RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2013

How Many People…

Pray Solomon’s prayer?  A couple of years ago or so, approx., a fad came into the church world. It was called Jabez’s prayer. Many people prayed that prayer, books were written on it and so forth.

People want to be rich, they want to have lots of things, large spreads of land and many other things. Very few want what Solomon wanted when he became King. Here is Solomon’s prayer, it is found in 1 Kings 3:6-9. please read it slowly and carefully weighing his words comparing his desires with yours:

Then Solomon said, “You have shown great lovingkindness to Your servant David my father, according as he walked before You in [b]truth and righteousness and uprightness of heart toward You; and You have [c]reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. Now, O Lord my God, You have made Your servant king in place of my father David, yet I am but a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people who are too many to be numbered or counted. So give Your servant [d]an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this [e]great people of Yours? (NASB)

The key is to say this prayer with honesty and humbleness and for no ulterior motives. In the following passage we read God’s answer:

10 [f]It was pleasing in the sight of the Lord that Solomon had asked this thing. 11 God said to him, “Because you have asked this thing and have not asked for yourself [g]long life, nor have asked riches for yourself, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself [h]discernment to understand justice, 12 behold, I have done according to your words. Behold, I have given you a wise and discerning heart, so that there has been no one like you before you, nor shall one like you arise after you. 13 I have also given you what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be any among the kings like you all your days. (1 Kings 3: 10-13 NASB)

BUT that was not his complete answer. God put one caveat on this answer to Solomon’s prayer and again you should read it carefully and wisely consider the ramifications of God’s word. Here is the caveat:

14 If you walk in My ways, keeping My statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, then I will prolong your days (NASB)

This is the thing that most modern-day believers need to focus on. They love to focus on the good things, especially those that require nothing from them BUT God does put caveats with his rewards and the believer needs to think of the importance of those caveats.

We need to obey God.

Yes it is fun to pray to have our boundaries enlarged  and so on but it is another thing to live according to how God wants and use the rewards God gives us properly.

 
Comments Off on How Many People…

Posted by on November 29, 2013 in Bible, theology

 

Analyzing A Preliminary Report

Here is the link to the latest preliminary report on excavations completed at Qumran

http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/jsp6_qumran_color.pdf

I have already analyzed it at another website so all I am going to do is transfer those comments to here. I didn’t do the whole report as it is 80 pages long but I did enough to show that the archaeologists are drawing conclusions based upon their own prejudice and presumptions.

felt it necessary to separately
publish this article due to the fact that until now, most of the discussion regarding our
new theory on the nature of the site has been in newspapers

in articles not initiated
by us

and has been based upon unsubstantiated evidence from certain scholars.

This paper should be interesting with charges like these abounding before the paper is even started.

The chief point that should be addressed when debating Qumran is the discovery
at the site of a large pottery manufacturing center. Here were found eight
firing kilns
and great quantities of burning material, mainly dates; numerous pools for soaking
the raw material; piles of imperfect vessels rejected for sale; a storeroom for vessels
before their sale; and great amounts of raw material for producing high-quality pottery,
found in the pools termed “ritual baths” and brought in by
floods. After analyzing this
material, we produced from it
fine vessels of our own, seen for the
first time after some
two thousand years.
Certain scholars have attempted to ignore the above evidence, and even view the
kilns as part of a pottery “occupational therapy.”

That doesn’t rule out a monastery where the inhabitants supported themselves through their own endeavors. See the following link

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02monks.html?_r=0

Will the presence of modern-day printer equipment rule out the use of the buildings as a monastery? The following two quotes come from this NY Times article:

The women now live on the top two floors of a small house on the monastery’s property, above the office and overlooking fields of soy and corn. Ms. Caniglia and Father McCoy send e-mail messages to each other daily, but meet only every three weeks. The women and monks all come together on feast days and holidays.

Nor does the presence of women mean that the monks married or had sex. It is also not an unique idea

Ever entrepreneurial, the women also sell products made by other monasteries, including chocolates, pralines and a barbeque sauce called “Burnt Sacrifice.” They sell Benevolent Biscuits, dog treats the monks here make on cookie trays in the monastery kitchen.

So right off the bat we can refute or call into question Magen and Peleg’s thesis.

Back to the report:

However, the
finds in the eastern dump (Fig. 16) clearly indicate
that the cracks were not caused by the earthquake of
31 BCE, as noted by Josephus (Ant. XV, 121–124;Wa r
I, 370 – 372), but by a later event that occurred after the site had been abandoned
.
Perhaps the culprit
was the earthquake of 749 CE, which destroyed the
Hisham Palace north of Jericho (see below).

I think Josephus was in a better position to make that determination.

The two main questions which accompanied our
work at Qumran from its beginning ten years ago
were: what was the function of the large pools at the
site which, as we realized already at the outset, were
not used for ritual bathing
16; and why was pottery
produced at Qumran, supposedly a communal center
of the Judean Desert sect?

So they came in with a presumption that other archaeologists were in error.

To claim that members of
the sect produced their own pottery for reasons of
ritual purity is to ignore the simple fact that during
the Second Temple period ritually pure pottery was
being produced by all strata of society.

This does not negate the idea that the Essenes produced their own pottery for their own or commercial use. Do Magen and Peleg not know about competition and capitalism? Israel was not a socialistic society nor a communistic one.

The estimated total amount of clay that we found
is in the range of three tons, enough to manufacture
thousands of pottery vessels. The material for
producing pottery was thus not brought in from the
outside. Rather, we posit that the main purpose of the
entire complex water supply system, with its channels
and large pools, was to provide potters’ clay. It was
probably in the Hasmonean period that the potential
of the sediments flowing into the site was realized,
and it was thus decided to improve the clay collection
system.

This doesn’t provide evidence that the Essenes didn’t own the building or failed to manufacture pottery. it just means that they had more than enough to use first.

In addition, we found some wide-rimmed jars of the
kind that mistakenly received the name “scroll jars,”
as they were originally found inside the caves where
the scrolls were discovered.

Which would provide evidence that the Essenes or the DSS owners used the jars from that site.  The jars could have been taken by purchase or simply taken from stock on hand and the scrolls stored in them.

We wish to note the discovery of an inkwell from
the eastern dump (Pl. 5:5). This find joins the inkwells
found at the site by de Vaux, which we believe to have
been used for writing on the numerous ostraca also
discovered at the site.

This doesn’t rule out the option that the inkwells were used to copy scrolls. There are many different uses for inkwells.

e Vaux unearthed 1231 silver and bronze coins at
the site,
28
to which our excavations added another 180
(Pl. 6). These coins are not helpful for stratigraphic
purposes, but do provide evidence for the period
between Qumran’s establishment and its destruction.

Maybe or maybe not. I say that because coins could have been dropped at any time. It is impossible to say when they were left at the site. people who have the idea that archaeological sites are virgin territory are naive.

We know of tomb raiders who have expertly entered tombs and removed valuable items and we know of nomads who come across sites and pick the best to sell to help their financial picture. The coins could have been left there, moved from another spot, dropped or whatever. Their existence doesn’t help date Qumran.

As said, this was no official colonization, whether
military, commercial or agricultural. Rather, here
were hamlets built by people who were forced into the
area and made their living from seasonal agriculture,
grazing, and perhaps also utilized the resources of
the Dead Sea itself, salt and asphalt. Most of these
Iron Age sites were very small, and left behind the
remains of buildings and huts, rock shelters and caves
used for habitation.

This is pure speculation and without any contemporary written information they do not know for sure.

It defies belief that
the Iron Age inhabitants of Qumran, who themselves
lived in huts, were capable of digging such a huge pool
and covering its inner walls with such thick layers of
hydraulic plaster.

That is an assumption they cannot make. it also ignores all the facts that we know about the ancient world. This idea from Peleg and Magen comes from their bias against the ancient world. They do not have any clue as to the abilities of those who lived in the Iron Age or any age previous to this one.

People can do surprising things  but it is hard to break through the prejudice many archaeologists, like Peleg and Magen, hold. Most modern archaeologists hold to the idea that the ancient Israelites and other societies were illiterate. When we know that they weren’t.

Much has been written about the possible name of
the site at Qumran in the First Temple period, and the
site’s possible connection with the list of settlements
in the Book of Joshua (Josh. 15:61– 62). Some identify
the site with the City of Salt, others with Secacah.
52
Qumran of the Iron Age was no city, not even a village,
in comparison to contemporaneous settlements in the
Land of Benjamin and in Judea. If, indeed, Qumran
is mentioned in the Book of Joshua, the most fitting
name would be Secacah, meaning “hut” in Hebrew.
We do not know what the site was called in the Second
Temple period; if it was still “Secacah,”

Peleg and Magen would not know how the ancient people addressed Qumran in their time. we may not recognize the name if it survived to this day.

One possibility is that the craftsmen who worked
on the Hasmonean building projects were forced
laborers taken from the areas conquered by the
Hasmoneans and from the Hellenistic cities along
the Mediterranean coast and elsewhere.
81
Qumran and the other desert fortifications were not built by
Jewish soldiers or masons, but rather by highly skilled
craftsmen, resulting in structures whose quality was
much higher than what was required by the army units
which manned them.

They mean slaves but they do not know at all who did the labor work. There are no real records detailing the labor force or how they were engaged employment wise. For all we know, they had to build to keep the economy stable and avoid recession.

It is a known secret that scholars who have in recent
times analyzed the findings at Qumran do their best
to ignore the fact, stressed already by de Vaux, that
Qumran was an important pottery production center.
The many kilns at the site, the pools in the water and
stables complex (L-121) where clay was kept, the
thousands of clay vessels found at the site, many of
them production rejects, all point to the existence
of an active pottery industry over a considerable
period of time, whose products were sold in the entire
region, including Jericho

This still does not eliminate the Essenes from owning and using the facility. I will now skip to their conclusion.

The archaeological evidence refutes both theories
that have been proposed concerning the initial purpose
of the main building: a monastery or community
center established as early as the Hasmonean period,
or a rural villa or agricultural settlement. Except for
date palms near the Dead Sea shore, no crops can
be grown in Qumran;

I do not recall anyone claiming that the buildings were initially built by Essenes for monastery work. That would be unrealistic but it still doesn’t rule out that the Essenes bought the place and used it for whatever purpose. Their proceeds from their pottery work could buy supplies and other necessities.

In fact, all the animal bones that have been analyzed
were cooked and not burned as offerings.

Bones can decompose quite rapidly and who knows what they did with them after and during the sacrifice. Or the wild animals got to them, we just do not know.

We are fully aware that it may not be easy for readers
to accept our conclusions. Certainly it has not been
easy for us to express them aloud, let alone put them
in writing. But after ten years of excavations, these
conclusions are inescapable. From the outset, we
have chosen not to become involved with the issue
of the scrolls and the Essenes, but only to analyze the
archaeological finds from the perspective of the field
archaeologist. However, since reaching the conclusion
that Qumran was a pottery production center and not
a communal center or monastery
—as most scholars believe—
we feel that it is only fair to ask ourselves how
the scrolls came to be in the caves, and whether there
was any connection between the scrolls and the site.

Archaeology is very limited and it would be impossible to state who lived at the site and what they did. Sure it may have been a pottery factory but it also could have been a fort, a prison, a monastery or a rich man’s home. To take one item and say that is all the structure can be, is misleading and closed-minded.

Modern day schools have doubled as churches,would future archaeology find evidence for that second use? They are also used for parties, festivals, meetings, would future archaeology be able to dig up the evidence to support any present day writing that such activities took place in public schools?

No, future archaeologists probably would be hard pressed to discover any such evidence. if they did come across a poster or notice, they probably would attribute those to regular school activities.

Archaeology is not the godsend many think it is. It has too many gaps in its work to be of much use. It is helpful but it is not a definitive tool.

 
Comments Off on Analyzing A Preliminary Report

Posted by on November 28, 2013 in archaeology, history

 

Some Things To Consider

I am going back to Joseph P. Farrell’s book Genes, Giants, and men because there are two topics worth looking at. With God’s help I have spoken on the contents of this book before:

https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/the-evil-of-evolution/

https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/where-did-life-come-from/

https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/the-hidden-elite/

But there are still these two issues left to discuss and they are important to the believer.

#1. In Eichorn’s case, the ‘ancient agenda’ at work in the text was simple: he maintained that the ancient Hebrew theology had evolved or developed from a primitive polytheism to an advanced personal monotheism, an evolution that in turn implied a post-Mosaic date for the emergence of the Torah in its final textual form.

Once the Torah was no longer the work of Moses, or, to put it differently, one author, the way was then clear for critics to question the compositional and therefore the metaphysical and moral unity and integrity of the Torah. (pg. 23)

It is the second paragraph of that quote that is most important here. The fight by unbelievers to make the Bible a human sourced book is not a new one. Even those who claim to be Christian yet want to disobey God and follow after secular teachings do the same thing.

They question God’s authorship of the Bible. Maybe you have heard of some of the arguments? One such one is, the Bible was written by a group of elite priests for political purposes in order to control people. The others, of course, include the Documentary Hypothesis, JEPD, for the OT and ‘Q’ for the NT. Plus we cannot discount or ignore the arguments that declare many books of the NT were not written by the authors whose name they carry.

Accusations of fraud and forgery are rampant, even to the point where they use older mss. to omit passages of scripture or call into question their veracity. Mark 16:9ff is one such passage.

If the unbeliever of questionable Christian can eliminate those passages and books, then they are free to substitute secular scientific theories, their own desires and avoid what God says to do or deny what God said took place.

Believers cannot allow that to take place. We must stand on the fact that God wrote the Bible but used human authors to pen His words. How God did that is withheld from us as it isn’t that important to our faith or salvation. What is important to both is that God is the author of the Bible and no one else.

We know that God is the author because almost every cultic belief and false religion steals or uses the Bible to prop up their false teachings,. You do not have Joseph Smith or Mohammad taking passages from other religious writings (eastern religions or the ancient false religions) and incorporating them into their works. It just isn’t done.

Also, the myriad of discussions held about the Bible and its contents, the multiple t.v. shows on the Bible and evolutionary arguments would not be taking place if the Bible was the work of sinful, fallible man. If the Bible were not true, we would know it, as the rules governing life and the universe would be a lot different from they are. If God did not exist, religion of any kind would not exist.

False religions exist today because God exists and so does the devil. The latter being, of course, deceives many into following those who have rejected God and do not want him a part of their lives. That is why so many questionable Christians accept secular evolutionary thought. It isn’t God leading them away from his word.

Believers need to stand on God’s word being divine and they should not listen to any arguments to the contrary for those arguments do not come from God. he will not lead anyone away from the truth.

#2. Well might archaeologists have complained, for in essence, what Thom did was to prove that the supposedly ‘primitive’ megalithic builders of Britain were profound astronomers, surveyors and engineers in their own right…How could it be, then, that the supposedly unsophisticated people of Stone Age Britain possessed a fully integrated system of measurement based on a deep understanding of the solar system…In any case, this standard unit of astronomical and geodetic measure Thom called  ‘The Megalithic Yard…(pgs. 34 & 35)

This is quite interesting as it shows that God did not create dumb people. It also shows that God did not play favorites in that what he gave modern man, he also gave to the ancient people.  This megalithic yard may have been the standard of measurement that Noah used when he built the ark- we don’t know.

Here is one link to Thom’s work:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/megalithicyard.htm

and there are a lot more if you want to study up on it. Here is one quote from its web page:

 

As Professor Thom observed in his book Megalithic Sites in Britain (1967):

It is remarkable that one thousand years before the earliest mathematicians of classical Greece, people in these islands not only had a practical knowledge of geometry and were capable of setting out elaborate geometrical designs but could also set out ellipses based on the Pythagorean triangles.”

 

If one studies ancient history one would have been aware that the civilizations long before the Greeks knew about math principles long before their supposed Greek discoverers. Charles Pellegrino’s book Return To Atlantis records this fact as do many other works.

The ancients were no dummies and could do a lot more in their lives than simply eat, pray and work. A scenario often by modern archaeologists to describe ancient life. To them, every large building with a polished rock within its foundations or lying nearby makes that building a ‘cultic temple’. In fact, another ancient building was just discovered and labeled as such:

http://news.yahoo.com/cultic-temple-10-000-old-house-found-israel-201418857.html

The excavators also say they found the remains of a possible “cultic” temple that’s more than 6,000 years old. The researchers think this structure, built in the second half of the fifth millennium B.C., was used for ritual purposes, because it contains a heavy, 4-foot-tall (1.3 meters) standing stone that is smoothed on all six of its sides and was erected facing east.

{I will give you the title of the article just in case something goes wrong with the yahoo link. It is- Cultic Temple, 10,000-Year-Old House Found in Israel.}

The thing is, you cannot take the secular experts word for anything because without contemporary manuscripts describing the building use, they do not know what took place inside those structures. For all we know that ‘cultic temple’ may have been the warehouse for polished stone alters waiting for a new owner to take them home.

That is the thing. When artifacts are uncovered, there is no documentation confirming their use or purpose For the most part, it is a guessing game. Believers need to look past the experts and look to God to help them get past the error. We need to know about science, archaeology, geology and other subjects  in order to know what is or isn’t the truth.

If we rely upon secular or questionable Christian experts then we will never get the truth, we will only get their version of past civilizations and that is dangerous. Their versions are influenced by the bias and other factors held by the supposed expert. When we study, we look to God to show us the truth and what we need to know.

We also look to him for discernment so we can know the difference between truth and error  and when we are making a mistake in our own analysis of the evidence. Not every rock in the Promised land is a holy find, sometimes it is just a rock and we have to be honest about that.

I am reminded by the many recent searchers for Noah’s ark and how some come back with the news that they found it. Yet after the initial news conference we never hear from them again as their tests do not pan out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269165/Noahs-Ark-remains-discovered-mountain-Turkey.html

This group has not been heard from since, as far as I heard and I would hear about it if they had spoken about their test results. Believers are to seek and tell the truth not make sensational headlines because unbelievers won’t listen to sensationalism. They want facts and sensationalism only embarrasses the believer.

So when one studies, they need to learn how to present their knowledge so it doesn’t reflect badly on Christ or the Christian faith. To make an impact for God we need to present everything correctly, humbly, honestly and for the glory of God.

We have more responsibility on our part to be honest and we do have to be better than the unbeliever.

 
Comments Off on Some Things To Consider

Posted by on November 27, 2013 in academics, archaeology, Bible, history

 

The Bible’s Buried Secrets- Episode 2

The only person I have come across who has talked about this episode so far is J. West:

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/bible-secrets-revealed-live-blogging-episode-two-the-promised-land/

But this article isn’t about his comments, the are linked up to provide a reference point.  When one looks at this episode, the bias against the Bible comes through loud and clear, even though there may have been a couple of Christian scholars presented in the expert interviews.

The reason I mention it, not just because it was so obvious, is because the secular world demands objectivity from believers. They also claim that good science is objective. The problem is unbelievers are never objective whether it is in their scientific work or when they are analyzing the Bible.

All the people that produced this series on the Bible did was to preach to their own choir. Basically everything was slanted towards the unbeliever’s point of view. Not once was there any objectivity or an honest presentation of the truth.

Unbelievers want believers to have an open mind when the believer discusses their theories and false teachings yet not once will you see an unbeliever do the same for Christian teaching UNLESS they are actually truly seeking answers from believers.

I have yet to read or see one secular Biblical scholar say they are wrong and change their theories about the Bible, then embrace the truth.  They just do not open their minds and let Jesus in when they are shown to be in error.

They always find some way to dismiss the truth and continue with their false ideas. Even those who claim to be Christian, but accept and teach alternatives to the Biblical record. When presented with the truth, they find some way to ignore it while justifying their disobedience to God.

For most scholars, what it boils down to is that they do not want to do things God’s way and use faith. They demand evidence, even unrealistically.  For episode 2 they only evidence we have of God talking to Abraham and giving him that promise of a new land for his descendents is the Bible and the existence of the Israelis in the exact spot called the Promised Land.

There were no recorded messages when God spoke to Abraham and we do not even know the nature of this conversation. Did God initially come down in human form and talk to him? or did he simply speak to him in his mind? Either way, the only recording we have is done by Moses, with God’s help.

We do not even have a record of his travels and even if we did, we would not be able to prove that those records belonged to the Abraham. With modern secular scholars calling most of the NT forgeries, you can just imagine what they would say about those records if they existed.

One thing, out of the many, I have learned over the years is that it doesn’t matter what evidence you supply the unbeliever. If they are not truly looking to convert, they will dismiss any evidence without any time taken to consider it. I experience this all the time. I get demands for evidence and when I present it, it is brushed aside with no more than a sentence by the unbeliever.

Researchers could finally find Noah’s ark and bring most of it down from whatever mountain it landed on and unbelievers will still find excuses to dismiss it as the ark. Even though the unbeliever demands evidence for Biblical events, they are not looking for evidence. They are just using that as a defense in order not to think about God and his existence.

Their hypocrisy, though, is found in the book by Ann Gibbons that has been looked at in 3 parts so far on this website. The unbeliever finds a small decomposed toe bone or some other incomplete tiny bone and make all sorts of claims that this is evidence for a new species that has evolved, while at the same time ignoring the mountains of bones and skeletal remains found all over the world that point to Noah’s flood.

Those bones are mixed animal and human bones, with those animal remains are from long extinct animals who lived in supposedly evolutionary times long before humans supposedly arrived on the scene. yet, the evolutionist makes a big deal out of fragments and continue to create their alternative when their evidence pales in comparison to the evidence for Noah’s flood.

There is no honesty or objectivity when it comes to the unbeliever and their take on the Bible. There is no hint on their part of even considering any part of the Bible true, et they claim to be able to understand what the Bible says, declare what parts may have happened and which ones didn’t.

It is ridiculous but that is the way it is if you want to discuss with unbelievers. You have to level out the playing field and with unbelievers that is almost an impossible task. They will not even quote their sources correctly in order to gain the upper hand and they know that believers do not always have the time to double-check what they have quoted; so the believer walks away doubting what they believe or struggling with it not realizing that they have been duped.

The believer can’t lie but there is no such restriction guiding the unbeliever. They will lie about their information for many reasons: 1. they do not want to lose and face serious consideration of their sinful lives; 2. they are deceived and act out of that deception; 3. they do not want to know the truth; 4. they do not want to think that God actually exists.

That list is not exclusive or closed. I am sure you can add a lot more to it. This is why God says to study– so that you will not doubt what you have learned, you can see what evidence there is and keep your faith strong, discern when you are being given false teaching and lies, and so on.

The secular world does not have the truth, it does not have the evidence and it cannot prove the Bible wrong. Don’t listen to unbelievers, for if you do, then doubt creeps in and you are on your way to destruction if you do not catch it in time.

 
Comments Off on The Bible’s Buried Secrets- Episode 2

Posted by on November 26, 2013 in academics, archaeology, Bible

 

Analyzing The First Humans-3

If people are wondering why I am not being as hard on Ms. Gibbons as I was on Miss Moss it is because Miss Moss wrote her book exploring her research and presenting her conclusions on a controversial issue that lacked hard evidence.

Ms. Gibbons simply wrote a history on the progression of evolutionists and their ‘discoveries’. There is a big difference between the two. This third installment continues the look at selected quotes that highlight the thinking  of evolutionists.

#1.After new studies confirmed that humans had recently shared an ancestor with the African apes…Sarich would pronounce in 1971: ‘One no longer has the option of considering a fossil specimen older than about eight million years a hominid no matter what it looks like.’ (pg. 75)

The first question one would ask is, ‘What studies?’ The second would be, ‘How did they verify this conclusion?’ No, I do not know which studies she is referring to and she did not footnote that paragraph so there is no starting point to look up the work A search may turn up some studies on the topic but without any footnotes, we would not know if we found the ones she was referring to.

But that is a minor point as evolutionists would have no possible way of making that connection because no one knows the supposed transition process that transpired in this supposed shared ancestry. Then there would be no way to verify any transition theory since this process no longer takes place (and it never took place making verification a lot tougher).

This is the thing with evolutionists. They declare evolution is real and scientific yet they cannot produce the vital and important details that confirm their declaration. Those details just do not exist and never had existed. If evolution existed and was true, these details would be readily available for study and verification.

As for the appearance of these supposed ancestors. No one knows what they actually looked like but evolutionists will present an artist’s conception as gospel truth even though there is no way for anyone to confirm the drawings.

#2. Then the ancestors of the orangutans split at 16 million years, of gorillas at just less than 10 million years; of chimpanzees between 6 and 7 million years ago and finally, australopithecines diverged from early Homo between 3 and 4 million years ago– dates that hold for most molecular anthropologists, depending on which fossils they use to calibrate their starting branch. (pg. 78)

Notice the bold line at the end of the quote. This tells us that the evolutionary tree is basically subjective and changes when the opinion of the evolutionists changes. It also tells us that evolutionists do not know when their ancestors split off or evolved or in what order. it is all a guessing game for them because evolution never took place.

Since evolution never took place, it was never part of history which means that evolutionists are free to construct their theory any way they want. It doesn’t matter because they will not usurp actual history with their evolutionary designs.

If evolution were true, there would be no problem in discovering the actual order of ancestors or when our supposed ancestors evolved into new species. because evolution never took place, evolutionists have a difficult problem to overcome–there is no evidence for them to find and their theory can only rely upon conjecture, assumption and wishful thinking instead of fact, truth and real evidence.

#3. …and they knew from preliminary potassium argon date of the strata where she was found that she lived about 3 million years ago…(pg. 86)…if the teeth really were 3.9 million to 4.1 million years old, as new argon-argon dates on the site indicated…(pg. 125)

You can read about this dating method at the following links:

http://www.icr.org/article/438/

http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/K_argon_dating.htm

But it will be the second one and the quotes that will be dealt with here. As the articles say, argon dating can cover millions of years and as the first link points out there are problems with it. There is something that the first article doesn’t cover and it has to deal with the idea of assumptions. As I said in a previous article in this series, all dating systems are founded upon assumption

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions: (2nd link)

The second link lists 4 assumptions that scientists have to meet.

  1. The potassium and argon must both stay put in the mineral over geologic time. This is the hardest one to satisfy.
  2. We can measure everything accurately. Advanced instruments, rigorous procedures and the use of standard minerals ensure this.
  3. We know the precise natural mix of potassium and argon isotopes. Decades of basic research has given us this data.
  4. We can correct for any argon from the air that gets into the mineral. This requires an extra step.

 

But there is an assumption evolutionists do not talk about that affects their work. All evolutionists assume that their artifacts, skeletal remains, rocks, dirt, etc. are virgin finds. By this I mean that they assume that the area or artifact they are dating has remained untouched, unaltered, unmoved, and so on for the thousands and millions of years they claim the artifact has lain in the discovered position.

They have no hope of ever meeting this assumption. It is unrealistic to even think that discoveries have not moved or been discovered previously by animals or humans and damaged in some way. Animals may have chewed on certain bones and disturbed the others by their hurried grab of one juicy morsel. Earlier humans may have moved rocks and dirt to other locations because they had to dig, back fill, build or whatever.

There is no way of knowing that a discovered artifact, or in this case, a rock has remained static for all those years. Given the nature of the evolutionists’ explanations, for example, the earth pushes up older dirt to the surface, the idea of virgin discoveries is just implausible.

This fact throws off the dating game by an incorrectable margin and makes all their dates suspect. The evolutionist will never know by how much their dating has been compromised because they cannot know the history of the site and there will always be a shadow of a doubt hanging over their discovery when it comes to age.

There are just too many mitigating factors that corrupt the sample, some knowable, most unknowable. For the evolutionist, everything has t be ideal for their theory to work and that is just an unrealistic attitude to have; but then evolutionists have learned to suspend reality when it comes to constructing their alternative to God’s account of origins.

#4. While the entire eastern African rift has been called the cradle of mankind, a more apt analogy would be to call it the graveyard for humankind…By contrast, the Afar valley was a trap for fossils. (pg. 132)

We do not know for sure how the fossils or skeletal remains found their way to the different areas of the world. There is evidence that evolutionists do not talk about as the amount and variety of remains discovered in these places upend any evolutionary thought. These sites do point to Noah’s flood as being the transportation agent for these remains.

What I am talking about are caves and fissures on hills which hold a vast amount of skeletons from supposedly prehistoric animals to humans, all mixed together as a result of a violent action. You can read about some of them in the late Dr. Charles Hapgood’s book, the Path of the Poles or you can go to Dr. Rehwinkel’s book, The Flood and get the Christian version of these sites.

Here is one example:

Another most spectacular example of an ossiferous fissure is found in the isolated little island of Cerigo, near Corfu, off the coast of Greece. This occurs on a barren mountain…a short distance from the sea. it is called the mountain of bones. it is a mile in circumference at the base and from the base to the summit is covered in bones. The character of this mountain as well as those already mentioned is such that animals could not have congregated here to feed, but the most reasonable solution for this phenomenon is the rising of flood waters driving them to this elevation. There they perished and were buried by the same flood water…Equally interesting examples of this kind of deposits are found in the Rock of Gibraltar, where fissures nearly three hundred feet deep and filled with debris similar to that just mentioned have been discovered. (pgs. 180-181)

The Afar valley in Africa sounds just like one of these sites and instead of being evidence for the cradle of mankind, it is evidence for the Bible and Noah’s flood. The thing is, you do not hear talk of these sites any more. Researchers have to go back to books published over 50 years ago to get this type of information and evidence. (I haven’t come across any recent works recording these finds).

For more examples from those two books, go to the following link:

http://dakotascba.com/Evidence-for-Noah%27s-Flood.php

Unbelievers will distort the evidence they find in order to ensure that they have ‘evidence’ to support their alternative theories and be able to claim that there is none for the Bible. The reality is, all the evidence any one finds, supports the Bible and not the unbeliever’s alternative theories.

Nothing makes sense in the evolutionary theory because origins and life development did not take place as the evolutionist claims.

 

 

 
Comments Off on Analyzing The First Humans-3

Posted by on November 24, 2013 in creation, science

 

Inerrancy, One More Time

I do not think there is much more that can be said about those who fight against inerrancy of the Bible.  But I am willing to try as we look at Joel watts piece found at the following link:

http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/11/the-truth-of-inerrancy/

#1. Inerrancy is a great motivator to sell bibles

So instead of placing God’s word above all other religious writings and being a light to the world, inerrancy is only a marketing tool so some poor Christian trying to feed his family can sell more Bibles.

The quote is a poor reason to attack inerrancy.

#2. Because inerrancy has made Scripture the ideal, the center of Christianity. Suddenly, the bible is the most important part of our faith, rather than Christ or the Apostolic word. Because Scripture is inerrant all you need is it and you are done. Inerrancy thus excludes serious study, critical thinking skills, and any meaningful theological development.

Watts is wrong again and has missed the mark about inerrancy. Scripture is not placed in the center of the Christian faith, Christ has that position locked up as the author and finisher of our faith.

What Watts is missing is that without the Bible we do not learn about God, his creative acts, his view of sin and we do not learn about what he wants us to do. If the Bible wasn’t inerrant then its words would be vulnerable to the subjective opinion of any man who does not like a certain passage.

Take for example the Progressive Creationists (Christians) and Theistic Evolutionists. they do not like the 6 24 hour day creation thus that chapter of Genesis suddenly disappears from the Bible replaced by eons of time and evolutionary thinking.

Or someone else doesn’t like the verse that says ‘do unto others as ye would have them do unto you’. Suddenly that verse is gone or altered to say, ‘do to them before they do to you.’ Those who attack inerrancy basically want to rewrite the Bible their way in order to avoid obeying God.

They also want to remove the light from the world. How could Christians be the light unto the world if their source for knowing what to do as followers of God is altered by someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus?

In other words, unbelievers, including those false Christians, want to live as they please and do not want to be told they are wrong, even by God.

#3. Inerrancy is nuanced. Some believe only the original autographs are inerrant, without error. To accomplish this, they must dismiss redaction criticism (and historical criticism in general) and assert an unprovable tenant, that there were original autographs. Textual Criticism is no more. Real archaeology is chided as the devil’s work and science is dismissed as witchcraft.

Though there are people like that, the rest of the quote is pure hyperbole. It is hysterics in action and a move of desperation. What Watts is missing here is the fact of true and false teaching. He allows for false teaching to enter into his life and wants it to enter the church.

True study of the Bible does not place archaeology and science into the realm of witchcraft, but removes the lies that archaeologists and scientists tell about the Bible and its contents. True Bible study , done with the help of the Holy Spirit, helps believers see the errors presented by textual critics, redaction criticism, scientists and archaeology.

People like Watts are upset by this because that means their ideas are rejected and not incorporated into church doctrine.

#4. Others believe the bible is inerrant in what it teaches. Even this is nuanced. What does the bible teach? We go from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism. Women are near-slaves. Rape is sometimes okay. I could go on, but you get the picture. Some simply state the bible is inerrant in what it teaches about salvation, not that this picture is any clearer.

Again this is nothing but hysterics as it shows the ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches and it tells us that people who think like this do not have the Holy Spirit guiding them to the truth.

We know what the Bible teaches–the truth and that truth is not subjective. It is God’s truth and remains so even though unbelievers try to change what God said as they rework the Bible to fit their ideals.

You can also see Watts place modern misconceptions upon the texts of the Bible. At no time did the Bible make women near slaves nor does it make them second class citizens. It kept them equal while assigning a different role in life to them. Men and women cannot both do the same job for that means something is left undone and something or someone has to give.

People who do not believe God do not understand what it is teaching and they get the wrong idea about what God is saying. How they get that wrong idea is usually by listening to those who do not believe God and who have the wrong idea about what the Bible says and on how people use the Bible.

#5. . I hold to an inspired view of Scripture with just enough nuance to escape any serious challenge to my position. Scripture is not the revelation of God; it is a human response/record to God’s revelation of himself either in word, deed, or creation.

Here is comes out and says that he does not believe God and that the Bible is a human book. People, like Watts, who hold this position do so in order to ignore its teachings and disobey God. Watts is also basically saying that there is no such thing as God’s word and man is free to do as they please.

If there is no Bible then there are no teachings of Jesus, no salvation and no eternal reward. Unless of course, those passages Watts accepts as truly from God. How he could do so is impossible because the Bible teaches about being judge for our sins, about repenting of our sins and about how we reach eternal life with God.

If those teachings were human sourced then we have nothing because God didn’t teach them and people would be free to rape, murder and a host of other evil deeds. His position actually puts rape into the picture with NO penalty for it and Watts’ position makes women far more vulnerable than God does.

What is clear from Watts’ position is that he doesn’t want God in the picture unless it is in the character of a rich uncle who only brings gifts to his relatives. Watts wants the good things God offers but he doesn’t want to pay the price for them. He doesn’t want to pickup his cross and follow Jesus, he wants to make his own rules while still getting eternal life from God.

That is wrong and won’t happen. The Bible is inerrant in all parts. if a bad person speaks in the Bible, it is not God saying to follow that false way but he is saying those are the exact words that were spoken by that evil person. or those were the exact actions done by a sinner but God is not saying, because he recorded them, that they are the divine way to live.

The attack on inerrancy is done by those who do not understand what inerrancy entails and they certainly do not understand how it applies to scripture. it is also done by those who do not want to humble themselves and obey God. They want their own way and that is not the right way to go as God did say,’ If you love me keep my commandments” and ‘Why do ye call me lord when you do not do the things I say?’

Making the Bible a human book means that these people refuse to do what God says yet want to call him lord and receive good things from him. It doesn’t work that way. The Bible is God’s inerrant word and it does reveal God to us, his actions in creating and human history. It also provides teaching and commandments to guide us to do what is right in his eyes.

We humans have the choice to accept that fact or not and Watts seems to have rejected that fact and gone his own way, like so many others who do not want God and attack inerrancy.

The last sentence in Watts’ piece makes no sense whatsoever as without an inerrant Bible there is no God bringing any sort of reality to humans. If there was we couldn’t trust him for we wouldn’t know which of his words would be true or false. Watts basically turns the Holy God into the devil for we would be confused about what his will is and confusion comes from evil not God.

Then if God left the truthfulness of the Bible up to fallible, sinful man, then no one would have any hope, for all words would be of human origin and not from God. There would be no morality to speak of, as men do not agree on all things concerning the Bible.

In other words, the world would be in a mess without a Savior to help. The inerrancy of the Bible ensures order, protection, guidance and all men know what the standards are and none of them are subjective nor authored by other men. They know that God authored and they know they are being held to a higher standard of measurement. It makes a difference.

People like Watts do not want inerrancy because they do not want God. Just like evolutionists try to remove God from creation, anti-inerrantists want to remove God from the Bible and if you do that, you remove everything including eternal life.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 23, 2013 in academics, theology

 

Analyzing The First Human-2

Here is a second round of looking at different comments made in Ms. Gibbons’ book The First Human. It should be repeated that I am not targeting s. Gibbons at all but solely looking at the subject matter in the quotes taken from the pages of her work.

#1. But once on the ground, only the French were pleased. Their section contained the oldest sediments, which were 2.5 million years old. Howell and Leakey both recognized that the sections they had drawn were far younger than those where the French were working. Howell was grumpy about it until the geologist on his team, Frank Brown, stood atop his Land Rover and spied a hill with exposed sediments that looked even older. (pgs. 54-55)

The bold words alone could undermine any argument that geologists and anthropologists use science in their work to determine the age of the dirt they are working in. If all they have to do is look at the ground and proclaim it is old then that takes a lot of work out of the process in figuring out how old the dirt is that they are looking at .

But this is a minor point as there are two things we know that makes their estimates of dates wrong. First, just about every secular dating system works on the principle of assumption, even the ones they use to calibrate the others with are based upon assumption, so there is not one shred of fact involved in their efforts to discover the age of the dirt.

You see, there is no way for geologists to verify one date they give for the age of the dirt, or even the earth. It is an impossibility.  You cannot date backwards without a solid, verifiable starting point, and not one secular dating system has that starting point, even C-14 dating.

Second, all secular dating systems are designed and operate under the assumption that all things evolved and that it took millions if not billions of years for the earth to form via the Big Bang model. Those scientists did not develop their dating systems to work with the truth but with their alternative theory and it is no wonder that they produce dates compatible with that theory.

They are basically using circular reasoning when they use their dating systems for they can only work their evolutionary way.  When people assume their alternative theory is correct then they can build whatever tool they need to confirm that theory and pass off the results as scientific when in reality all they do is ensure they get the results they want.

There is no objectivity, no independent studies, no truth to get in their way. All the studies and dating systems are biased towards their theory and not open to the truth. It is kind of funny that when C-14 dating started to give dates in conjunction with a younger earth creation, the scientists threw out all those dates and re-calibrated the findings in order to get the dates they wanted to have.

Dr. Libby once expressed his shock when he found that radio carbon dates for human artifacts extended back only 5000 years and older dates were found to be unreliable (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html)

When it comes to secular science,you cannot trust the secular scientist as they do not want to prove the Bible true, they want their alternative to replace biblical creation. Remove God, you remove sin, right and wrong thus people can do whatever they want without fear. Proving God true means there is a thing called sin and right and wrong and that means there is a hell and a final judgment.

#2. Leakey admitted that the fragments of jaws and isolated teeth did not look very spectacular ‘to the untrained eye.’ But to his eye they revealed a whisper of humanness– low broad crowns on the teeth and a rounded chin not seen in living apes. At an early age, a protoape would look a lot like a protohuman. There were no clear-cut criteria for recognizing a species of hominid this ancient, because most of the hallmarks of humanness , such as upright walking, language, and a big brain, had not developed yet. On the basis of of the assortment of teeth and jaw fragments…he proclaimed these new fossils the earliest members of the human family…(pg. 60)

When I re-read this section, underlined from my initial reading, my first thought was ‘how convenient.’ This reads like Leakey is thinking, ‘No one can see what I can see so I can say whatever I want about these fragments.’

Again there are two things that jump out at the reader. First, this is the scant amount of evidence anthropologists and evolutionists use to determine the evolution of humans. Without the whole skeleton and observation of the living creature, anything can be said about these few remains and no one can refute the conclusions because there isn’t any more evidence to the contrary. The only evidence there is for both sides are the fragments that are discovered. That is it and anyone can read what they want into a fossil.

Second, the reader should notice that Leakey did not use science to prove his claim. He just proclaimed it so without any hope of verification. For all he knew, he could have found fragments from a fully developed human who did not evolve but was created.

In other words, there is nothing in those fragments or the sediment in which they were found that provides any corroborating evidence for his proclamation. All he has are bone fragments and dirt. Nothing more.

#3. Charles Darwin had written a century earlier in The Descent of Man that man must have had a pedigree of ‘prodigious length’ because humans had undergone a great amount of modification in comparison with higher apes…(pg. 61)

The greatest problem that evolutionists cannot overcome is the one of limitation. Evolutionists are restricted to explaining the present world with nowhere to go. The believer simply needs to ask, ‘Why were humans the only ones that developed this far?’, to see the impossibility of the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were true there would be no restrictions on how many species could develop and how far they could develop. But since evolution isn’t true and creation is, evolutionists are restricted to trying to explain the current situation, where humans are different from the animals.

They are stuck. They can’t explain why there were only humans who were superior to animals because origins of man and all species did not take place the evolutionary way. It took place as God said in Genesis 1 thus the evolutionary theory is limited to what God actually did. There are no alternatives for the evolutionist.

#4. For generations, paleontologists had baptized each precious new fossil as a new species or even genus, with some species based on single teeth…(pg. 65)

This sparse evidence is what the evolutionary theory is built upon and that is not enough. But you can see what evolutionists do. They will find the minutest difference and regardless of its true origin will declare an evolutionary discovery and a filling out of the evolutionary tree.

Another problem that evolutionists face is that bones decay, sometimes quite rapidly, thus they will never get the evidence they want because it is gone. Even if they got the evidence they want, they could only read into the fossils because those fossils no longer live and there is no way to observe their traits to see if the evolutionist was correct.

Fossils only prove that a human or animal once lived and that they were subject to the disease, sin and corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin. They cannot prove any transition because nothing in a fossil is alive performing the desired transition. It is a still picture of one moment in the life of a human or animal, either when the died or what happens to their skeletal structures after they have perished.

No one can say that this fossil transitioned into another species because there is nothing to show that transition. It is all read into the fossil by those who reject the truth of creation found in Genesis 1. Not one fossil demonstrates  one transition, it is impossible. To see a transition we must witness countless generational births and that is not going to happen because origins and development of life did not take place the evolutionary way.

#5. One cannot define species or types by applying an arbitrary yardstick to differences in anatomy. it does not matter if two populations of birds looked exactly alike, such as different species of black-capped titmice or leaf warblers. If they cannot produce viable offspring, they belong to a different species. Conversely, if two birds have beaks of different lengths but still produce offspring, they are members of the same species. (pgs. 67-68)

I would like to change the word ‘species’ in the quote to the word ‘kind’ as we know that different species can mate and produce viable offspring. It is less confusing even though no one knows what the boundaries, besides reproduction, define a kind.

We read continuously in Genesis 1 the following words:

bearing fruit after [l]their kind

vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind

with seed in them, after [r]their kind

swarmed after their kind

after its kind;

after [ag]their kind

after [ah]their kind

after [ai]their kind,

after [aj]their kind,

after its kind; (re-read Genesis 1 to see the full details)

This is how we know Genesis one is true. Evolution, in its true form, would not have this restriction. There would be no reason for it to exist. Basically, the supposed evolutionary process has no rules and no boundaries but since God made everything and put boundaries in place, evolutionists again are stuck and they cannot explain the existence of these restrictions nor get past them.

Every hybrid experiment has shown this to be so. The boundaries demolish the hopes of evolutionists of being able to constructing an alternative origin and development of life on this planet.

#6. Hands were probably used extensively and perhaps tools as well, Pillbeam and Simons wrote in 1965. And if hands were free to use tools, this suggested that perhaps Ramapithecus walked upright, although there were no fossils from beneath the neck– and all of this was based on fragments of jaws and teeth. (pgs. 68-69)

If nothing else, this shows the desperation of evolutionists who so want their theory to be true. They will use such minute evidence to create hypothesis that have no hope of being true simply because they do not want to or can’t believe the Bible. The evolutionist has no evidence to support their theory of human development. They have to stretch fragments into complete biographies of anatomies and how they functioned and that is not science but wishful thinking.

This round of quotes has only brought us up to Chapter 4 of Ms. Gibbons’ book. if there is this much evidence against the evolutionary theory in these few quotes just think what the rest of the book holds.

To believers, it is clear that evolutionists will do and believe anything as long as they can keep God out of the picture. This is why it is wrong for Christians to accept evolutionary thinking or even to try to Christianize it. There is nothing of God in the evolutionary theory.

That theory is based totally upon assumption, conjecture, wishful thinking, etc., and not on science, fact, truth or even evidence. I may do a third and fourth round of quotes from this book as long as I do not have to repeat myself, it all depends.

 
Comments Off on Analyzing The First Human-2

Posted by on November 22, 2013 in creation, science

 
 
%d bloggers like this: