Peter Enns & Genesis

You can read his full article at the following link. We are only going to address those statements that are interesting and need to be addressed.

https://peteenns.com/blog-post-ask-4-questions-christianity-evolution/

I recently sat down with myself to ask myself some questions that keep coming up
every
single
time
I post anything on evolution.

It is these questions and some of his comments that we will look at here. Strange that he never comes to a different answer than that science trumps God.

#1. why do you think evolution is true?

I believe that evolution is one of the things that science has gotten right, along with many other things we take for granted every day, because this is the resounding conclusion of the scientific community, including Christians trained in the sciences.

We will have to ask a couple of questions that have not been answered by anyone. First, where in the Bible do both God and Jesus say to take science over their words?  They don’t but that doesn’t seem to stop some people from doing it anyways.

Second, who is the scientific community and what authority do they have that they can say God is wrong? Of course, most people siding with science try to make the Bible a human-authored book. This way, in their minds, they are not attacking God but subjective human thinking. Unfortunately for them The Bible is not a human authored work.

We disagree. Science has not got evolution correct. In fact, they change their minds so much about that theory that the theory is useless to anyone. The fact that evolution has never existed seems to escape the mind of Mr. Enns. Another fact that seems to escape Mr. Enns is that the scientific community is made up of unbelievers, the very people Jesus described as lost, blind and deceived. So how can they get our origins right when they do not have the truth or the SPirit of truth helping them

Without actually being trained in the sciences, it would be rather stupid and arrogant of me to feel I have something to say that would sweep all that away.

It is not arrogance to sweep away the lies produced by the scientific community with the truth of God.

#2.But what about the Bible? Doesn’t Genesis have something to say about all this?

Simply put, no—not in the sense that Genesis is a competing “data set” to scientific models of cosmic and human origins.

Uhm, Mr. Enns, the correct answer is — yes. Genesis has a lot to say about our origins. Especially since our origins was not done in a scientific manner. It is science that has no say about our origins. Creation was a one-time supernatural act that was conducted by a supernatural being with all supernatural power. Science cannot comprehend that fact. What science describes is an unverifiable and unprovable alternative created by people who do not believe God and want nothing to do with him or have him part of their scientific work. How can they know more than God?

The stories in Genesis were written somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, and clearly reflect cultural categories older still.

This is absolutely not true. The quoted idea comes from those scholars who do not believe the Bible or that anything prior to Omri actually took place. Usually these scholars are called Minimalists. They throw out most of the OT because they claim that there is no evidence. When shown evidence, they will close their eyes and state that the events did not happen or try to undermine the evidence in some way.

The Bible was not written as Mr. Enns claims. Most of the OT was written prior to the 5th to 7th centuries BC. Then the OT is not an adaption of other civilizations cultural works or beliefs. That would eliminate God, his supernatural status and power. It would also end salvation as we know it and have billions of people running around looking for God and his divine instructions.

Mr. Enns has no idea what his thoughts do or what problems they cause for himself and everyone.

I don’t expect Genesis or any other Bronze or Iron Age text to answer the kinds of questions we can answer today through calculus, optical and radio telescopes, genomics, biological and cultural anthropology.

Briefly, Mr. Enns does not realize it but those research fields, etc., do not answer any of our questions like Genesis does. They usually bring more questions.

#3. But aren’t you forgetting that the Bible is the very word of God? Why are you assuming that science trumps the Bible?

I’m neither forgetting nor assuming anything, nor am I unconsciously enslaved to some deeply held anti-God presupposition.

Rather, I have come to conclusions about these matters.

They are erroneous conclusions which he refuses to change when shown to be in error. We have tried before. Mr. Enns needs to answer the question, how does he think that fallible humans who use only partial evidence can come to the truth over the God who was there, did the did and has all the evidence?

The Bible speaks the “language” of ancient people grappling with things in ancient ways, and therefore what the Bible records about creation or the dawn of humanity needs to be understood against the cultural backdrop of the biblical writers, not the past 200 years of scientific investigation.

No the Bible is a divine revelation to man, who penned God’s words which contain the truth about our origins. There is no grappling being done in those pages of scripture and there is no ancient cultural spin put on God’s words. Science is not a light illuminating the truth to a dark world. Scripture is.

#4. But doesn’t Jesus trump all of this? I mean, he refers to Adam and seems to take Genesis quite literally. Don’t you think you need to obey Jesus rather than science?

The Bible says if you do not believe Moses how will you believe the words of Jesus (paraphrase John 5: 45ff). Obviously, Mr. Enns does not believe Moses and he does not believe the words of Jesus. He is not the person to go to find any answer.

As irreverent as that may seem, it is an implication of the incarnation. Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he therefore thought like one.

So to him Jesus was just an ordinary man who can be trumped by science. Yet does Mr. Enns hold to John 3:16? If so, how can that be if he does not believe Jesus’ words about creation, Adam and Eve and other OT events? Does he pick and choose which words of Jesus he will accept and which ones he will deny? How was Jesus qualified to be our savior if he was not whom he said he was and did not have the final word on everything?

How can we go to Jesus with our problems if he was like Mr. Enns said? Obviously, Mr. Enns demotes both God and Jesus to sub standard deities or humans while promoting science over them. That is heresy, blasphemous and more negatives.

#5. So, to sum up, and since you asked, to reject evolution on Christian grounds would be to claim some superhuman insight into scientific matters that can only be described as idiosyncratic bordering on delusional, to misunderstand the nature of Scripture they are trying to protect, and to sport a heretical Christology that doesn’t take seriously Jesus’s full humanity.

First, the only one being heretical is Mr. Enns as he makes Jesus after his own image and does not grasp the full reality of who Jesus was. Second, Both God and Jesus said to believe them not science so we reject evolution on Christian grounds because it is not the truth. It is a man-made alternative to trick people into destroying themselves.

Third, those of us who know the truth know that the only delusional are those who opt for evolution over God’s word. We know that science is blind, deceived, lost and looking for answers in the wrong places by going down the wrong paths. Science is in need of a savior, it is not the savior.

Advertisements

 

Our Comments on a Few Topics 4

There are a few news stories that deserve our attention but we cannot do them all justice. We will make a few comments about each one

#1. A well-written article– https://www.christianpost.com/voice/biblical-christianity-vs-progressive-ideology-threat-western-christianity.html

The dangers are great from the progressive ideology, but very often the issue seems to take care of itself. Progressive churches collapse in on themselves, and people stop attending, because people are looking for the truth, not a truth, not a relative opinion, or a viewpoint or a universalist one of many ways to the summit, but people are looking for solid truth, a rock to stand on, and progressivism offers a wishy-washy “love above all else” which jettisons truth, ethics, and revelation for the sake of not offending anyone.

We enjoyed it and it covered the topic probably better than we could. We have written on Progressive Christianity before, including addressing Benjamin Corey’s posts. Sin is given a free pass in that ideology and one should be wary of those who promote that thinking.

#2. There are several of these stories– https://www.christianpost.com/news/new-complaint-against-megachurch-pastor-dean-curry-alleges-multiple-instances-of-sexual-misconduct-225896/

A former board member of the multi-campus Life Center Assembly of God church in Tacoma, Washington, has filed a formal complaint with federal and state agencies alleging that Dean Curry, who was recently dismissed as the church’s pastor, previously engaged in multiple instances of sexual misconduct involving church members and employees.

We are going to address them all right here. When you start playing with God’s commands and instructions, then you are opening yourself up to attacks from evil. The more you alter what God has said, the more vulnerable a believer becomes. It doesn’t matter if you are a pastor church leader or just a pew warmer the further you get from God the easier it is for evil to destroy your spiritual life.

We are sad that the newspaper is filled with several of these stories. They give the church and God a black eye. Even though people will fail, the unbelieving world does jump on these situations and use them to their fullest unbelieving potential. We can only recommend that you start or continue to pray for your pastors and church leaders.

#3. The Bible is the only authority– https://www.christianpost.com/news/andy-stanley-why-he-quit-saying-the-bible-says-while-still-loving-the-bible-225628/

North Point Community Church Senior Pastor Andy Stanley recently explained to popular radio host and Messianic Jewish author Michael Brown why he’s quit using the term “the Bible says.”

In an episode of Brown’s podcast “Line of Fire” that aired Monday afternoon, Stanley explained why, although he considers the Good Book inerrant, the term “the Bible says” doesn’t work with those he’s trying to evangelize.

We disagree. Billy Graham once said that every time he used the phrase the Bible says or something similar, he felt power in his words. Saying the Bible says means you are not preaching or evangelizing out of your own knowledge or understanding and recognizing that God and the Bible are the authority for this world. The Bible has the answers for everyone in the world today.

No matter what people say, it does work for everyone needing to be evangelized or to meet life’s situations. Using the Bible gives God the opportunity to win souls, as he said his word does not return to him void. The phrase will work when done correclty, the unchurched world needs to hear what the Bible does say.

#4. Faith healing problems– https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-couple-who-treated-sick-twin-daughter-with-prayer-get-nearly-7-years-for-her-death-225903/

A young Oregon Christian couple who relied on faith alone to heal their sick newborn twin daughter were sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for the baby’s death in 2017 after pleading guilty to criminally negligent homicide, the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office announced Monday.

As a condition of their guilty plea, Sarah Mitchell, 25, and her husband, Travis Mitchell, 22, who were members of the controversial Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, had to sign a statement saying: “We should have sought adequate medical care for our children and everyone in the church should always seek adequate medical care for our children.”

Faith healing is misunderstood by both the churched and unchurched world. We have written long posts on the topic (search faith healing). Do not expect the unbelieving world to accept something they do not understand. Do not expect them to react the way God would want. When children are involved God and his ways go out the window. Emotions rule not rational and logical thinking. Faith healing is also not what you expect it to be. You can pray, go to a faith healer or you can use faith and go to the hospital.

Also, not all people who use faith healing are actually Christian and their efforts will not work.

#5. Archaeology does it again– https://www.christianpost.com/news/archaeologists-discover-entrance-gate-to-biblical-city-of-zer-where-jesus-fed-thousands-in-miracle-225846/

Archaeologists have reportedly uncovered the ancient entrance gate to the biblical city of Zer in Israel, also known as Bethsaida, which is mentioned in the New Testament as the city where Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fish in one His most well-known miracles.

“There are not many gates in this country from this period. Bethsaida was the name of the city during the Second Temple period, but during the First Temple period it was the city of Zer,” said Dr. Rami Arav, director of the Bethsaida Project, according to The Jerusalem Post

It is a good article, we won’t complain

#6. Oh the weird things scientists conclude– .https://www.christianpost.com/news/new-discovery-reveals-bright-pink-is-the-worlds-oldest-color-scientists-say-225880/

Scientists have discovered the world’s oldest color — bright pink.

The road to the revelation of the world’s oldest color began when a company drilled deep into the Earth in search of oil. While probing beneath the surface of the Sahara Desert in search of oil, the company hit some black, oily rocks.

The company then sent those rocks to the Australian National University, The Guardian reported.

Ph.D. student Nur Gueneli then decided to crush those rocks into a fine powder, and upon doing so, she obtained bright pink pigments.

Conclusions like this make us wonder about the sanity and mental health of a majority of scientists. We run into this type of thinking a lot and it makes no sense, considering that no other rocks from the same era from different locations in the world were tested. But then maybe we are expecting too much from the lost, blind and deceived world.

An associate professor at the university, Jochen Brocks, claimed that the bright pink pigments even date back to a time when animals were not roaming the Earth

This, like the declaration that bright pink is the world’s oldest color, is impossible to prove or even verify. It is just dumb to make those type of announcements.

#7. Some good and bad news– https://www.christianpost.com/news/50-boko-haram-islamic-radicals-killed-1000-hostages-mainly-women-and-children-rescued-in-nigeria-223803/

the good– The Nigerian Army revealed that close to 1,000 hostages, mainly women and children, have been freed following a massive week-long battle against Islamic radical group Boko Haram in northeastern Nigeria.

the bad– Despite the significant success in Borno over the past week, a United Nations envoy has warned that Boko Haram is still years away from being eliminated

We are glad women and children have been rescued. We are sad, knowing that no matter what we do sin will abound till God ends time on this earth. If it isn’t Boko Haram then it will be another group from another country. Keep praying for those persecuted and for the souls of the persecutors

#8. These are weak reasons– https://www.christianpost.com/voice/3-reasons-why-science-has-not-done-away-with-belief-in-god.html

The belief that science has an answer for everything seems universal. Often alongside it is the notion that God is therefore redundant and that believing in him is reminiscent of believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

First off, those supposed Christian scientists who say that God lied and did not create as he said are not the reason why science hasn’t done away with a belief in God. The main reason why it hasn’t is because science is not dealing in the truth and is incapable of proving God and the Bible wrong.  Actually we felt all those reasons were very bad and should not be considered real reasons.

#9. We do not believe them– https://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-hybels-entered-into-sin-willow-creek-elders-now-admit-apologizing-for-not-believing-women-225596/

Elders of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois have now admitted that founder and former senior pastor Bill Hybels “entered into sin,” adding that they should have believed the women who made sexual misconduct accusations against him earlier this year.

“We apologize and ask for forgiveness that the tone of our initial response was not one of humility and deep concern for all the women involved. It takes courage for a woman to step forward and share her story,” the elders of the evangelical megachurch wrote in a statement published on Saturday.

“We are grieved that we let Bill’s statement stand for as long as we did that the women were lying and colluding. We now believe Bill entered into areas of sin related to the allegations that have been brought forth.”

It sounds more like damage control than the truth. Also, since that church practiced unscriptural things, it is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Getting to the truth is not easy but one rule of thumb is that the accusers are not always telling the truth and the accused is not always guilty or lying. That board also seems to be ignoring the issue of temptation and other spiritual influences that may lead both the accused and the accusers to say and do things they should not.

We cannot trust that board to produce the truth. Nor can we trust Scot McKnight’s words in a follow up article:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/willow-creeks-bill-hybels-had-too-much-power-scot-mcknight-on-scandal-225890/

Responding to Willow Creek Community Church’s recent apologies for the way the leadership handled sexual misconduct allegations against founder Bill Hybels, New Testament scholar Scot McKnight argued that the victims had no choice but to go public and expose misconduct.

McKnight, who attended the South Barrington, Illinois, megachurch for 10 years, argued on his Jesus Creed blog that autonomy may be largely to blame for how the church’s leadership failed the women.

“What the power brokers think of first is protecting the institution, which is (sad to say) protection of the power at the top,” he wrote.

We are not saying the Mr. Hybels is innocent and we are not saying that the accusers are lying. We are saying is that too much smells here and we do not like what we read about the whole situation.

With autonomy, McKnight argued that there is usually “too much authority in the inner circle at the top and voicelessness for too many.

It is a difficult issue, one which we will not go into very deeply, but Mr. McKnight needs to remember that the church is not a church for the people, by the people, of the people. The church is owned and operated by God and he sets up his ministers with a certain amount of authority with oversight instructions.

But we will be careful with our words as we do not know all  the  details.

#10. She is right– https://www.christianpost.com/news/tomi-lahren-warns-conservatives-will-lose-alienate-many-if-they-fight-roe-v-wade-225840/

Lahren, speaking out in light of conservative hopes that Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice in favor of overturning the 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that such a fight would be a “big mistake.”

“Yes, the new high court vacancy is a huge opportunity for conservative values and principles, I get it. And I understand the passion behind the pro-life movement,” Lahren said in her “Final Thoughts” segment on Friday on Fox News Insider.

“But to use conservatives’ new-found power and pull to challenge a decision that — according to a new Quinnipiac poll — most Americans support, would be a mistake,” she added.

She is right as we said in the title. It is easy to overturn a law and let someone else handle the problem. Our question is, what programs do the supporters of overthrowing Roe v. Wade have put in place and are ready to go, fully funded, to handle the problems that come if they are successful in making abortion illegal?

There is more to this issue than just changing a law. Men and women are not just going to throw themselves and repent of their sinful ways because the church has won its battle. There are real problems that have to be dealt with that the church cannot walk away from. Is the church prepare to handle those problems? Salvation is not done through preaching a gospel message alone. It takes involvement, rolling up one’s sleeve, and getting bruised and it takes prayer and more.

Sadly, many Christians and churches just want to take the easy way out and send the problem back to God. God is waiting for his people to stop doing that and obey his commands and get involved in unbelievers lives correctly. God has chosen his people to to do the work with his help. When God sent his people through the desert to Sinai, he may have led them, but the people of Israel still had to march through the desert, experience the good and the bad times and learn how to keep their eyes on God.

The same with the issue of abortion. Overturning the law is just the beginning not the end of Christian work in this issue.

 

Underwater Treasures

Over the years we have talked about and described why so many archaeologists cannot find more evidence to support the biblical record. To recap those points, it is pretty hard to dig under existing buildings. Many cities and villages have built over ancient remains and the construction work has ruined many good archaeological areas. This was before laws were put in place to stop construction when ancient sites were uncovered during the construction process.

Next, wars play a role in destroying any remains. ISIS is one example of what happens to ancient ruins when conquerors come to town. Natural disasters also destroy what the ancient world left behind. Earthquakes, erosion, tornadoes, and so on wreak havoc on the landscape. But there is one more enemy of archaeology that is not talked about enough- water.

Whether through floods or shipwrecks, water does remove evidence for the past including the biblical past. Because the oceans are dangerous, it is very difficult to retrieve those artifacts from beneath the surface. The following article tells of some archaeologists warning about the massive loss of ancient remains if Albania does not act quickly.

https://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/8590774-archaeologists-urge-albania-to-protect-underwater.html#.1272-stage-set8-3

James Goold, chairman of the Florida-based RPM Nautical Foundation, said the objects — dating from the 8th century B.C. through to World War II — would be a great tourist attraction if properly displayed in a museum.

Goold’s RPM has mapped out the Ionian seabed from the Greek border all along to the Vlora Bay, finding at least 22 shipwrecks from the ancient times to World War II and hundreds of ancient amphorae. Those long, narrow terracotta vessels carried olive oil and wine along trade routes between North Africa and the Roman Empire, where Albania, then Illyria, was a crossroad.

Underwater archaeology requires special skill sets. An archaeologist needs to know how to dive, act under water and watch for currents and other dangers. It is not like excavating on land. It is also probably more expensive to do underwater archaeology than land-based excavating.

Albania is trying to protect and capitalize on its rich underwater heritage, long neglected by its former communist regime, but preservation still receives scarce funding from the government in one of Europe’s poorest nations…

…Now RPM believes it’s time for the not-for-profit Institute of Nautical Archaeology research organization, which is based in Texas, U.S., to explore the possibilities of excavating shipwrecks, a financially expensive and scientifically delicate process

What can be uncovered that willl bring even more support to the biblical record is unknown. But it would be good for believers to keep an eye on the unbelieving archaeologists to make sure any evidence, if found, is not lost again or misidentified. One thing is for sure, the underwater treasures would shed a lot of light on the trading practices of ancient kingdoms. This alone would support the biblical record when it talks about Israeli kings trading with its neighbor nations.

A second story just caught our eye and it contains some good news

https://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/8427606-ancient-coins-bracelets-looted-romania-return.html#.8590774-stage-related1-1

he treasure trove of gold and silver artifacts, stolen between 2000 and 2001, was presented at Romania’s National History Museum. The items were found in Austria in 2015 and returned following a cross-border investigation.

The artifacts_473 coins and 18 bracelets— were taken from archaeological sites in the Orastie Mountains that had been inhabited by Dacians, who fought against the Romans in the early 2nd century. General Prosecutor Augustin Lazar said 21 people have been convicted in the thefts.

Museum curator Ernest Oberlander-Tarnoveanu said it was “one of the finest recoveries of Dacian treasure in last 200 years” and called their return “a moment of joy, hope and … pride.” He said the artifacts may have been an offering that a Dacian family made to the gods, which now was valued at “tens of millions of euros (dollars).”

It is nice to know that stolen treasure can be found and returned to its proper owners.

 

 

A ‘King’s Head’

You may have heard about this discovery. We have and have been too busy to post about it. We will link to a Christian Post article by Eric Metaxas and make a few comments. Not about Mr. Metaxas but the discovery of course.

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/archaeology-biblical-history-glass-head-abel-beth-maacah.html

If you are a regular BreakPoint listener, you won’t be surprised to learn that archaeologists have found the remains of Abel Beth Maacah. At this point, we shouldn’t be surprised when archaeology confirms that the biblical narratives weren’t simply making up places and people.

This goes hand in hand what Nelson Glueck said over 40 years ago. There has never been an archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible wrong. Since Mr. Glueck died in 1971, there still has been no archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible wrong. Archaeology is not the enemy of God or the Bible, just the unbelieving archaeologists and bible scholars are.

What is, if not surprising, then intriguing, is what the team of American and Israeli archaeologists found at the site: a tiny—about 2 inches by 2 inches—”intricately carved sculpture of what may be the head of a biblical king.”

and

The archaeologists are reasonably certain it depicts an important person, probably a king given that the figure “was crafted with artistic precision almost unheard of for that time and region.”

This is where we disagree with both the identification and the reasoning. Things do not last. Archaeology does not find everything. To conclude the head is a depiction of a king is to do so without real evidence. An ornament, no matter how intricate does not mean it was made for royalty, about royalty or even has any connection to royalty. The quality of artwork speaks only of the talent of the artist, not the identification of the subject.

Then the fact that it is not heard of does not speak to identification. It speaks to the limitations of both archaeology and archaeologists. And we are being very polite here.

But who? The most tantalizing possibilities are, as hinted earlier, three kings mentioned in the Bible whose reign coincided with the timing of the carving, sometime in the ninth century B.C., which also corresponds with the years of the city’s next biblical mention in 1 Kings 15. They are King Ahab, King Ethbaal of Tyre, the father of the notorious Queen Jezebel, and King Hazael of Damascus, who was anointed king by the prophet Elijah.

Archaeologists, bible scholars, and historians need to forget about speculation and continue to search for the truth. It would be highly lucky of any archaeologist to find anything that supports the identification of the head as a biblical king. Who knows, it is possible that the dating is off as well. Just because an artifact is found amongst 9th-century remains does not mean it is actually from the 9th century.

It can be but such conclusions can really be verified. To many pieces of information needed to identify the actual date are missing from the discovery.

As the archaeologists admit, they’re only guessing about who the carving represents. As one member of them put it, “It’s like a hello from the past, but we don’t know anything else about it.”

But it’s a “hello” from an actual, not mythical, past that we only know about because of the historical nature of the biblical accounts.

Maybe those archaeologists are being smarter than we give them credit. Mr. Metaxas is correct though. The Bible did not record myths, false stories, legends, or any other untrue account.  It recorded actual and true history. Because we find bits and pieces proving certain parts of the Bible true, we can know that the rest of the Bible is true as well, including Genesis 1, 6-9 and other accounts unbelievers dismiss so easily.

 

Robert Cargill & The Flood

We went to the Bible & Interpretation webpage to look for our next installment for the scholar’s series and we decided to address Robert Cargill’s view that the flood did not take place. Knowing we have addressed one of Dr. Cargill’s biblical fallacies and that we have addressed the flood topic before on numerous occasions, we decided to do it again as he raises some interesting ponts.

We are not going to go science expert v. science expert in this rendition of rebutting anti-flood thinking. That would be boring and a waste of time. But we will address his one or two uses of science as we go. You can read the whole article at:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

#1. So, instead of addressing their spurious claims yet again, I thought I would approach the issue from a different angle: forget about Noah’s ark; there was no world-wide flood.

His post was written in 2010 and he was referring to the group called Noah’s Ark Ministries International. We are not worried about the 8 year time gap because what he says then is still being said today. For example, his claim that there was no world-wide flood. That is a spurious statement that is based more on unbelief than it is on science. There are a lot of people today who make that claim.

Such claims are made because people are unable to use faith to believe God. If we want to, we could pull out the Love chapter and quote that if people love God, they would believe him when he says there was a flood. Love believes all things. We would only use that to point out that Dr. Cargill does not love God and he has said that many times.

#2. The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives

He might have a case if the ancient world did not have multitude of flood stories in almost every civilization that was in existence after the flood. What Dr. Cargill does not realize is that for his theory to work, every member of Israel would have to be brain-dead and not once question the source of the stories. He does not seem to give the ancient people any credit for intelligence, curiosity, or desire to find the truth. He makes them all blindly accepting people who just pray, eat and  sleep the day away.

Since people questioned Moses and his leadership, we are sure that there would be some who would question the adoption of myths created outside of Israel. Someone would investigate to see if the stories in their religious and holy book were true. If they did and found that it was false, they would most certainly have those portions removed. They would not let them remain in their holy words. Since we have no record of anyone doing that, the onus is on Dr.Cargill t provide proof that the flood accounts were copied from secular societies.

#3. Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts.

Yes they do but they cannot provide one real piece of evidence that the Israelites copied from those unbelieving civilizations surrounding them. We have said this before, the Old Babylonians enjoyed a reputation for copying from other societies but there is not one hint that the Israelites did. Where do scholars  get the idea that the biblical writers copied? From the fact that certain secular works appeared before the OT did.

They base this thinking on the idea that the oldest discovered was the first one written. But that can’t be proven either since Moses wrote roughly around the 15th century BC. Plus, chronology tells us that the truth appeared first. Noah and his family told their descendants about the flood. As those descendants strayed from God so did their literature content.

It was not the biblical writers who copied or adopted but the authors who wrote the Gilgamesh Epic and other flood accounts.

#4.These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith

If Dr. Cargill’s theory was correct, then that may explain the Israelites including the account in the OT. It does not explain why those ancient societies far from and never hearing of the Babylonians and Assyrians would also include a flood myth in their ancient literature. Especially if they never experienced a flood. Where did those societies get their information and why would they include and adopt stories from a far-a-way kingdom in their religious writings? Dr.  Cargill cannot explain that phenomenon.

The story of Babel does explain why those far-a-way civilizations would have a flood account in their historical records. Their ancestors got it from Noah and his family. Then to make his thinking sound credible, Dr. Cargill has to change the date of the writing of the OT, especially the book of Genesis. He has no proof that the OT was written in the 5th-7th centuries BC but it is a widely held convenient theory among scholars. One that has been disproven countless times.

Two key words in that quote tell us that Dr. Cargill cannot prove his theory. Those words are ‘appear’ & ‘apparently’. He does not know yet he will go with that thinking over the truth. He also cannot prove it either. The thought that there are two flood stories melded into one is read into the contents of the Biblical account, not taken out of it. There is no ancient evidence that those early accounts were used to make one biblical flood story. That idea is based upon the misreading of the biblical texts by unbelieving scholars.

#5. The combined story preserves vestigial indicators that the account was originally two separate narratives.

This is proof for what we said immediately above the quote. Because Dr. Cargill does not understand the Bible and does not follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, he cannot know what the truth is. More detailed instruction is not evidence for the editing of two secular flood accounts. Dr. Cargill continues to demonstrate his ignorance of reading the biblical text when he states that the flood was recorded as lasting for to different lengths of time.

He misunderstands the Bible when it says

²⁴ The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Gen. 7 NASB)

¹⁷ Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days (Ibid)

The receding of the water added the extra time and he does not take into account context before making his claim:

⁴ For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; (Ibid)

Avoid context and you can get confused very easily. The term flood in verse 17 obviously refers to the rains God promised and the length of time he said it would rain. The word water in verse 24 is talking about how long the water remained on the earth. There is no contradiction here, water in a flood does not normally disappear overnight.

#6. Further evidence for the presence of two flood stories comes from the fact that in the narratives that speak about 40 days of flooding, god is referred to as the divine name YHWH, which supposedly was not revealed to readers until the episode of the burning bush in Exodus 3. However, in the portions of the flood texts that refer to 150 days of flooding, god is referred to as elohim…

This isn’t evidence. It is made evidence by unbelieving scholars but it is not evidence. It is evidence that unbelieving scholars are reading into the account what they want to see but it is not indication that 2 different accounts were used. It is evidence that Moses used two different names for God but that is about it. Dr. Cargill cannot produce any real evidence that two secular accounts of local floods were used to record the biblical story.

#7. But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood

This is where Dr.Cargill uses science to support his point and as accurate as people think science is about the past, it is not. No one knows how much moisture exists in the atmosphere and underground. They can speculate but no one can accurately measure it. Plus, measuring modern conditions does not mean that those conditions were exactly the same in ancient times.

Then when you look at the amount of water Dr. Cargill claims to be in existence today outside of the rivers and oceans, you begin to wonder about all those global warming scientists who warn of devastating floods to come once the earth warms up. Since underground water supplies are not affected by global warming… You  get the picture. Then, he says there is only enough water to raise the oceans by about 1 inch or a little more.

Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines.

Mor evidence against global warming threats and predictions.

Dr. Cargill has neither textual evidence nor scientific evidence to prove his thesis. His statement is still founded only in unbelief and not fact.

#8. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s land masses.

Considering that there has only been 1 world-wide flood in al of history it is a bit presumptuous and arrogant to make such a claim as Dr. Cargill does. He is ignoring the boatloads of evidence we do have for the flood. You can read a lot of it at the following link

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

But that is what unbelievers do. They distort and lie about the facts so they can continue blissfully in their ignorance and unbelief.

#9. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical.

NO… it is time for unbelievers to concede that their arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. For one thing if the biblical account of the flood was untrue, it would not have made it out of OT times. Someone or a group of someone would have proven the account false and a lot of protests would have been made. Then someone would have taken power who believed the protests and had the OT changed. No OT manuscript reflects this possibility. Plus, Dr. Cargill and other scholars do not produce credible, authentic, alternative OT manuscripts that state otherwise.

Producing those would be actual evidence. Making arguments about different names, different numbers is not evidence. From a textual point of view, all Dr. Cargill has is subjective unbelieving opinion. Opinions that do not accept rational and logical counter arguments.

#10. Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.”

We are not addressing his

It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period

because that whole idea is based on a myth about science and its supposed authority. Science has no authority and it is not the last word on anything.

What Dr.Cargill does not understand is that a factual error undermines the ethical truth. Simply because the supposed ethical truth allowed for lies to be told. That means that the ethical truth is not ethical or truth at all but will use whatever it can to make its point. Inspiration does equal inerrancy because if God allowed sin into his holy word then that means God promotes sin and contradicts his own word and being.

Then biblical does mean historical because God cannot lie. SInce Dr. Cargill and his fellow like-minded scholars cannot produce divinely inspired OT manuscripts that say something different from all our preserved and authentic OT manuscripts, then their arguments are not  based on fact but their unbelief. Their deceived minds have been taken on a fairy tale ride and led to believe they are following the truth. When in reality, they are doing what the ancient authors of the alternative flood accounts did- they stray from the truth because their unbelief and evil wont let them accept what ‘God did in man’s history.

It is time for the Christian to ignore secular scholars and uphold  the word of God as true, historical and inerrant.

 

Bad Archaeology & Archaeology

The first two terms are the name of a couple of websites owned and used by Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and one of those sites is found at the following link

http://www.badarchaeology.com/

The problem, of course, comes in when that person and his writing partner set themselves up as the final authority on the research field of archaeology. They aren’t but they like to see changes take place in the field of archaeology. We will look at some selected quotes taken from several different pages on that website.

#1. James and I are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops

They have good company. Eric Cline, Robert Cargill, Joe Zias and other archaeologists do not like this either. To a point we do not either. But the real problem  comes in when these archaeologists lump legitimate Christian and other researchers in with the likes of Ron Wyatt, S. Jacobovici and others who really do distort the field of archaeology with their weird views and conclusions.

We take issues with the authors of that website because they use their own standards to make the divide between real and bad archaeology. That is their first mistake. Their second mistake comes in when they declare that their accepted way to do archaeology is the only way to do it. Well archaeology is not like God’s plan of salvation which only has one way of being saved. There are many ways to dig into the past to get the information needed to decipher what actually took place.

Not all the paths are correct but there is more than one way to do archaeology. Oh and, once you get to the truth, no more corrections are needed.

#2. A quick look through the comments that have been made on various pages will throw up some interesting views. In particular, you will find that our critics accuse us of arrogance, bullying, closed-mindedness, even being in the pay of governments to suppress The Truth™. We are none of these. If you return to the site time and again, you will find that we update our pages when new information comes along, correcting errors that we have made. This is something that Bad Archaeologists never do.

You may say this is a good thing as science says it is self-correcting. But the problem is that who is to say that the corrections are correct? Because secular science and archaeology are deceived fields of research and do not have the Spirit of Truth guiding them, there is no guarantee that these men got it right with the second, third or even fourth correction. It is also wrong and irresponsible to develop theories based on limited information.

Another problem is that these men are not going for the truth. If they were, they would realize that the truth is not always found in their accepted ways of doing archaeological research. Sometimes the fringe people stumble onto the truth and do not know how they got there. For the believer, archaeology is all about getting to the truth not the best explanation or the best description of a given excavation site. We are not to lie or sin in our historical work. We are also not to mislead either.

#3. Bad Archaeology is all around us. Many of its ideas are pervasive in popular culture. Its publications sell more than publications dealing with real archaeology. Its web presence is much stronger than that of real archaeology. This is especially true of internet forums, where the most bizarre of conspiracy-oriented ideas are given free rein. With this site we are trying to show that most Bad Archaeology is completely vacuous and valueless. In doing so, I hope that we can also provide a reference point for Good (or at least, Better) Archaeology.

Again the issue is that the term Bad Archaeology is far too broad and generic. It is also very subjective and can contain anything the authors of that website do not like. That means they will include many good archaeologists and the information they uncover. We read several of their articles, the one we thought was the most honest and factual was the one on the Peri Reis map. They made some good points that bear analyzing and reconsidering. We like Dr.Hapgood and read his 3 books which are filled with a lot of useful information. We are prepared to take Matthews’ analysis if it bears out to be correct.

But with that said, real biblical archaeologists have debated this point and those arguments are featured over at Bible and Interp website. There are many problems with communication by real archaeologists which make this situation true. It is too long to go into here, but suffice it to say that sensationalism sells. It sells better than religion sells the ancient past.

We will agree that there are a lot of bad archaeologists out there and most of them try to convince everyone that aliens did it. The other problem we find with this category is that the authors of that website think they get to pick and choose who is a bad archaeologist and who isn’t. There is a lot of bias at play here and that is unfair to those archaeologists who do not meet the approval of the establishment. There is a lot of bias in the field of archaeology. But this does not make the searchers for Noah’s ark credible. Many of those would fit into the category of bad archaeology.

#4. By and large, Bad Archaeologists do not cite excavation reports, catalogues of artefact types, studies of monument classes or the sites and monuments records of places. Perhaps they find the amount of detail overwhelming. Perhaps they do not understand the technical jargon used by their authors. Perhaps they believe that the answers to the questions they pose are not to be found in these minutiae because their questions are too big.

We do not cite excavation reports catalogs, studies, etc., very often. This does not make us bad archaeologists. It makes us discerning because those reports are more subjective than factual. One example is Stephen Collins. He states in almost every report that Tall el-Hamman is likely Sodom. That is a biased opinion not a conclusion based on fact.

We also do not quote from many of the studies on monuments because again, those are subjective and a lot of reading into those monuments take place. Archaeologists tend to think they can read long dead minds and know the motivation behind why something was carved or placed where it was found. They can’t and sometimes, those monuments, if portable enough, could have been moved several times, for different reasons, over the millennia.

To say that good archaeologists must quote from these works is unrealistic and limits the work of archaeologist. We could say that non-Christian archaeologists’ work should be ignored because it is bad archaeology. Their work doesn’t fit with the Bible. We do apply that rule to their conclusions, assumptions, speculations and so on but it does not apply to their work.

Why is this so? Because Christians are not part of every dig. Non-Christian archaeologists do uncover information that no believer has first-hand access to. They cannot get it till the excavation report or book is published. We encourage believers to read non-Christian archaeologists not for their deceived opinions and conclusions but for the information they cannot get anywhere else. To cast them off would be a disservice to believers.

Same with this bad archaeology mentality used by Matthews and his writing partner. They are closing off sources of information needed to learn about the past. Bad archaeologists do dig up information that is sometimes useful. Not everything they do is bad. Of course, not everything established archaeologists do is good. Their work is filled with their perspective and their unbelief.

#5. Many Bad Archaeologists make extensive use of ‘out-of-place artefacts’ or ‘archaeological erratics’. The purpose of drawing these artefacts to their readers’ attention is to cast doubt on the orthodox interpretations of the past that have been developed by archaeologists, usually by questioning what they wrongly perceive to be a linear view of cultural evolution or by trying to undermine conventional chronologies. Occasionally, they are used to cast doubt on models of human evolution (either to demonstrate the creationist claim that humans were created a little over six thousand years ago on the sixth day of Genesis or to demonstrate that humans have been around for billions of years or originally came from elsewhere). More frequently, they are used to cast doubt on the origins of technological civilisation and to show that phenomena such as electricity were known and exploited in the distant past. A few have used them as evidence for time travel or clairvoyance.

The bias of Matthews and his writing partner are exposed. They do not like anything Christian which tells you that their whole definition of bad archaeology is based on their personal bias and nothing objective or superior to them. Those writers are also of the mindset that ony an archaeologist can determine what took place in the past. They are mistaken as archaeology is far too limited for them to ascertain much about past activities.

Because they do not accept the discoveries does not mean they did not take place when they are dated. Their skepticism is not the deciding factor on what did or did not take place. While we will agree that the use of time travel and clairvoyance is wrong, neither are of God, we do not agree with their bias about bad archaeology. Non-believers and bad archaeologists will get some things correct.

Archaeology does not help the theory of evolution at all. Archaeology is a study of ancient societies and civilizations not a study of supposed life development. Archaeology has yet to prove evolution correct and in all cases has shown it to be wrong.

But bias plays a role in what information does or does not get out to the public. What we see in Matthews and his writing partner is the same attitude we see in Jim West, Eric Cline,Robert Cargill  and other biblical archaeologists. They think only they can determine what took place in the past and that the Bible can only be understood and expounded upon by scientific experts.  Those are very elitist attitudes and very wrong.

It tells us that they want to close the field of archaeology to only those who meet their demands and criteria, for the sole reason they do not want to be embarrassed. They know as well as we do that the majority of major archaeological discoveries have come from amateurs or non-archaeologists. Their jealousy plays a role in their division of the field.

Just think, if archaeological excavation was limited to professional archaeologists we would not have the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Computer and much more. Professional archaeologists do not always dig in the right places and there are far more sites waiting to be excavated than there are professional archaeologists.

You need to remember that dating is very subjective and fallible. The dating systems were created by sinful, fallible imperfect people. Do not expect perfection from imperfect people.

#6. Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.

We know that the establishment has done just that. They did it with Woolley and they do it with anyone who disagrees with their accepted conclusions. This is a fact of life in the field of archaeology. Egyptologists do it to those who disagree with their theories about the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Now not all those people who disagree with the establishment is correct, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis and not lumped into one category based on secular human bias.

One of the most successful fringe writers of recent years, Graham Hancock is a leading light of a group of people who like to call themselves the ‘New Egyptologists’ to give a spurious sense of academic credibility. Others include his contemporary David Rohl, who has proposed a radical new chronology of Egyptian history to align it with the chronology of the Old Testament by reducing the dates of Egyptian kings. Hancock also tries to establish an alternative chronology, but it is one that pushes back some of Egypt’s most familiar monuments into a very distant past

We like Hancock because he does a lot of our legwork for us. His books are filled with information that is very useful in understanding the past and the Bible. We do not agree with his conclusions but that does not make him a bad archaeologist. It makes him misguided and wandering down the wrong path. It also shows us that evil will let people discover some truths while deceiving them to go into the wrong direction when talking about the past.

We do agree that the Egyptian chronology is off. By how much, we are not sure. The main source for the Egyptian chronology comes from a couple of sources. One source is Manetho. An Egyptian priest writing not from the beginning but somewhere in the middle or later stages of the Egyptian empire. We do not have one original or copy of his complete work. In fact, his work survives be mere quotes from other ancient authors. A couple of those authors also do not agree with each other on what Manetho said. This is not enough to build a whole history on but archaeologists and Egyptologists do it.

There are more details about this but again that would be a topic for another day.

While we like some of the information we can glean from the Bad Archaeology website, we do not like or agree with their elitist attitude. We also do not like their bias, their hatred for the truth and so on. People like this are not trying to get the truth exposed, they are trying to keep it under wraps. Their generic category hides so much information while letting false teaching get to the public. They are not doing anyone a great service.

We could say that they were doing a lot of self-serving work but we cannot read their minds. Their real reasons are their own. But one thing is for sure, they are not working with God to get the right information to the people. Believers need to work with the Spirit of Truth if they want the right information and to have the truth.

 

 

A Rebuttal to

4 Reasons Archaeology Cannot Prove the Bible- March 14, 2017  by Rusty Osborne

 

We have probably talked about this issue before as well. To narrow down the argument, and to provide a little understanding to the topic, Believers who write these type of articles are probably trying to temper the excitement of new and old believers and calm the zealots before they come to the conclusion that archaeology is a miracle cure for the problems of the Christian faith.

We would agree with that purpose if it were actually the case. Christianity is a belief whose main ingredient is faith, not evidence.We cannot lose sight of that fact. Without faith we cannot please God. Much of the Bible must be taken by faith for there will never be any physical evidence for its content. But that does not mean that we will not get physical evidence to shore up our faith.

Sometimes, though, we think that some believing scholars go a little overboard in their resisting the idea that archaeology can prove the bible true. This is the case with the article titled above. You can read it all at the following link:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/4-reasons-archaeology-cannot-prove-the-bible/

#1. The goal of biblical archaeology is not to prove the Bible

That idea was once the goal of archaeology for some people. Not everyone but as time went on and more unbelievers took over the field, that goal was changed.

The danger of saying some archaeological discoveries prove the Bible is that the language is polarizing. Some discoveries seem to prove it; others seem to disprove it. Consequently, archaeologists fall into two camps: those desiring to prove the Bible and those desiring to disprove it.

It is good he used the word ‘seem’ because it takes a lot of research to make sure a discovery says what it says. Often, as in the case of the Noah’s ark expeditions and Minimalist conclusions, ideas and identifications are read into the discovery before any real research can properly identify the site and the discoveries.

Too often people jump the gun for whatever reason they may have and say something about the discovery before a clear identification can be made. For example, Noah’s ark. No one has a clue what gopher wood is. To say that an unidentified piece of wood is gopher wood is wrong and misleading because no one can be sure if the unidentified wood is gopher wood or not. It may be some other species of wood no one knew about.

It is impossible to disprove the Bible even if some unbelieving archaeologist claims he has made a discovery doing just that. Nelson Glueck said that no archaeological discovery has disproven the Bible before he died in the very early 70s. Since that time, we will add that no archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false. That is approx. another 50 years of archaeological work.

What tries to claim that the Bible is wrong are the conclusions, assumptions, leaps to conclusions, speculations and conjectures offered by any given archaeologist. We have seen a lot of that taking place over the years. See our example in our previous post about camels.

The main goal of archaeology of today may not be to prove the Bible true, but that does not mean that archaeology cannot prove the Bible true. It just has to stop following the secular world and start following God’s instructions. So that author is a little misleading with that point.

#2.The Bible presents an enormous historical and geographical portrait of the ancient world

The period of history reflected in Scripture is around 2,000 years, and includes locations spanning from the banks of the Euphrates in present-day Iraq to the Nile River delta in Egypt. Yet even though the world of the Bible is expansive, archaeology’s tools have become increasingly narrow.

Well he is wrong with that figure. The Bible covers around 6 to 10,000 years of history, not 2 thousand. He is also wrong with the geographical scope as well. Paul’s travels took him through Asia Minor and to Rome. Then he is wrong about archaeological tools. There are more tools available today for the archaeologist to use than there ever was when archaeology first began to be pursued. Even Kenyon and Wheeler invented one for excavation style. We disagree with the use of the Kenyon Wheeler invention but it is used extensively throughout archaeology.

Say archaeologists find something remarkable, like a series of proto-Hebrew inscriptions addressed to King David. This would not “prove the Bible is true.” It would simply prove that one aspect of Scripture seems to correspond to the extrabiblical witness about the existence of a ruler in Israel named David.

He does not have a good track record. He is wrong here as well. It does prove the Bible true in one aspect. It used the term King David in the right time period. We are ignoring his use of the term ‘proto-Hebrew’ because it is nonsensical and inaccurate. This example would show that the extra-biblical discovery agrees with the Bible. It also shows, like the Dan stele and others like it, that King David did exist. So the Bible is proven true about the existence of King David.

#3. Archaeology is unable to address the Bible’s theological claims

Biblical archaeology is capable of providing data that helps recreate the ancient Israelites’ world. But it is unable to address the Bible’s theological claims. For example, recent publications of cuneiform texts from “Judah town” in Babylon point toward the presence of a Judean community residing around Babylon during the sixth century B.C. This does seem to correspond to the witness prophetic books like Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Yet these texts make no mention of why the people were in Babylon, or how their residence there ties to rampant idolatry and covenant disobedience, as the biblical writers depict. The documents corroborate the biblical narrative, but they do not speak to the theological realities of Israel’s exile.

He is going out on a limb here to make his title’s point true and accurate. It would be unrealistic to think or expect that the Babylonian records would mirror the biblical text. God’s reason for the Babylonian captivity may not have been revealed to the Babylonians. They may simply look at it as a conquest to have power and control over another people.

The fact that the Babylonians mention that they took Hebrews prisoner helps prove the biblical record true.That verification then lends its reputation to the credibility of the theological issues. If God was accurate in the captivity then he would be accurate in the theology as well. We do not look to secular works to judge God and his words.

#4.Archaeological discoveries can confirm but cannot prove the Bible

So how should we discuss biblical archaeological discoveries? They can confirm and support the Bible’s historical portrait, but they cannot inductively “prove” the Bible’s truthfulness.

That author does not seem to understand the definition of the word confirm’. If you confirm something, you have proven it true.

to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/confirm

So if archaeology is confirming any biblical event, then it is proving the Bible true.

Even though archaeology does do what that author says it cannot do, we still cannot blindly accept everything coming out of the world of archaeology. As in the many cases of searching for Noah’s ark, even supposed believers make claims they cannot show as accurate or true. We still have to be discerning as archaeology is a very vulnerable discipline and easy to manipulate. The opinions and conclusions given by archaeologist are almost always subjective.

This is why we tell people to not follow the rules of secular science, even when doing archaeology. it is secular science that is deceived and blind, not the Bible or God’s instructions.