#1. Hebrew— Semitic Languages by John Huehnergard
I have made an issue of about how archaeologists & scholars make claims about how the Israelites gave up their native tongue for another language and haven’t yet posted an example. Well here is one example from the many I have come across over the years
It is likely that Hebrew died out as a spoken
language in most areas in the second and first
centuries bce, when it was succeeded by Aramaic.
But when you are dealing with archaeologists and scholars, the waters get muddy because they tend to use terminology they prefer whether it matches with other scholars and archaeologists or not. He goes on to say
From the second century BCE to the ftfth century cs is the period of Middle Hebrew,
which comprises the written dialects of Hebrew in texts from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and
in the Mishna, as well as Samaritan Hebrew.
So Hebrew really didn’t disappear but just modernized as languages, like English, tend to do. Here is a link that shows when a language disappears or becomes extinct. It is wikipedia , so if anyone has a better link, feel free to place it in the comments.
You need to scroll down to the 4 C. AD to see when they place Hebrew’s extinction, some 600 years after Dr. Huehnergard but again, I do not believe Hebrew ever went out as a language. You will notice that Wiki places the resurgence of the Hebrew lang. in the 1800’s Dr. Huehnergard agrees with the resurgence though not the time line
Modern Hebrew is a national language of the state of Israel; the revival of
Hebrew as a spoken tongue in the last century is a unique phenomenon among languages.
But so was the re-establishment of the land of Israel. These two facts provide evidence for the existence of God as he promised to restore Israel in the Bible and it has been done. So just like the Jewish people who did not completely disappear, I doubt Hebrew died out and became extinct at any time in history
He also said that opting not to have children at all is “a selfish choice.”
One of the things that has bothered me over the years about organized religion, doesn’t matter which one they all do it or have people who do it, is that there are those members who try to force their personal views upon others. They forget that God may have a different option for some believers and that he is the one who instructs people on what they are to do. The couple is to seek God’s will, not the will of those around them and if God wants them to be childless whether permanently or for a brief time, then we need to treat those people correctly instead of making them feel guilty or wrong for obeying God’s leading.
When we talk with others, we need to make sure that we know the difference in our words, when they are spiritual and when they are our own personal feelings on an issue and then strive to make the personal fall in line with God’s ways. Then it just may be a personal choice by a couple to skip having kids. There is no law, no spiritual rule saying they have to reproduce.
Believers need to lighten up on certain issues and stop harassing people to do something that they either do not want to do or God ha sled them not to do. Those haranguing others on certain issues really need to take that time and make sure their own calling and election is sure before working on your neighbor.
I was more concerned, though, that the film would give the impression that something new was happening here, and that the historical veracity of the Bible has been successfully defended, or at least serious doubt cast on the “so-called scholarly consensus,” thus rendering it dismissible, at least in the court of popular opinion (with or without seeing the movie).
This is what I thought too (the first line) when I first heard about this film. Of course, I am referring to the original title Exodus Conspiracy or something like that as I knew about this project years ago and had contact with the producers at that time. As far as I can tell, they do not have anything new but are trying to get discarded information brought back to the discussion and they may have as point. i am waiting to buy the film so I can see it for myself and then I can comment better on their work.
The documentary claims to want to create “dialogue” by handling evidence “fair-mindedly” and letting the audience decide for themselves whether the exodus happened. In the same breath, the documentary claims to “show the evidence that the scholars don’t want the world to see – because it could cause them to shift their long-held positions.”
For the first part of that quote, we really do not need a film to do that. The Bible does that quite well and the discarded evidence can be brought in at any time. For the last part of the quote, they are being overly dramatic in their promotion to create buzz as scholars do not care what evidence you see, all they care about is how you use it. They will howl when you disagree with them as they are doing for this film.
The consensus view is that the biblical narratives do not depict “what happened” if someone were there with the proverbial video camera recording the birth of the people of Israel. Rather–as it is often put–these biblical narratives “mythicize” the long distant past, i.e., they present us with Israel’s reflections on its origins from a much later vantage point.
His broad use of the term ‘consensus’ is misleading and his point only reflects the opinions of those who do not believe. The biblical narratives do depict what actually happened and one is required to use faith to believe that way. Faith is God’s requirement and those who do not follow God’s requirement are exercising doubt and disbelief. This tells you where they stand with the Bible and God’s rules.
I am not going to discuss that post more as I have not seen the movie, only a few trailers over the years and that is not enough for me to work from.
#4. They Do Not Accept The Fact That They Are Deceived— http://ageofrocks.org/2015/02/04/ken-ham-ascribes-motive-to-your-crime/
Because according to Ham, the past 150 years of intensive, multidisciplinary and international research have been sorely misguided, as the Earth is, in fact, scarcely more than 6,000 years old, and the theory of evolution is a lie.
They read the Bible passages telling them they are and they hear Christians point out that they are but they continue to shake their heads and deny that fact. Of course the research from unbelievers and alternative believers over history is misguided. Why? Simply because they are deceived and refuse to do something about it.
Otherwise, Noah’s ark would have been overloaded by representatives of the millions of modern terrestrial species. As for the age of the Earth, well, it differs from the age of the universe. Parts of our cosmos really are billions of years old, but God took advantage of relativistic time dilation to make sure that our Earth stayed young and healthy during its creation. Otherwise, we simply can’t explain how distant starlight could be visible to us today.
What is funny is that the evolutionist thinks that their explanation is the only way starlight could reach earth and everything other alternative is false. Seems that they have taken a fundamentalist attitude about their ideas and those who disagree with them. They do not want to be kicked out of the church for disagreeing with God but they will gladly kick anyone out of science, etc., for disagreeing with them.
I wonder if they realize that they are doing the exact same actions as those they complain about? Hard to say as their eyes are blinded. It takes a lot of courage to read the Bible and hear God say — Do not follow the ungodly– and then go out and follow the ungodly.
I may go through that post another time and analyze the author’s words. Right now I want to address other topics.
I thought this image from Mrs. Betty Bowers made a good point cleverly.
I mentioned this topic the other day and it seems some people didn’t get the message. Money doesn’t determine one’s salvation, it is the fact that they have been born again that tells you if they are a believer or not. Then we turn to their attitudes, beliefs, doctrines and so on to see where they stand with Christ and if their claim to born again status was truthful or not.
Why people think that Christians have to be poor is a result of a misguided view of scriptures. We are not to love money but the verse does not say that we cannot have wealth. The patriarchs were wealthy as were other followers of God, some were kings, doctors, businessmen so let’s get rid of this misconception about Christianity and poverty. Of course, not every believer will be wealthy or even middle class but that is God’s choice and we need to learn to be content with our lot in life.
As for people like Osteen and other very rich people who claim to be Christian, check their doctrines, their teachings, their beliefs then decide if they are believers or not. The eye of a needle verse, also does not say that rich people cannot be Christian, it is just harder for them to be so.
No group of people has tested my resolve in following the ways of Jesus as does ISIS. Yesterday I was deeply grieved to see CNN news reports of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt– most of them who had been poor immigrants who had migrated to look for work- were kidnapped by ISIS, and beheaded in their most recent gruesome video.
Can we stop complaining about this bogus idea that American Christians are persecuted now?