RSS

Category Archives: Genetics

Exactly What Is Accreditation and How is it Different from Certification? by Dr. Dennis Frey

Accreditation is essentially a statement of approval.  In the United States, if it is to be meaningful, it must come from an independent association having attained its own approval from the United States Department of Education (USDE).  In the U.S., the government (USDE) does not accredit schools.  However, the USDE is in the business of approving the associations which do accredit schools (for the purpose of serving as gate keepers for Title IV Funding).  You must understand this if you are to properly understand accreditation. Title IV Funding is the nearly 60 billion dollar congressionally approved annual money stream that flows from taxpayers to educational institutions that are accredited by an agency approved by USDE.  The reason that USDE approves accrediting agencies is to assure quality control over the flow of Title IV Funds.  The greater part of accreditation requirements is geared toward satisfying the USDE mandated standards that are specifically designed to safeguard the huge taxpayer investment in higher education.

Accrediting associations in the U.S. are not required to seek USDE recognition, but without it, the value of such accreditation may be questionable, and schools they accredit are not eligible to receive Title IV Funds.  That is why schools promoting accreditation from sources not approved by the USDE are considered “unaccredited.”  BEWARE: There are dozens of so-called accrediting agencies (some with very official sounding names), that are nothing more than a fraud designed to deceive.

EXCEPTION: Accrediting agencies (just like schools), must first operate according to accepted practices and attract a sufficient number of clients before they can petition the USDE for possible acceptance.  Unrecognized agencies that are in a petitioning status with USDE, and are operating openly within the general parameters set forth by USDE (though still not considered recognized), ought to be considered valid, but their members’ schools are still not qualified for Title IV Funds.

The following quote is taken from the web site of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).  “There are accrediting organizations that may not be recognized but are not accreditation mills. For example, the accreditor may be seeking recognition, but the process is not complete. Or the accreditor does not meet the requirements of CHEA or USDE for reasons that do not relate to quality.”

Certification is also essentially a statement of approval, but significantly different from accreditation in several important ways.  Most importantly, certification is not tied to Title IV Funding.  Only USDE recognized accreditation qualifies institutions to receive such funding.  Certification is not generally recognized as being equivalent to accreditation since certification criteria is not geared toward satisfying the requirements for Title IV Funding.  Therefore, certifying agencies are not as well known, and their value not as readily appreciated.

Legitimate certification is similar to legitimate accreditation in that it also involves voluntary peer review through private agencies accountable to their constituents and the public at large, but not to the federal government since Title IV Funding is not involved.  Much of the misunderstanding that arises between the two is due to the lack of consumer awareness, and the generally held belief that accreditation is the only standard for academic legitimacy.  This is one reason why accreditation mills thrive while certification mills generally are not popular targets for scam artists.

Furthermore, certification is a term more often associated with professions, products, and processes.  For example, there are “Certified Financial Planners”, “USDA Certified Agricultural Products”, and “Procedures Certified” by certain medical associations.  Of course, the term “accredited” is also used in many of these situations.  This is because the two terms often serve as synonyms.  However, when it comes to higher education, accreditation is tied to Title IV Funding and certification is not.  Schools may be accredited but not certified, certified and not accredited or both or neither.  The important thing is that the school not misrepresent itself.

Exactly What is an Accredited Degree?

This may come as a shock, but in point-of-fact, there is no such thing as an accredited degree.  Only schools or programs within schools are accredited.  Period!  Look carefully at any degree earned from an accredited school, and you will not find one word that even suggests that it is an “accredited” degree.

If it does, you may be certain that the degree is bogus.  That’s because degrees are not accredited.  You can earn a degree from an accredited school or program within a school, but you cannot earn an accredited degree from that same school.  It may seem like only a matter of semantics, but it much more.  You can earn a degree from either an accredited or unaccredited school, but the degree you earn is neither accredited nor unaccredited.

Here is an example (admittedly extreme, but it makes the point):  Sam Smith graduated from MYU before it was accredited.  His degree is from an unaccredited school.  Sam’s son (Sam Jr.) graduated from MYU after it received accreditation.  Sam Jr. earned a degree from an accredited school.  Sam’s grandson graduated from MYU during the time that it lost its accreditation.  Sam III earned a degree from an unaccredited school.

Sam’s great grandson earned his degree from MYU after it regained its accreditation.  Sam IV earned a degree from an accredited school.  Now let’s look back, the fact that MYU was accredited when Sam Jr. attended, was of no consequence to Sam.  His degree was still earned at an unaccredited school.

Why?  Because there is no such thing as “grandfathering” when it comes to accreditation.  The same is true for Sam Jr. at the time MYU lost its accreditation.  Sam Jr. still earned a degree from an accredited school.  Why?  Because even though a school may lose its accreditation (it happens), there is no reverse of grandfathering.  The school will always be considered accredited at the time that it held accreditation, and unaccredited at the time it did not hold accreditation.  The bottom line, there is no such thing as an accredited degree.  One either earns a degree from an accredited or unaccredited school.  All accredited schools in the U.S. were at one time, unaccredited, and all accredited schools are subject to the loss of accreditation (it does happen).

Are Schools Required to Obtain Recognized Accreditation?

No.  For the most part, accreditation in the U.S. is strictly voluntary.  Many states require, or provide for, a kind of “state approval.”  However, this is not the same as accreditation.  There are many schools in the U.S. that operate as top-quality institutions with high academic standards and yet have elected to not seek accreditation.

The following quote is taken from the web site of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).  There are institutions that may not be accredited but are not degree mills. For example, the institution may be seeking accreditation, but the process is not complete. Or a legitimate institution may choose not to be accredited for reasons that do not relate to quality.

The following quote from the United States Department of Education makes the point. “It should be noted that some institutions have chosen not to participate in the federal student aid program and therefore do not have to be approved by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department. While these institutions do not appear on the Department’s list, they may be legitimate schools. Stroup encouraged consumers and employers to use the list as an initial source of information and to investigate further whenever an institution does not appear on the list.”  (February 1, 2005)

The former executive director of the Association for Biblical Higher Education (an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education), as quoted in that agency’s September 2005 quarterly publication stated that “There are hundreds of Bible Colleges and Seminaries in the United States and Canada that are offering good solid theological training, yet they are not accredited.  This would be the case with our Affiliate institutions that take advantage of the programs and services that we offer.”

Of course, all schools in the U.S. attempting to seek recognized accreditation must first operate as an unaccredited school and provide sufficient proof of institutional credibility prior to applying.  All accredited schools in the U.S. were, at one time, unaccredited.  In fact, the common qualifying procedure for schools seeking recognized accreditation is the development of a “Self Study” through which the institution demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the accrediting agency, that it is operating in a manner sufficiently consistent with the criteria required for accreditation. On a practical level, this demonstrates that it is possible for an unaccredited school to operate at a level generally equivalent to that of an accredited school.  The very same logic can be applied to certification as well.

What Are Some Advantages of Recognized Accreditation?

Access to government sponsored or approved student loans and grants (Title IV Funds).

Easier recognition for transfer of its credits to other accredited schools.

Easier recognition of its degrees by other schools and organizations.

Greater likelihood of acceptance of its students by other schools for further study.

Greater probability of the recognition of its educational programs meeting the qualifications for some goals, requirements, and licenses.

What Are Some Disadvantages of Recognized Accreditation?

More difficult entrance requirements into its programs of study.

Program requirements which may limit certain individuals or prevent them from being accepted into its programs.

Significantly higher tuition and related costs for all programs of study.

Less accommodating schedules and course offerings.

Fewer options for the older or nontraditional student.

What Are Some Advantages of Not Having Recognized Accreditation?

Less difficult entrance requirements for desirable programs of study.

Lower tuition and related costs making it possible to graduate without debt.

More accommodating program schedules and course offerings making it possible for busy adults to study anywhere anytime.

Unaccredited schools are likely to be more innovative and liberal in the development of specialized courses, unique study concepts, the use of emerging technology, and the design of nontraditional certificate and degree programs.  In this regard they are often pioneers and early adopters.

Providing the school is properly dedicated to its mission, the student will have an opportunity to gain an education comparable to that offered at accredited schools for similar courses and programs, but at a fraction of the total cost.

What Are Some Disadvantages of Not Having Recognized Accreditation?

No access to government sponsored or approved student loans and grants (Title IV Funds).

Transfer of credits earned may be more difficult.

Acceptance of graduates by accredited schools for further study more difficult.

The recognition of educational qualifications earned for meeting some goals may be problematic.

Certain licenses and professional requirements may not permit the acceptance of degrees earned from unaccredited schools.

Does Recognized Accreditation Assure A Quality Education?

No.  Even though recognized accreditation is a very good indicator that a program meets acceptable standards, the quality of an education is still largely dependent upon the value of the course content, the background and competency of the instructor, and the willingness of the student to get the most out of the course.  It is quite possible to attend even a top-rated accredited school and obtain an inferior education.  No level of accreditation can force a professor to do her or his best, and no professor, however gifted and dedicated, can force a student to learn.  It’s always possible for a less than sincere person to beat the system.

Can A Program Without Recognized Accreditation Provide A Quality Education?

Yes!  Again, since the quality of an education is largely dependent upon the value of the course content, the background and competency of the instructor, and the willingness of the student to get the most out of the course, it is quite possible to attend a well organized unaccredited school and receive a first-class education.  In fact, there is no reason why the level of learning between an accredited and unaccredited program offering similar courses and programs should not be comparable.  The honest student truly seeking to learn, will quickly discover whether the program is meeting the need.  If the course of study is meeting the need, and the student is doing her or his best, whether the school is accredited or not may be immaterial.
Beware of those who suggest that there is “no reason to attend an unaccredited school.”  Such logic suggests that there is no need for new schools, or for the older and established schools to become accredited.  How so?  In order to become an accredited school, an unaccredited school must first demonstrate through a pattern of evidence [to the satisfaction of the accrediting agency], that it is operating in a manner sufficiently consistent with the criteria required for accreditation.  In other words, in order for any school to become accredited, there must be a sufficient period of time during which the school is unaccredited but operating as if it were accredited, before it can be accredited.  This cannot be done unless the school is enrolling and graduating students!  Furthermore, without the pressure from innovative and immerging institutions, competition would be stifled, resulting in fewer choices and even higher tuition.

Will a Degree Earned Through an Unaccredited School be Accepted and Considered Legitimate?

This depends upon what is meant by accepted and legitimate.  Here is the blunt truth.  There is a difference between a legitimate degree and a degree earned legitimately!  Depending on the law of any given state or country, even a cheap degree may be legally legitimate.  But was it legitimately earned?  A degree is legitimately earned providing the entrance requirements, course work, and completion requirements are appropriate for the degree awarded (whether it is earned through an accredited or unaccredited institution).

Will a Degree from an Unaccredited School be Accepted by My Church or Place of Employment?

While there certainly are some situations when only a degree from an accredited school can qualify one for certain positions and privileges, for the most part, you are judged and accepted on you, not the school from which you graduated.  Example: Are you already in ministry?  If so, when was the last time a member of your church asked you if you had a degree at all, much less if it was earned at an accredited college or seminary?

CAUTION!  Do not fall victim to the myth that earning a degree from an accredited school is a ticket to ministry success.  It is not.  Ministry is one of those places where what you do with what you know trumps everything else.  In fact, for those already serving in ministry, a degree from a highly credible though unaccredited school may be the most logical choice.  We ought never to forget that especially in the Christian tradition, academic freedom is considered a cornerstone of religious liberty.  Of course, so is academic responsibility!  Therefore, any program of study leading to a theological degree ought to be both Biblically sound, and academically honest.

However, if you are concerned whether your church or place of employment will accept you with a degree earned through a credible though unaccredited school, you are strongly urged to ask!  Even in the case of degrees earned from accredited schools, there may be restrictions on what kind of degree is recognized, and what kinds of schools are considered acceptable.  For example, in some cases, denominations and ministries may not accept degrees from secular schools, or schools not affiliated with the group.

Will a Degree or Credits Earned Through an Unaccredited School be Accepted  by Other Schools?

First of all, it should be understood that no school is required to accept credits ore degrees from another school (accredited or unaccredited).  However, generally speaking, degrees earned through unaccredited schools will often be recognized by other unaccredited schools providing the school meets the standards of the receiving school, and the learning discipline is relevant.  On the other hand, most accredited schools will accept only a very limited number of students from unaccredited schools.  Such acceptance, when granted, is usually based on degree or credit relevancy, the coursework and degree requirements, and the background and ability of the person applying.  The bottom line…an accredited school may accept credits and degrees from an unaccredited school, but don’t count on it!  If this is a real issue for you, ask first!

However, in the case of Master’s, because of our commitment to educational excellence, credits and degrees earned a MISD have been accepted at many regularly accredited institutions.  In addition, MISD has formal agreements with several faith-based institutions of higher learning regarding the acceptance of credits and degrees, and friendly relations with more than ninety others.  Names of these institutions are available upon request.

Why is Master’s Certified, but not Accredited?

Master’s is a relatively young institution (founded March 30, 1999), and is not financially endowed as in the case of institutions associated with denominations .  The process of seeking and obtaining legitimate accreditation is one that requires considerable institutional resources, and a sufficient number of years of successful operation in order to be adequately prepared.

Since our founding in 1999, we have pursued a policy of developing a Divinity School that operates in a manner consistent with Biblical guidelines, and have promoted and maintained appropriate academic and business standards.  Consequently, we have received a remarkable level of credibility among our ministry peers.

This affirmation of institutional integrity has attracted thousands of students from around the world.  Our alumni serve in practically every ministry calling within the denominational and independent structures of the church-at-large.  A careful examination of our Endorsements and Cooperatives bears witness to this fact.  Our goal is to remain faithful to our mission and purpose, to continue to promote appropriate academic standards, and to be vigilant in our pursuit of institutional development.

Nevertheless, we do recognize and honor the value of legitimate academic and institutional peer review.  For this reason, Master’s has achieved certification with the Council of Private Colleges of America. The mission of the CPCA is to serve private faith based educational institutions through quality standards and practices.  The purpose of the CPCA is to promote quality faith based education, and provide support services for faith based educational institutions to accomplish their individual purpose and mission.  The CPCA represents member faith based educational institutions before government or other educational agencies, and provides certification to member faith based educational institutions through quality peer review and onsite certification visits verifying CPCA standards.

In addition, understanding the value of USDE recognized accrediting agencies, Master’s has achieved affiliated status with the Association for Biblical Higher Education (a USDE recognized agency).   As such, we participates in and contribute to collegial and professional development activities of the Association.  Our affiliate status does not, however, constitute, imply or presume ABHE accredited status at present or in the future.

Does Master’s Have A Plan to Seek Recognized Accreditation?

First, let’s make something quite clear…one of the “tricks” of unscrupulous schools is to falsely hold out the promise of accreditation sometime in the near future.  No unaccredited school can promise students that it is going to be accredited (and no accredited school can promise that it will always remain accredited).  Even though Master’s is currently engaged in the process of  preparing for recognized accreditation, if we are successful, that will have no bearing on degrees earned prior to accreditation (see above).  Furthermore, the process by which recognized accreditation is achieved can take years.  If you are seriously considering Master’s, and do not need to earn a degree from an already accredited institution, then your decision should be based upon our currently achieved level of credibility.

OK, but How Can I be Sure That Master’s International School of Divinity is Really Valid and of High Quality?

Check us out for yourself. DO NOT rely on published guide books, Internet message boards, blogs or chat rooms for accurate information (this holds true for any other school you may be considering). Such places as message boards and blogs are often populated by one or more “self-proclaimed experts” whom only rarely possess any actual first-hand knowledge about the schools they suppose themselves to be competent to rate (or rant against).  These individuals seem to crave whatever attention they may get from their pontifications.

In addition, the few books and online guides that profess to give “expert” guidance, are too often out-of-date or just plain wrong, simply because it is physically impossible for these individuals to actually visit the schools they profess to know about.  Consequently, information is notoriously inaccurate, out-of-date and suffers from the fact the few if any of the schools rated have received an actual on-site visit or even been afforded the benefit of submitting a formal validation document.  Information is usually gleaned from the internet, school catalogs as well as second and third-hand sources.  One serious indication of poor research is the use of unprofessional language and the strongly worded personal opinions of the author or compiler.  While such sources may provide some useful information, caution should be exercised when accepting information as accurate.

Furthermore, be aware that some unscrupulous admissions recruiters often profess to have “inside knowledge” in order to berate competing schools as a way of convincing you to enroll at the school they represent.  The only sure way is to check it out for yourself.  In the case of Master’s, read everything on our web site, call and speak with anyone or any organization named on the web site that is of interest to you. Request an academic evaluation for yourself, and ask every question that you think is important.  Don’t settle for anything less than a satisfactory answer. After that, you will be able to make an informed decision.

IMPORTANT:  Please visit us in person if that is possible.  These days, legitimate schools are trying very hard to present themselves as best they can by having a first-rate web site (such as Master’s is trying to do).  However, easy degree mills and outright degree mills are also doing so.  That’s why a visit can be worth a thousand pictures!  Of course, you may not be able to visit, but perhaps you have a friend or a colleague from your church or business contacts who may be able to come on your behalf, if so, we would be pleased to meet with them in your place.  If none of these options are practical, you may wish to contact the Council of Private Colleges of America.  The on-site team that recommended our five-year certification will be able to answer any questions concerning the quality of Master’s.

Ten Commandments for  Degree Mills

1.  Thou shalt seduce them with ridiculously low tuition.

2.  Thou shalt boast of being accredited by a worthless agency.

3.  Thou shalt offer as many different degree titles as possible.

4.  Thou shalt give life-experience credit for everything.

5.  Thou shalt not require too much work for anything.

6.  Thou shalt not refuse anyone entrance into any program.

7.  Impress them with your “accredited” faculty, they won’t know that there is no such thing.

8.  Always appeal to their vanity by offering them what they “deserve.”

9.  Provide high quality printed degrees and transcripts to deflect questions about the  low quality of the program.

10. Encourage skeptics to visit your web site, discourage them from visiting your office.

Advertisements
 

Interesting Biblical Facts

50 of 101 scientific facts 

1. – The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

2. – Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

3. – The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

4. – When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

5. – Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

6. – Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the “springs of the sea.” Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

7. – There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

8. – Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence – “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11).

9. – Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:1114). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

10. – The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

11. – Noble behavior understood (John 15:13Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

12. – Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

13. – Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

14. – Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:73:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

15. – The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

16. – The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

17. – The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

18. – The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

19. – Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

20. – Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow “in the cloud” as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets – which act as a prism – separating white light into its color spectrum.

21. – Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

22. – Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

23. – Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

24. – Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-282:24Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

25. – Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

26. – The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

27. – The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

28. – Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

29. – The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

30. – Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

31. – The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

32. – Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up.” This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

33. – Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often – “By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen” (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

34. – Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

35. – God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-1231:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an “intricate unity” in the womb.

36. – DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 – “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

37. – God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

38. – Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

39. – Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

40. – God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

41. – Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

42. – The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

43. – Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

44. – Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God’s Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as “Mother” and naturalism is enshrined.

45. – Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30Jude 1:13Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black hole’s gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls “outer darkness” or “the blackness of darkness forever.”

46. – The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

47. – Cain’s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry – therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

48. – Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple – the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses’ day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

49. – Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds – as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.

50. – Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7Jeremiah 10:13Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God “draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
 

The Shroud of Turin

We are not advocating this relic or that it has anything to do with Christianity nor are we jumping on its bandwagon and saying that there is something mystical about this piece of cloth. We feel that the Roman Catholic Church has invented the ‘history’ of this shroud, as that organization is well known for having many false relics passed off as authentic.

Two main reasons come to mind as to why they would perpetuate this hoax. First, the officials know that their doctrines and practices are false and drive many people away from their churches so they needed something to keep ‘the faithful’ in their pews.

Second, they know that the secular world offers more fun, excitement than their church can so they invented this history to make their church seem more interesting and attractive, much like, as the legend goes, their earlier priests ‘Christianized’ pagan holidays in order to make their form of Christianity appear attractive to the unbelieving world.

What follows are a few excerpted articles on the shroud to give you an idea of what is involved with this piece of cloth.

#1http://shroud.com/

The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud.

It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud.

Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.

#2http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.

Pope Francis sent a special video message to the televised event in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, which coincided with Holy Saturday, when Catholics mark the period between Christ’s crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday.

The Vatican, tiptoeing carefully, has never claimed that the 14-foot linen cloth was, as some believers claim, used to cover Christ after he was taken from the cross 2,000 years ago…

But Cesare Nosiglia, the Archbishop of Turin and “pontifical custodian of the shroud,” said the special display on Holy Saturday “means that it represents a very important testimony to the Passion and the resurrection of the Lord,”

Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.

The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.

#3. http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

The folded Shroud was heavily damaged in a fire of 1532 and the burn marks remain prominent.

There is enough uncertainty about the Shroud’s origins to convince some that it is the actual burial shroud of Christ. The mystery is deepened by the claim that no artefact has ever been the subject of so much research. However, when the scope of this research is considered, it is obvious that many areas of its history and the iconography of its images have not been fully explored.

For example, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which examined the Shroud in 1978, when it was still owned by the Savoy family, did not have a single expert in the history of relic cults, techniques of ancient weaving or the iconography of medieval painting on its team. No one appears to have investigated the kinds of loom, ancient or medieval, on which a cloth of this size may have been woven. Nor has anyone closely examined the many early depictions and descriptions of the Shroud that illustrate features now lost…

Few researchers have grasped that the Shroud looked very different in the 16th and 17th centuries from the object we see today…

No one has found any significant evidence of the Shroud’s existence before 1355, when it appeared in a chapel at Lirey, in the diocese of Troyes, supposedly advertised there as the burial shroud of Christ. Such sudden appearances of cults were common in a Europe recovering from the trauma of the Black Death. They caused a great deal of frustration for a Church hierarchy anxious to preserve its own status.

The bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, whose responsibility it was to monitor such claims in his diocese, investigated the shrine and reported that, not only were the images painted on the cloth, but that he had actually tracked down the painter. After this clerical onslaught, the Shroud was hidden away for more than 30 years. Yet the Church accepted that it was not a deliberate forgery and in January 1390 the (anti-)pope Clement VII allowed its renewed exposure in Lirey.

This suggests that the Shroud may have been credited with unrecorded miracles, thereby acquiring the spiritual status to make it worthy of veneration. Doubtless aware of the earlier claims by the Lirey clergy, Clement insisted that it was publicly announced before each exposition that this was NOT the burial shroud of Christ.

This new emphasis on the blood of Christ is a development of the 14th century and it is important to see whether the Shroud reflects this iconography. If one compares the Holkham head of Christ, taken from another crucifixion scene in the Bible, with the head on the Shroud, it is almost as if they came from the same template. Again one can see how the blood flowing along the arms of the man on the Shroud echo those of the crucified Christ in the Holkham Bible.

 It is important to note that on the Shroud they are not continuous, rather small individual blotches, and they could not have come from blood flowing down the arms of a body lying down. Note, too, the blood dripping from the lance that, in the negative image of the Shroud, appears to be reproduced outside the body image on its left side. In short, here, too, the artist is copying an iconography similar to that of the Holkham Bible.

#4http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/shroud-of-turin-earthquake-jesus_n_4770202.html

The Shroud of Turin has long been a source of reverence and intrigue. Considered one of the most important Christian relics, many believe it to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, due to the faint image visible on its surface that appears to show a naked man bearing wounds consistent with crucifixion.

While some consider it a miracle, others search for a more scientific explanation for its existence, and researchers from the Politecnico di Torino have come up with a theory that they believe might provide some answers. They say that it’s possible that neutron emissions from an earthquake around the time of Jesus’ death could have created the image, as well as affected radiocarbon levels that suggested the shroud was a forgery from medieval times, reports LiveScience.

“Hypotheses and experimental confirmations that oxidative phenomena generated by earthquakes can provide 3D images on the linen clothes have recently been proposed by de Liso [34]. Moreover, a further effect of neutron irradiation could have provided a wrong radiocarbon dating due to an increment in C146nuclei in the linen fibres.”

The scientists linked the earthquake with Jesus’ death by citing Greek historian Thallos’ account of the day Christ died, the gospel of Matthew, and the narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, as well as with the work of Dante Alighieri, writing, “Moreover, if we assign the image imprinted on the Shroud to the Man who died during the Passover of 33 a.d., there are at least three documents in the literature attesting the occurrence of disastrous earthquakes during that event.”

Some are interpreting these findings as a testament to the Shroud’s authenticity, as it claims the medieval radiocarbon dating done by Oxford University in 1988 is erroneous.

However, other scientists doubt the results of the study, pointing out that radiocarbon dating from other seismically active areas like Japan has generally not been considered inaccurate. “People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this,” Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, told LiveScience

#5. http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm

When you select an area of the Shroud to examine in the above Master Photograph, point and click directly on that specific part of the image. You will be shown two, side by side closeups of the area you have chosen. One as it normally appears to the eye, and the other of the same area as it appears on a photographic negative.

Remember, images on a negative are normally flipped left to right. With the exception of the facial image of the Shroud, the negative images included here have not been flipped left to right. This allows for easier visual comparison. The negative images have been enhanced digitally to increase contrast. Below each set of closeups is a small Reference Icon highlighting the area you are currently viewing. Click on the Reference Icon to return to the Master Photograph and choose another area to examine.

In June-July 2002, a major restoration of the Shroud of Turin was undertaken by its owners. All thirty of the patches sewn into the cloth in 1534 by the Poor Clare nuns to repair the damage caused by the 1532 fire were removed. This allows the first unrestricted view of the actual holes burned into the cloth by the fire. It appears that some of the most seriously charred areas surrounding the burn holes were also removed during the restoration, most likely to allow the Shroud to be properly resewn to the new backing cloth.

The original backing cloth (known as the Holland Cloth) that was added at the same time as the patches, was also removed and replaced with a new, lighter colored cloth, which can now be seen through the burn holes. Although the creases and wrinkles that had been previously evident on the Shroud are not visible in this photograph, I am assured by those who have seen the restored cloth that they are in fact, still there. These are critical because they can help determine how the cloth was folded over the centuries and constitute an important clue for historians.

By scrolling this page up and down, you can compare the cloth as it appeared for over 400 years with its new appearance today.

#6http://shroudstory.com/

Is the Shroud real? Probably.

The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists.

This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory.

Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

#7http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels. (Another equally famous painting, also claimed to have miraculously appeared on a cloth, cropped up in Mexico in the 16th century, “Our Lady of Guadalupe.”)  The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin, which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts. The author claims that historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to its inauthenticity. The shroud is a 14th century painting, not a 2000-year-old cloth with Jesus’s image.

McCrone’s theory is that “a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Jesus.” The model was covered in red ochre, “a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image’s wrists, feet and body to represent blood.”

McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in “two common artist’s pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder” (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval  painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999).  For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society’s Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000…

Dr. Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claims that the part of the cloth tested and dated at around 1350 was not part of the original shroud. According to Rogers, the labs that dated the cloth to the 14th century tested a patch made to repair damage done by fire. How does he know this, since the patch was destroyed in the testing? According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers “relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling” and the word of “pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a ‘rewoven area’ of repair.” According to Nickell, P.E. Damon’s 1989 article published in Nature claims that “textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams…

Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, “no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave” (1998: 35). “In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.”..

Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof…

In short, what we have here is speculation built on speculation. A possible physical event possibly causes a nuclear event that possibly causes an image of a body on a cloth wrapped around the body and possibly infuses the cloth with misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes. No mention is made of how this alleged nuclear event transformed body parts into paint, however. Nor is any mention made that if Carpinteri’s speculations were true, no carbon-14 dating is reliable because some earthquake at some point in time could have resulted in misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes.

By trying to connect his beliefs about earthquakes, rocks, and piezonuclear fission to the dating of the shroud of Turin, Carpinteri seems to be reaching out to a fragment of the faith-based community that still clings to whatever thread keeps hope alive that the shroud is miraculous and a physical connection to Jesus. Having been rejected by the scientific community, he now appeals to a group likely to cheer him on in whatever folly he proposes as long as it keeps hope alive.

#8http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

Over the 117 years since a photographic negative of the linen unexpectedly revealed the image of a tortured body, ranks of physicists and chemists have weighed in on the fabric’s age and the image’s composition. Forensic pathologists, microbiologists, and botanists have analyzed its bloodstains, along with specks of dirt and pollen on its surface. Statisticians have combed through mountains of data.

The sum result is a standoff, with researchers unable to dismiss the shroud entirely as a forgery, or prove that it is authentic. “It is unlikely science will provide a full solution to the many riddles posed by the shroud,” Italian physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro, a leading expert on the phenomenon, told National Geographic. “A leap of faith over questions without clear answers is necessary—either the ‘faith’ of skeptics, or the faith of believers.”…

Scientific inquiry into the shroud began in 1898, with the startling image captured by Italian amateur photographer Secondo Pia. Under normal conditions, only the vague sepia blur of a human body appears on the fabric. But when Pia examined the reverse negative of his photographic plate in the darkroom, he discovered the detailed likeness of a bearded man with visible wounds on his body.

For seven decades, indirect analyses of the image were conducted by researchers, most aimed at determining whether it had been painted onto the linen or produced through contact with a human corpse. It wasn’t until 1969 that scientists were allowed to examine the fabric directly, with the task of advising on preservation techniques and future testing. This set the scene for the establishment of the U.S.-led Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which was granted an unprecedented five days of continuous access to the shroud itself in 1978…

In 1988, the Vatican authorized carbon-14 dating of the shroud. Small samples from a corner of its fabric were sent to labs at the University of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (RAU), the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All three found that the shroud material dated to the years between 1260 and 1390, more than a millennium after the life and death of the historical Jesus.

The labs assessed the reliability of their estimate at 95 percent. To make the case even more convincing, the dates closely coincided with the first documented appearance of the Shroud of Turin in 1353.

Since their release 27 years ago, the carbon-14 dating results have become the focal point of the shroud controversy, with a stream of critics taking aim at its methodology and conclusions.

#9http://www.truthbeknown.com/shroud.htm

In its quest to establish a religion to gain power and wealth, the Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony “relics” of its “Lord,” “Apostles” and “Saints.” Although true believers keep attempting to prove otherwise, through one implausible theory after another, the Shroud of Turin is counted among this group of frauds:

There were at least 26 “authentic” burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one…. The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigation which found paint in the image areas. The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.

Mythicist Barbara G. Walker, author of Man Made God, likewise comments on the holy relic mill:

About the beginning of the 9th century, bones, teeth, hair, garments, and other relics of fictitious saints were conveniently “found” all over Europe and Asia and triumphantly installed in the reliquaries of every church, until all Catholic Europe was falling to its knees before what Calvin called its anthill of bones…. St. Luke was touted as one of the ancient world’s most prolific artists, to judge from the numerous portraits of the Virgin, painted by him, that appeared in many churches. Some still remain, despite ample proof that all such portraits were actually painted during the Middle Ages.

And Dr. George A. Wells states:

About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: letters in Jesus’ own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on…

At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the “True Cross” that Calvin said the amount of wood would make “a full load for a good ship.” The list of absurdities and frauds goes on, and, as Pope Leo X was depicted as exclaiming, the Christ fable has been enormously profitable for the Church.

As concerns the so-called blood purportedly on the shroud, CSICOP says:

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin’s stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The “blood” has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.”…

The conclusion here is that the pollen does not only grow in the “Holy Land” and that other arguments are metaphysical, not scientific.

In addition, where these researchers came up with the “eighth century” date one can only guess, but even if said date were correct, such would no more “prove” that the shroud was “authentic” in the sense that it was the “original burial cloth of Jesus,” than does the spurious argument used by other apologists that the remains of a first century boat found in the Sea of Galilee provide evidence that Jesus existed. The latter argument runs thus: “Here is a boat from the first century A.D. found in the Sea of Galilee. Jesus and his disciples would have ridden in a boat like this.” This line of argumentation is fallacious and unscientific….

However, the shroud’s appearance has been reproduced faithfully enough without any divine intervention, such as a supernatural flash of light. This latter idea posits a burst of ultraviolet light/energy from Christ’s flesh upon his resurrection, a notion refuted by the presence on the shroud of the beard and hair, unless they too possessed supernatural radiation.

In any event, a team of Italian scientists led by chemist Luigi Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud effect in 2009:

“The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.”… [The] team used a linen woven with the same technique as the shroud and artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. The cloth was then placed on a student, who wore a mask to reproduce the face, and rubbed with red ochre, a well known pigment at the time….

 

Other Books To Read

1. Much To Talk About Vol. 1
2. Much To Talk About Vol. 2
2. Archaeology and the Unwary Believer
 
 

Recommended Reading

Just some books that should be on anyone’s reading list

1. The Battle of Beginnings — Dr. Del Ratzsch

2. Unearthing Atlantis — Dr. Charles Pellegrino

3. Return to Sodom & Gomorrah —Same

4. On the reliability of the Old Testament — K.A. Kitchen

5. The Bible in Its World —Same

6. Old Testament Times — Dr. R.K. Harrison

7. New Testament Times —Dr. Merril C. Tenney

8. Archaeology & the New Testament — DR. John McRay

9. A History of Christianity, 2 Vols. —Dr. Kenneth Scott Latourette

10. Ancient Egypt & the O.T. —Dr. John Currid

11. Israel in Egypt — Dr. James Hoffmeier

12. The Riddles of the Exodus — James Long

13. The Flood — Dr.Rehwinkel

14. Path of the Pole — Dr. Charles Hapgood

15. Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings — Same

16. Is the Bible True — Jeffery Sheler

17. Lost Discoveries —Dick Teresi

18. In the Beginning— Alister McGrath

19. Fabricating Jesus— Dr. Craig Evans

20. Early Christian Doctrines—J.N.D. Kelly
21. The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang
22. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown
23. The Long Death by Ralph K. Andrist
24. Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose
25. Bible History by Alfred Edersheim
26. The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard
27. The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchestor
28. A History of the American People by Paul Johnson
29. A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani
30. The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
31. The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon
32. Unwrapping the Pharaohs by Ashton & Down
33. The Road to Ubar by Nicholas Clapp
34. The Destruction of Atlantis by Frank Joseph
35. The History of Christianity, 2 vols. by Justo Gonzalez
36. Manners and Customs of the Bible by Packer & Tenney

37. The Historical Jesus by Gary R. Habermas

38. The Concise History of Free Masonry by Robert Freke Gould

39. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader by Bradley K. Martin

40. The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol-Hwan & Pierre Rigoulot

41. The End of Reason by Ravi Zacharias

42. The Lost Books of the Bible (everyone should read this for themselves and see why they were never included in the biblical canon)

43. The Land of the Bible by Yohanan Aharoni

44. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible by Amihai Mazar

45. The New Testament Documents by F. F. Bruce

46. Israel & the Nations by F. F. Bruce

47. Israelite Religions by Richard S. Hess

48. The Catholic Church, (a short history) by Hans Kung

49. Knowing and Doing the Will of God by J. I. packer

50. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

51. Civilization Before Greece & Rome by H.W.F. Saggs

52. Ninevah and Its Remains by Austen Henry Layard

53. The Discoveries by Alan Lightman

54. Mesopotamia and the Bible edited by Mark W. Chavalas & K. Lawson Younger Jr.

55. Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia by Karen Rhea Nejat

56. The City of David by Raymond Weill & L.H. Vincent

57. The Ancient Near East vols. 1 & 2 ed. by James B. Pritchard

58. Old Testament Parallels by Victor H. Matthews & Don C. Benjamin

59. Libraries in the Ancient World by Lionel Casson

60. Africa & the Bible by Edwin M. Yamauchi

61. The Portable Seminary  Gen. Editor David Horton

62. Christian Counseling By Dr. Gary Collins

63. The Dawkins Delusion By Alistar & Joanna McGrath

64. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible By Robert J. Hutchinson

65. What Are the Dead Sea Scrolls & Why Do They Matter by David Noel Freedman

66. The Search for the 12 Apostles By William Steuart McBirnie

67. The First Human by Ann Gibbons

68. Biblical Creationism By Henry Morris

69. The Long War against God By Hemry Morris

70. Kingdom Coming By Michelle Goldberg

71. The Truth About Mohammad by Robert Spencer

72. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers by Christopher A. Hall

73. Giving the Sense edited by Drs. Howard Jr. & Grisanti

74. The Old Testament Documents by Walter Kaiser

75. Civilizations of the Near East (4 vols) Edited by Jack M. Sasson

76.  Biblical Authority by Draper & Keathley

77. God Has Spoken by J.I. Packer

78. 100 Reasons to Trust the Old Testament by Murray D. Hiebert

79. Eusebius: the church history trans. & comm. by Paul L. Maier

80. Searching for the Original Bible by Dr. Randall Price
81. A Century of Biblical Archaeology by P.R.S. Moorey
82. Persia and the Bible by Edwin Yamauchi
83. The Archaeology of Jersualem by W. Harold Mare
84. Science & Secrets or Early medicine by Jorgen Thorwald
85. Underworld by Graham Hancock (for evidence only)
86. Heaven’s Mirror by Graham Hancock (for evidence only)
87. Big Bang by Simon Singh (for a history of astronomy only)
88. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra by W. F. Albright
89. The Archaeology of Palestine by W. F. Albright
90. History, Archaeology & Christian Humanism by W.F. Albright
91.The Bible & Modern Scholarship by Sir Frederic Kenyon
92. Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts by Sir Frederic Kenyon
93. Biblical Archaeology by G. Ernest Wright
94. Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments by A.H. Sayce
95. The Ancent Egyptians: Their life and Customs by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson
 

Results From a Discovery

There is always taking place in archaeology. Sometimes the results are quick and sometimes they appear very slowly, Here is the news on one recent discovery {do we agree with their conclusions? Hard to say, we would need more information before coming to a conclusion}

http://www.christianpost.com/news/dna-discovery-of-ancient-mummies-supports-biblical-narrative-of-descendants-of-ham-son-of-noah-189582/

DNA Discovery of Ancient Mummies Supports Biblical Narrative of Descendants of Ham, Son of Noah

According to CNN, researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, both in Germany, found “unexpected results” when decoding the genome of ancient Egyptians.

Their work, published online in Nature Communications, concluded that preserved remains found in Abusir-el Meleq, Middle Egypt, were the closest genetic relatives of Neolithic and Bronze Age populations from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Mediterranean Europeans.

“We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples,” the researchers noted. “In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations.”

The research is based on 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals in Abusir el-Meleq dating back 1,300 years of Egyptian history, from about 1388 BCE to 426 CE.

Using DNA capture techniques, the researchers “successfully obtained complete human mitochondrial genomes from 90 samples and genome-wide SNP data from three male individuals passing quality control.”

Professor Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute explained that previous DNA analysis of mummies has been treated with skepticism.

“When you touch a bone, you probably leave more DNA on the bone than is inside [it],” Krause said. “Contamination is a big issue. … Only in the last five or six years has it become possible to actually study DNA from ancient humans, because we can now show whether DNA is ancient or not by [its] chemical properties.”

He added that he expects there “will be a ton of ancient Egyptian mummy genomes [mapped] in the next couple of years,” with the research just beginning.

We suggest that you click on the link and read the whole story

 

Some Points to Ponder 2

1. Genome by Matt Ridley (book) pg. 21-2

“The three letter words of the genetic code are the same in every creature…The genetic code, bar a few tiny local aberrations, mostly for unexplained reasons in the ciliate protozoa, is the same in every creature. We all use exactly the same language.”

Evolutionists use this and other similarities between humans and animals to claim that all species evolved from a common ancestor. The shared genes and other organs is their evidence for this supposed process. But the err greatly because they do not take into account one major factor.

Humans and animals, with a few exceptions, must share the same environment. They have to breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat basically the same type of foods. If animals and humans were completely different, to satisfy the evolutionist demand for the theory of evolution to be untrue, then they would not be able to survive in the present natural environment, either the human or the animal world would die out.

Since evolutionists have no idea what the original conditions were when their claimed origin of life took place, it would be pretty impossible for life forms as we know them today to come into existence. Something would have to prepare the life forms for the then and current atmosphere and dietary needs.

God did that when He thought of creating everything. He put 1 atmosphere, the same one as today, in place then designed both the animal world and his two human beings to fit that environment. He made sure that they would survive without the process of adaptation.

Yes animals and humans have a lot of similar genetic structures but that is so they can survive in a common environment and such design does not provide evidence for the evolutionary theory but God’s wisdom.

2. Ibid. pg. 10

“Human beings accumulate about one hundred mutations per generation, which may not seem much given that there are more than a million codons in the human genome, but in the wrong place even a single one can be fatal.”

This quote illustrates the weakness of the evolutionary theory. As evolutionists have explained over the years the theory has no origin for these limitations found in life. Where did this boundary come from and why would the process of evolution allow it to be part of its work?

Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-intelligent entity which somehow brings change to life forms, who possess the very qualities it does not.

With the theory of evolution too many questions arise that are left unanswered or are given such weak responses that the solutions are laughable. In the evolutionary world, there should be no such limitations, no such thing as disease or death for the theory doesn’t make room for it nor provide any answers to their origin.

God, in the Bible, does provide answers to the existence of all these things. We know why there are limitations in the gene structure—it shuts the door on alternative ideas like evolution. We know why there are weaknesses in the genetic code and why death and disease are in existence but the secular man does not want to think about those answers because it means they have to deal with God, His Son and their eternal destination.

Nothing the evolutionist comes up with to explain what we find in life or how it got here makes any sense, for there is no reason for any of it to exist in the evolutionary world. Their ‘answers’ only brings more confusion, mystery and questions not clarity or satisfaction. The more science investigates the more we can see that evolution does not work nor does it exist {and the same goes for natural selection}.

3. The First Human by Ann Gibbons (book) pg. 144

“Three months later, on Sept. 22, 1994, the cover of Nature featured the baby molar set in the jaw like a diamond mounted in a setting from which a few other gems had fallen out—and held up like a prices ring between a man’s thumb and two fingers. The red headline underneath said simply, Earliest Hominids.”

This quote is just one example of the many instances where anthropologists construct a whole species out of a lone tooth, a lone toe bone, or a lone knuckle. Rarely do they have more to work with when they do their work.

This is the problem with the secular science world, they raise Cain when the believe uses faith to believe about the flood (and we have much more evidence to work with than anthropologists do) yet they use faith with no evidence when it benefits their work.

The theory of evolution is a theory of speculation not evidence, it is a theory of assumption not fact and it is a theory of desperation not security. They build mountains out of molehills and cannot provide any evidence to support their ideas. They have to use millions and billions of years to avoid the embarrassment of failing to produce real evidence to back their claims.

Pg. 234 backs me up as it says there: “For now, they will have to stick to the teeth and jaw fragments for direct comparisons between these early hominids…if we had skeletons…” The evolutionist has nothing.

4. Ibid. pg. 194-5

“He was walking along an ancient streambed when he saw something sticking out of the red dirt on the ground at his feet. He looked closer and saw teeth…he saw a bony ball sticking out of the red dirt. It was the head of a left thigh bone…he also drew a sketch of the site in his journal, noting that the fossils came from a layer of sediment that was at the base of the Lukeino formation, below a layer of basalt dated to 5.65 million years by Hill’s team. Therefore, about 6 million years, he noted.”

This is one of the problems with anthropology. They think that a fossil on the surface of the earth actually dates back 6 million years and they had to do no work. Meanwhile 100 miles down the road an archaeological team, digging in the same dirt, has to dig 30-100 ft. into the depth of the earth just to go back a few thousand years.

Yes the anthropologist claims that the grounds shift pushing up ancient rock to the surface but the problem with that is, in all the archaeological digs in the world over the past 200 or so years has never come up with any evidence for that claim. The archaeologists must have been lucky and missed those spots even though their digs can cover acres of ground.

The other problem here in those quoted words is that the anthropologist assumes that what he finds comes from the same species of animal or from the same human. The construct these discoveries based upon their own ideas and have nothing to verify their results or claims that it is a new species or even human.

These are all conclusions based upon a modern man’s biased perspective who immediately claims the discovery for evolution without being able to verify anything about the fragments found or how they really go together. Nor can they proof that evolution was responsible.

5. The Beginning of All Things by Hans Kung (book) pg. 137

“We still do not know for certain how life first arose from the inanimate. We do not know for certain what precise events introduced biogenesis. But we do know one thing: however this transition to life is explained in detail, it rests on biochemical regularities…’

This is secular science being honest. It doesn’t know much about the past. In fact, science and scientists cannot prove what you had to eat for breakfast last week let alone what activities filled your day. It can surmise, speculate, assume but it cannot prove the past. It is too limited which disqualifies secular science from being an authority or final determiner.

We do know how life arose and it was not from the inanimate. It was from God’s will and power. We do know the precise events which introduced biogenesis and they are revealed to us in Genesis 1 and 2. We do not need men and women working thousands of years removed from the event to tell us how things went in the beginning, we have the only eye-witness telling us how they exactly went.

Science can be useful to Christians, if they let it and they do it the right way. It is not a tool to talk about origins for that is something outside the scope of that field. It is a tool to discover what God has done when He created everything and to see how things went wrong when Adam sinned.

We can use science to figure out the causes of disease and discover their cure. We can use science to see how plants and trees work, how our bodies operate and on it goes but at no time does this ability promote science to the final authority of life. It is too fallible and corrupt to be anything more than what it is—a simple tool to investigate things on earth, in the sea and in space.

Secular science is operated by men and women who are deceived, fallible, and easily influenced as their desires and agendas are not the same as God’s. If there is a conflict between science and the Bible, then it is science that is wrong. The same for archaeology; when it disagrees with the Bible then the archaeology made the error.

The other sciences, like astronomy, physics and so on, all fall into the same category. They are not supreme beings but imperfect tools run by imperfect and unredeemed people.

6. Tell el-Hamman run by Dr. Steven Collins (dig site)

 http://tallelhammam.com/

“As is now widely accepted, Tall el-Hammam remains a logical candidate for biblical Sodom based on a detailed analysis of the relevant biblical and historical materials regarding the chronology and location of the city”

Why is an archaeological dig and website placed among these books and articles Simply because it demonstrates that Christians or those who claim to be one do go wrong and go against the Bible.

For about 10 seasons now Dr. Collins has been trumpeting the Tell el-Hamman site as Sodom even though everything he finds contradicts the Bible when it talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. The archaeologist in charge continues to find artifact after artifact through archaeological era after archaeological era which should have been a clue that he is digging in the wrong place for the city of Sodom (which has been found in a more desolate area, one that reflects the Biblical teachings on the city).

But he doesn’t care and he doesn’t care that he is leading other believers and non-believers down the wrong path. That is a dangerous thing to do and no matter how much one informs him of his error, he continues in his arrogance, re-interpreting the Biblical passages to fit his desires.

The Christian has to be careful and they need to make sure they are right before announcing to the world they have something no one else has found for their testimony, their reputation is on the line and bad errors can raise stumbling blocks to Christ amongst the unbelieving world. It happens with the Noah’s ark debacle continuously.

If the Christian realizes he or she has made a mistake they should be humble about it and correct it; not continue to follow the wrong path, mistaking the correction as ‘persecution’. The wrong kind of pride cannot enter into the Christian’s process for that will leave a bigger more devastating mark on others than if the Christian humbly admits a mistake and changes his tune.

Also, the believer needs to be aware of the fact that if their work contradicts the Bible, then it is not the Bible that is in error and they need to find out where their mistakes lie. Believers follow God and His word, not change it to fit their own desires. The world is watching and if the Christian doesn’t believe or follow God and His word, how can they expect the non-believer to do so?

7. The Search for Noah’s Flood By Ronald S. Hendel; Editor, H. S. (2004; 2004). BR 19:03. Biblical Archaeology Society.

“Biblical scholars will tell you that the Flood Story in Genesis 6–9 (actually stories in the plural, since there are two versions woven together in these chapters) derives most directly not from an actual event, but from earlier stories. The earlier stories are from ancient Mesopotamia, best known from the Gilgamesh Epic (Standard Babylonian version, c. 1100 B.C.E.) and the Atrahasis Epic (Old Babylonian, c. 1700 B.C.E.).”

Christians really need to be wary when scholars, archaeologists and others accuse the Biblical authors of copying other nations. Such accusations do not have any evidence to give them credence and all these unbelieving academics have are discoveries of documents written prior to the compilation of the Bible.

We need to remember that the Bible is a work done over time and that it speaks of events that took place long before Babylonia, Sumer and Akkadia were even in existence. That means that even though there are myths recovered from the earth and are older than the Bible it doesn’t mean it they were first written.

The Bible traces the timeline quite thoroughly and it shows that there has been a continuous line of God’s people who knew of these events long before the secular civilizations did. Since Noah and his sons re-started the world’s population they told all their descendants what they experienced and as these descendants drifted from God, their re-telling of the story was altered and changed to reflect their growing unbelief

Noah lived 350 years after the flood and Shem lived 500 years thus the original account was told for a long time after the event. If academics believe in oral tradition as they claim then the Biblical account preceded the secular written accounts by a very long time. Who knows, maybe Noah, or his family actually wrote down what they went through and the secular versions were copies of those writings.

Either way, the Biblical authors did not have to copy the secular world because they possibly had Noah’s accounts to use and they had God who was there to help them get it right. Oldest discovered does not mean original all the time.

8. Enigmatic Bible Passages: The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1–3 by Harry M. Orlinsky

Editor, G. E. W. (1983; 2003). Biblical Archaeologist: Volume 46. American Schools of Oriental Research.

“There is no doubt that a desire for fidelity to the Word of God is commendable. It is something that a great number of people, notably translators of the Bible, have shared through the ages. It should be pointed out, however, that although the translations of many of the passages on which scientific creationists particularly base their views may be literal, they are not necessarily accurate portrayals of the meaning of the original language”

This passage portrays the problem found in biblical work today as well as in centuries past. Everyone who learns a biblical language thinks they know what the correct word God wanted to use in certain passages. It is not uncommon to hear pastors and academics say ‘the Hebrew says…’ or ‘the Greek says…’ when they are explaining the meaning of a particular passage of the Bible.

What needs to be remembered is that God has not called anyone to change is word and make Him say something He did not. People who learn the biblical languages need to remember that they still need the Holy Spirit to direct them to the correct meaning and that they cannot change what a translation says simply because they disagree with a passage or they think they found a better meaning.

God has promised to preserve His word till the end and those believers who learn the biblical languages need to fall into step with God and make sure they are following His leading to ensure His promise is kept. The world has too many false translations and too many over-eager bible students who want to input their own fallible ideas into a text.

The Bible warns of false teachers who come and will preach their false gospel and one of the ways to lure unwary believers away is to change the word of God to support their ideas. The Jehovah Witnesses do it, the man who wrote The Message did it, Hugh Ross does it and so many others try to do it so they can justify their alternative beliefs

When one learns a biblical language they are given a responsibility to ferret out those false teachers and their deceptive practices and inform the believer of the correct way the Bible should read. They are NOT to impose their own ideas or change God’s word to fit culture or modern times.

The Christian world does not follow the secular one, It leads the way to God’s kingdom even if it means being literal and archaic.

9. Bricks Without Straw? By Charles F. Nims {Wright, G. E. (2001, c1950). Vol. 13 numbers 1-4: Biblical Archaeologist  : Volume 13 1-4. Biblical Archaeologist volume 13 numbers 1-4. (electronic ed.). Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research}

“The evidence of both ancient and modern methods in the manufacture of mud brick in Egypt indicates that while brick are occasionally made without straw, this practice is far from common.”

Does archaeology prove the Bible true? The answer is ‘it depends’. It depends upon what is being discovered and how the Bible talks about it. In this case, where the Bible speaks of the harsh punishment of making bricks without straw put upon the Israelites by the Pharaoh of that time, the account is verified that bricks were and could be made without straw.

 Does it prove that the Israelites made those exact bricks? NO. There is no possible way for anyone to learn who made those bricks without straw. We content ourselves with the fact that the Bible did not mistakenly refer to a procedure that was impossible to accomplish and was true in its account. The Israelites were punished and the punishment was real and accurately recorded for the world to read about.

What is an example of archaeology proving the Bible true? We can look to the scripture Ecc. 1:9 where it says ‘Nothing is new under the sun.” Archaeology shows the truthfulness of that verse all the time. The modern world thinks it has something the ancients haven’t but when one studies the past they see that the ideas of modern inventions were present in the past.

One example—flight. They may not have been able to build airplanes but the idea of flight was present in ancient Greece and other societies. Leonardo Da Vinci is known for his drawings of a helicopter.

Another example would be sewage systems. Waste has been an issue since the beginning and it had to be disposed of to maintain the health of the ancient societies . We read how the Minoans had a sewer system as did the Romans and many other ancient civilizations as well.

The Greeks had a computer, though it was not like today’s models, they still had the idea. Archaeology is full of proof that the Bible is true and in ways does prove it so. We can look at the Patriarchs and see that their names were in use at the exact time Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived which again verifies the accuracy of the Biblical record.

Does it mean that those people we read about in ancient manuscripts were the Patriarchs? Not necessarily and a strong doubtful but we take strength in knowing that the Bible recorded their names correctly giving us the reassurance that God did not lie, did not make a mistake and did not lead one astray.

For further reading:

http://www.romanancienthistory.com/ancient-roman-sewage-system.html

 
 
%d bloggers like this: