It is governed by the same regulations as all Peace Offerings...." (p.25).

One writer has claimed that the verse in Deuteronomy 16:2 refers to the Passover lamb itself, and that Ezra the scribe, who lived about one thousand years after Moses, changed the text and rewrote the words of Moses, adding the words "of the herd," and the entire commandment that the Passover lambs had to be killed at the "place where God put His Name," and not within their own gates or homes. 

 

 

This idea would mean that Ezra, a faithful and true servant of YEHOVAH God, tampered with the Word of YEHOVAH God, and deliberately altered Holy Scripture -- a nonsensical and foolish idea, if I ever heard of one! Ezra would never tamper with Scripture. "For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments" (Ezra 7:10).

 

 

He was "Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel" (verse 11). Ezra was a very righteous and godly man, and would never have tampered with or altered the meaning or the text of the books of Moses. 

 

 

However, for a supposed man of YEHOVAH God to claim that Ezra changed the writings of Moses, and altered inspired Scripture (II Tim.3:16), changing its meaning, is tantamount to calling Ezra a heathen, pagan, and calling YEHOVAH a "liar" who didn't really preserve His Word as truly "inspired." 

 

 

The truth is, YEHOVAH God Almighty inspired Moses when He gave him the Law -- the Torah. This includes Deuteronomy, chapter 16. Ezra did not change Scripture. It has been our understanding of the Scripture which has been lacking.

 

 

The Jewish book Secrets of the Haggidah clears up this mystery of the usage of the word "herd" in Deuteronomy 16, as it applies the the Passover. It is a reference to the Chagigah "peace offering," which could accompany the Passover sacrifice itself! 

 

 

This is an example of how we must be very careful lest we leap to wrong conclusions when studying the Bible. As the apostle Paul wrote, we must -- "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15).

 

In our effort to "Prove all things" (I Thessalonians 5:21), we must be very careful that we are not led astray by ministers and teachers who lack true understanding and who use the word of YEHOVAH God to deceive, delude, and seduce YEHOVAH's people into the way of error. As Solomon wrote so vividly, "There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverb 14:12).

 

 

Truly we must be very careful, and not accept at face value the ramblings and musings and mutterings of modern day ministers and "false teachers" who misunderstand, misteach, and misuse the Word of YEHOVAH God to their own advantage and purposes.

 

There are many ministers out in the world -- wolves in sheep's clothing -- who teach absurdity and folly for profit. And far too many have been suckered in by their vain words of arrogance and pretense.

 

-- Edited By John D. Keyser.

Later he made this statement of overreach concerning Ezra which was an attempt to use emotion to piss off Christians and prolong the argument. This would usually stop any sane response and cause the argument to go south into emotion where he would dismantle his opponents.

But history being what it is there is an answer that is satisfactory in regards to this question and it doesn't lead down a rabbit hole! 

"Racism was invented by the Jewish Priest Ezra!"

 

 

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/p/destroying-race-card-with-truth.html

OK, let's first get a reality check here, the bible doesn't even teach RACE like we see it today (GO TO THE LINK ABOVE FOR THE TRUTH!), skin color had NOTHING to do with this. Jews are of MANY DIFFERENT skin colors around the world JUST Christians are.

Many people used to think of first-century Judaism as a monolithic block, a solidly unified religion, from which Christianity split off as a new religion.  In contrast, we now know that there were many different sub-groups within ancient Judaism, and that the early "Jesus Movement" was just one of many different Jewish groups.  Moreover, the separation of Christianity from Judaism was not sudden, but happened gradually over several generations.

 

 Traditionally the Jews are classified as of the Black people of the middle east but you can be a Jew and be of any people because its about obedience to the Laws of God not our immature beliefs about Race mixing.

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jews.aspx#2

http://www.jewishfederations.org/black-jews.aspx

 

The Bible speaks of Nations OF PEOPLE not Races of color among people groups, and its a simple concept really because there is ONLY ONE RACE that God cares about "The Human Race" and that race must obey his rules or perish because of their OWN CHOICE to do so.

 

These Jews had knowingly disobeyed God and his clear warnings about intermarriage NOT WITH COLORED GROUPS among the people but with with idolatrous people of ANY COLOR whatever the reason for doing so, it was SIN to allow OTHER GODS into their midst and it would block God's abundance from them, in fact that was the reason they were in the problem of being dispersed in the first place.

"Ezra & Hitler are in total agreement

“it was against the will of the Eternal Creator. . .Nations that make mongrels of their people or allow their people to be turned into mongrels sin against the Will of Eternal Providence.”

Mein Kampf, p. 186 . . . p.162"

This is clearly a case of "Grand ideas" with SMALL minds, Hitler was no more a Christian than the Atheist who quoted him. This is the common problem with those who understand NOTHING of truth and even less about comparing apples to oranges.

Hitler was only masquerading as a Catholic, he was in fact nothing but a bitter Jew who hated his own faith so deeply that it resulted in 6 million deaths of innocent people not counting the millions of innocent people killed defending the world from him.

So please..... don't compare sending people away from Judah INSTEAD OF STONING THEM AS MOSES WOULD HAVE DONE, to murdering millions for the simple idea of RACISM when the whole idea was invented by men in order to enslave weaker people groups!

The mixed people spoken of here are the IDOL WORSHIPPING and by extension God hating heathen, no matter what they said THEY WOULD DO the decades of disobedience had taken its toll upon the people and their ability to obey God.

They were sorry they got caught as we all are when exposed and will try anything to avoid capture. Their reactions were simple "Fight or Flight" reactions not true repentance and turning from their idolatry.

The thing to learn here is clearly not what this Atheist took from the story, that REPENTENCE must be genuine or it is rejected by a Holy God. The results could have been MUCH worse for them had the Law been used to the fullest extent of its jurisdiction here.

Sending them into exile was being merciful compared to stoning them for idolatry but the full law wasn't in place yet because EZRA WAS IN THE MIDST OF SETTING IT UP THERE. So let us learn that God is merciful and kind when he deals with those who deserve the full punishment of the law!

 

 

 

 

Answering a Skeptic PART 1: From Adam to Hell!

PFROM BOB: A Posting reply to my page on http://ministerofblog.Wordpress.com/ , it was both improperly stated and improperly posted on the wrong page of my site. Guess he really didn't know the answers to his 'Logicly Lacking" questions were on the other pages.

I thought it wise to post it here as a teaching on just how illogical Atheistic thought is and how to rebut it in simple formats!

What transpires here is a muddled mess of what he thinks disproves the bible and thus God, and while ON THE SURFACE it seems logical at least to him....IT IS AS FAR FROM THE CONTEXT AS IT COULD EVER GET!

I will rebut each misunderstanding one at a time in continuing blogs as it will take awhile to do, but the entire mess of illogical "Buckshot" will be answered, probably not to HIS satisfaction but to any thinking persons mind. Christianity has been attacked by much worse criticism by far smarter people for centuries and has NEVER BEEN DEFEATED BY IT; BUT MADE STRONGER, this will be no different.

Bob says many things here, on many subjects from vast points of view...seems like he's trying to be his very own scripture but the problem is clear, he never nails down his true point once, he attempts too but fails.

Towards the bottom of this RANT he quotes many sources from Jewish history to prove they are Racist in their bottom line beliefs and are as bad as Hitler himself.

Funny how these people are constantly trying to vindicate Hitler or some other despot isn't it? This is the Progressive Liberal idea of getting to the facts, mixing actual history with false context to better their outcome to the public mind who seldom check the facts against the context.

 This of course is simply a contextual mess which he ether purposely made or just doesn't understand context in the first place, but either way it is just not truth.

Atheists and Skeptics always do this concerning scripture, THEY MUST, if they are to make any form of sense from their so-called logic.

What all their skepticism amounts to is always putting the cart before the horse, always forcing the puzzle together into an improper configuration just to "Create the illusion of Logic", asking wrong questions to apply the wrong answers, to come to a wrong conclusion!

"If the Foundation is built on Sand,
the whole structure will collapse."

This would be funny if it were not sad, this quote is VERY, VERY TRUE but not for the reason he thinks. If it applies to anything it applies to Evolutionary thought not Christian thought. But that being what it is we shall deal with his absurd reasoning concerning this!

"The whole of Christian theology is based on a conversation between a Man, a Woman and a Snake. Straight off one would be saying, “This is a MYTH, right”?"


The whole of his problem is a false narrative built upon false context and misapplied scripture. One could build a similar issue with ANY atheistic thought by taking an out of context statement and putting it into another context thereby changing the idea originally made and making it appear to be something different. This approach is common practice for those who LIE to protect a belief or cover a crime.

What he fails to see, on purpose or by ignorance is the simple fact that the story he tells is only half the story, the back story of the serpent, the women and the man in question is much different than his assertions.


He asserts that :

"The Canons of Dordt

Article 1:

" God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin."

BUT the fact is HE DIDN'T leave us in that state when he had the full right to do so, he sent his Word (Jesus) to heal us and set us free.

The point here is simple...The death here is DISOBEDIENCE, not the conversation. Adam was IN CHARGE of all of God's creation, its protection, its upkeep and its outcome. Anyone who understands 'Chain of Command' can see what happened here in plain English. God gave Adam and by extension his wife Eve complete control of creation as God's representatives in the Earth.

God invested in Mankind EVERYTHING and in one act of disobedience EVERYTHING was lost, and to get back to the original intent of creation SHORT OF DESTROYING IT AND STARTING OVER God had to start a process of Re-creation in the earth though the sacrifice of Jesus.

"As the apostle says:

 The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)"

These statements have been removed from surrounding context on purpose to greater influence our ignorance concerning the intent of God. They manipulate the words to misinform us of God and make us doubt his intent towards us. Its the same old story, man can't be to blame for his state of being so it must be something or someone else, but if God doesn't exist....WHO'S TO BLAME BUT MAN?



This is the great issue that is created by Atheistic reasoning, IF God doesn't exist and according to him he CANNOT EXIST then how can they prove it by using the bible against itself? Is this not simply circular reasoning of the sort they accuse us of?

*****************************************************

"Original Sin

Original Sin– In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept–Original Sin–that is crucial to Christianity. He alleged humanity is under a curse because of Adam’s failings in the Garden of Eden.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans. 5:12).

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians. 15:22).”(Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

This is a self created 'Issue' that doesn't exist, its making a problem where none is necessary. He assumes that Paul has ADDED what was not there to reinvent a doctrine to captivate mankind in a kind of 'Catch 22' damned if we do and damned if we don't. This could not be further from the truth, every word of Paul's doctrine is found in Genesis as the cause of mankind's problem's IF RIGHTLY DIVIDED from the context.

 

Yet, despite Paul’s assertions it’s difficult to see ( But not impossible) how the condemnations pronounced upon Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the third chapter of Genesis (Genesis 3:14-19) condemned all mankind to eternal punishment. Paul’s interpretation is just not warranted by the narrative.

Not warranted by the Narrative? What he means is the Narrative AS I SEE IT not as it really is. He has reconstructed Paul's meaning so as to make it appear different from the meanings in Genesis, but they really are the same; its just that Paul reveals a deeper understanding of the curse and its implications to us. He added NOTHING but expanded everything to get a better understanding.

He seems to be the victim of bad reasoning skills, since he doesn't have the ability to PROVE what he's saying is true, he simply adds doubt instead of evidence to the narrative.

What happened to Adam, Eve and the Serpent has NOTHING to do with the DEATH of sin except in SMALL WAYS. This was never meant to explain the vast and far-reaching effects of sin in the future, only to give a picture of how it started. Anyone with a brain to think can conceive that Sin didn't start as it is now, it progressed to this point.


Death didn't start out killing everyone instantly, it progressed over time to kill in shorter and shorter increments. The Bible has NEVER indicated anywhere that things have instantly happened or that doctrine of Sin was a simple subject.

Because Atheists CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist, they resort to OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF DEEP DOCTRINAL SUBJECTS, such as 'Original Sin', the Resurrection of Christ or the Doctrine of Salvation by making improper connections and insinuating warped reasoning ending in wrong conclusions.

Genesis 3:14, for example, says:

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”.

Clearly this bestows no curse upon Adam and doesn’t materially affect the serpent. How did the serpent move before, if not upon its belly?

 It’s difficult to imagine a serpent walking upright or finding one that eats dust. Even if he had walked on legs, the alteration is not relevant to the issue. It is the curse on Adam that matters.

It would seem more a diversion is in play here by the Atheist who admits it matters not at the end of his sentence. So what matters to him he says is the curse upon Adam not the curse upon the serpent, what is his real point? In the end there is none, its all a matter of misdirection with Atheists. What he's doing here is a game of questions to straw men he can easily knock down and say 'there, see it's as I said no mention of Adams curse!'

Death entered man at the moment of disobedience and began its SLOW progress of eating away at God's perfection within us, changing the very DNA in us to accept death rather than renewal.

Genesis 3:15 says:

 

“And I will put enmity (Meaning WAR) between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers (her seed- KJV, RSV); he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”

These curses sound ominous but are of little consequence for several reasons. In the first place, the serpent, i.e., the Devil, didn’t have offspring.

This is absurd, the serpent which was possessed by Satan as the physical snake had billions of offspring since the fall, Satan being the spiritual representation of evil produced billions of his own kind through mankind. Of course evil reproduced throughout history, this is the Devil's offspring and those who sin are HIS SPIRITUAL CHILDREN.

 According to Christianity the battle between good and evil is between the Devil and all others.

Wow, talk about missing his own point! Satan is against all of God's creation, why? Because of jealousy of former position with God, this is not in dispute. What is being said is clearly not what he thinks is going on.

Nothing is said about the Devil’s children. Secondly, if “the woman” refers to Eve, then her offspring could refer to any person who lived.

Now he's on to the real point.......ANY MAN, ANY WOMEN of Eve's children are ALL THE CHILDREN OF SIN and ALL MEN, and ALL WOMEN have the same exact chance to be saved. Sin is no respecter of persons and nether is God who Judges and Redeems.

When he states that 'nothing is said of the devil's children' he is so wrong as I have already proven it so but in their blindness they cannot see. The Bible here is referring to the seed of Adam through Eve BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY.

Adams physical seed produced all mankind on earth but because Adam disobeyed God's direct command NOT TEST HIS WARNING ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN (Meaning experiencing sin's practice) the spiritual seed of sin was to be passed on to all his physical seed.

 By what rationale can Paul say this verse is referring to one specific individual, Jesus, who lived thousands of years later in another part of the world? Her seed (RSV) must be referring to one person.

If not, if it is referring to all of Eve’s descendants, then to whom does “he” refer?

Thirdly, the waters are muddied even further by the fact that the KJV and the RSV say “her seed” and seed is always plural in the Old Testament. It’s never used to refer to a single individual, such as Jesus.

The verse refers to ALL but specifically to the ONE MAN who could reverse the problem caused by the ONE MAN ADAM. Jesus came through the physical seed of women and thereby through EVE but his Father wasn't tainted by the spiritual seed of Adam....SIN DID NOT HAVE ITS HOLD UPON HIM so he fulfilled this verses prediction to the letter. Though ALL MEN are from Eve's physical seed ONLY one man was ever of God's spiritual seed which Satan would bruise upon the cross and by that death Jesus would CRUSH SATAN'S HEADSHIP over mankind!

 

And lastly, the “he” couldn’t be Jesus, as Paul contends, because Jesus never crushed the head of Satan. If he had, then how could there still be “sinners” and how could the Serpent still be doing injury?

This argument sounds reasonable until one understands the nature of God's salvation, Jesus DID defeat Satan on the CROSS SPIRITUALLY but all the physical defeat comes one soul at a time as men repent and accept what he accomplished for them.

This has never been an issue nor a dispute in the true church, but false religions have truly muddied the water concerning Jesus and his sacrifice. Satan's injury is ONLY to God's creation not directly to God. God could never be defeated by so weak an enemy as Satan. Salvation coupled with Obedience shows Satan's defeat moment to moment before God.

Romans 16:20, which says:

 

“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” and 1 Thessalonians. 2:18, which says:

“Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us” show that even after the death of Jesus, Satan still lived and exercised control over people.

The best Christians can do with this problem is allege Jesus will destroy Satan when Christ returns.

Really? I think not, the bible said NOWHERE that the death of Jesus KILLED SATAN. What his death accomplished was to TAKE BACK what Adam lost and since what Adam lost DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT but took generations to take root the same is true of God's cure, Salvation doesn't happen in a instant physical way, it BEGINS in the spirit and spreads to the mind and body over time. The best Satan can do to the believer is to hinder their connection to their true home, he cannot stop them from getting there!

Genesis 3:16 says:

 

“Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’.”

Even if this verse were true, it would not mark the establishment of Original Sin, but only explain why women have pain during childbirth and have been dominated by men. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband” doesn’t sound like a curse or punishment.

Did you hear him? 'Even if' 'Dosen't sound like' he bases his conclusions upon his feelings about scripture not upon what scripture acually says. Well weather or not it sounds like it or not to his reasoning or not these announcements by God are not THE CURSE but only a few of the results of the curse of separation from God which not only cursed mankind but the entire earth as well.
 

Genesis 3:17 says:
 

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life(RSV).”

This verse does little more than condemn man to work for a living and curse the ground upon which he labors.

Genesis 3:18 says:

 

“…thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field (RSV).”

Listen to the context he avoids getting into, he then uses a verse from BEFORE THE CURSE WAS INSTITUTED to prove the curse isn't a real curse, sounds like he's afraid to admit to admit his reasoning is all over the place. The Curse contains multiltple areas of cursing, like of mankind, the ground, relationships, work, this is obvious to any thinking person!

 

The Curse extends out from man to all creation and Jesus took back the right through God to have dominion again but only if we obey the way of salvation. WHY? Because in order to gain what Jesus purchased you must enter through him, he is the doorway of escaping the curse. 

According to Genesis 1:29: Please note that this verse was given BEFORE Adam sinned and thus doesn't count as an argument to prove the curse isn't real!

 

“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food’,”

The plants of the field were already bestowed upon man for food. It’s difficult to see this as a curse, in any event.

What he fails to understand is that the Curse was not having to work the land but how the land itself was cursed and in turn cursed man. The land produced weeds and harness as a result of man's fall. Before the fall the earth wasn't cursed because of sin and therefore man who was in charge of its care tended the Garden east of eden, but ease was soon to give way to hard, toil and sweaty labor under the curse of sin and death!

 

Genesis 3:19 says:

 

“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground…(RSV).”

Eating bread in the sweat of his face or working to produce food partly explains why man was created in the first place.

Genesis 2:5 says: “…and there was not a man to till the ground (RSV)”

Another epic failure in reasoning, man's original WORK was not hard to do because God was blessing his work, blessing the ground to produce, sin did not exist until the fall.

Genesis 2:15 says:

“And the Lord took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (RSV)”

This shows man was put into the Garden of Eden to work and keep it up– a blessing of healthful work instead of idle existence. Except for having to work for a living, this is no curse upon Adam or mankind.
 
In summary, much of the “Curse” is upon the helpless earth which God had just created. There is not a single word or remotest hint at sin, at death, or eternal damnation.

Every clause of the “curse” is no curse at all. God told Adam that because of what he did the ground is cursed, he must toil for food, thorns and thistles shall be brought forth to him, and he must eat the plants of the field.

Where is the curse of Original Sin?

From the first curse in Genesis 3 to the end of Malachi, amid all the ravings threatening death upon the Chosen People, there is not the remotest reference in all the Old Testament to the Snake Story, the Curse of Adam, the Fall of Man, or the necessity of Redemption from “Original Sin” and the fires of Hell.

Hell and its fires are totally non-existent in the Hebrew scheme. All the furies of God are temporal terrors and end with death of the accused.

Jesus never once mentioned Adam or the pretended curse and fall. He never implied his mission was to undo what Adam had done. Not one of the gospel writers uttered anything about Adam, the Curse, or Redemption.

Original sin WAS and IS NOW simply disobedience to the commands of God, it was not obeying God that released sin into the world through the first sinner Satan, known then as Lucifer the light bearer. Atheists do not conceive of SIN as the bible presents it therefore they cannot see it where its presented differently.

His failure here is not in what he sees as obvious interpretation of the text but in his failure to dig a little under the surface of the obvious. It is obvious that much of the concept of hell was developed over time from the pictures of its existence through descriptive ideas in the Hebrew bible to the set in stone biblical teaching that Christ preached!

This Athiest cannot correctly interpret the idea of hell because he doesn't fully comprehend how God revealed the afterlife to those who had little understanding of theological concepts. Just because he'll is only spoken of in terms that the non theological mind can understand does not mean that he'll was not a real place. That would be like saying that because science did not reveal at the time in question ALL it's many facets that, that particular area of science wasn't in existence.

Hell as a theological concept wasn't known as such YET, but was developing through the mental pictures the Prophets and teachers were telling as God revealed it to them just as all knowledge was gradually delivered over time, no one ever got all their was to know all at once.

My Debate with an Atheist on Sodahead- PART 2

MY RESPONSE:

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!

http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/s...

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...

http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

http://www.biblearchaeology.o...

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...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

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. "

 

 

 ***********************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

Why am I not surprised that you have nothing to back up your lame claim, is denial your only recourse?

Your still stuck on this crappy accusation? Well get ready to be owned again, Oh! I mean deny again, because that's all you do!

Funny how I can find so much evidence of a non-existent person and non-existent Exodus without a sweat breaking out isn't it? THIS SITE IS AWESOME!

FROM: http://www.biblicalchronologi...

ABOUT Dr. Aardsma: In case you want to study his credentials.

Ph.D., Nuclear Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1984

M.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1979

B.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1978

NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada), Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1984-85, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1979-84, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1978-79, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

E. C. Stevens Scholarship, 1983, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Gordon Ferrie Hull Fellowship, 1982, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

E. F. Burton Scholarship, 1981, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

J. C. McLennan Award, 1979, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Copernicus Award, 1977, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

http://www.biblicalchronologi...

Is there evidence of the Exodus from Egypt?

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.

http://www.biblicalchronologi...

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.

http://www.tageo.com/get_map....

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!

 *****************************************************************

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

" ho hum! i see you still prefer biased sites.

[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."

 ********************************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

 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!

WHICH IS IT, OR DOES IT MATTER IN YOUR DENIAL?

FROM THE SAME 'BIASED' SITE THE ANSWER:
http://www.biblicalchronologi...

"The Evidence

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.

https://sites.google.com/site...

http://www.squidoo.com/redsea...

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.

************************************************** 

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"wrong again. you deny reality and live with fantasy. how sad for you.
http://www.ynetnews.com/artic...

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!

http://www.templeinstitute.org/archaeological_finds-2.htm

"Piecing Together The Holy Temple


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."

http://www.templeinstitute.org/temple_mount.htm
http://www.templeinstitute.org/moslem_destruction.htm
 
"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!

But things are found nonetheless:
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Israeli-archaeologists-tiny-Christian-relic-found-2243638.php

http://www.alt-arch.org/map.php
"Salvage excavations

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!

http://biblicalarcheology.net/?p=7

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Siloam_inscription
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Experts-stumped-by-ancient-Jerusalem-markings-2355890.php

Archaeological and Historical Evidence of Jews in Jerusalem:

http://emetreport.com/Archaeological%20and%20Historical%20
Evidence%20of%20Jews%20in%20Jerusalem.htm

 

********************************************************

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"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 "


********************************************************************************

MY RESPONSE:


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!

*********************************************************************

 MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

"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."

*****************************************************

MY RESPONSE:

 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!

****************************************************************************

CONTINUEDON NEXT BLOG POST