Very significant archaelogical find!

The following appeared yesterday (26 Sept 2015) on Open Line Radio's facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/OpenLineRadio?fref=nf

***************************
This week, the Temple Mount Sifting Project, part of the Emek Tzurim National Park in Jerusalem announced an exciting discovery. A rare 3,000 year-old seal dating from the time of King David and Solomon (1000 BC) was discovered by a young volunteer.

When the Muslim Waqf began to build a mosque beneath the Temple Mount several years ago, rather than carefully excavating the area for archaeological preservation, they bulldozed the space under Temple Mount then dumped hundreds of truck-loads of earth in a garbage dump. Archaeologist Gabriel Barkay, recognized there would be tremendous archaeological riches in these ruined diggings, so he transferred the debris to a nearby Emek Tzurim National Park and began the Temple Mount Sifting Project.

Since that time, under the direction of Dr. Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira of Bar-Ilan University, trained archaeologist direct volunteers to carefully sift every bit of dirt and debris for ancient remains. Clay pottery, Roman glass, gold jewelry, silver shards, ancient coins, semi-precious stones, arrowheads, and seals have been discovered.

The significance of the new seal is described in a Jerusalem Post article: "The historical credibility of the biblical text regarding Jerusalem during the 10th century BCE has been hotly debated by archaeologists since the 1990s. However, recent finds from other excavations – including the Ophel (south of the Temple Mount,) the City of David and the Temple Mount Sifting Project – indicate that the descriptions found within the biblical text relating to Jerusalem may indeed be authentic. 'The discovery of the seal testifies to the administrative activity which took place upon the Temple Mount during those times,' explained Barkay." In other words, those who maintain that Jerusalem was a backwater, insignificant city, without an Israelite settlement, and certainly no Temple, have been proven wrong. There really was a Jewish Jerusalem with a Israelite Temple as far back as King Solomon.

In the City of David [the original part of Jerusalem settled by King David] there are terrific findings but especially significant are the bullae or the seals found there. Over 50 seals have been recovered but several have specific names of royal officials, mentioned in the Bible from the 7th century B.C. One bulla has the name "Gemaryahu ben Shafan," who is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah as King Jehoyakim's scribe towards the end of the First Temple period (Jeremiah 36:10). Other bullae or seals found have Hebrew names from the First Temple period, including two ministers of King Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. "Yehuchal Ben Shela-mayahu" and "Gedaliah Ben Pashchur" are two of four ministers who unsuccessfully plotted to kill the prophet Jeremiah by throwing him into a pit (Jeremiah 38:1).
Here's the point: Archaeology keeps confirming the historicity of the Scriptures. This is crucial because if we could not trust the factual truth of the Bible, how could we trust the spiritual teachings of Scripture? But the Bible is true.

This little seal, 3000 years old, is just one more evidence for the reliability of Scripture. So we can agree with the Psalmist "The entirety of Your word is truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure forever" (119:160). Moreover, Jesus the Messiah affirmed the truth of God's Word when praying for His disciples. He asked His Father to "Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth"(John 17:17). Since the Psalmist trusted God's Word, and even more, since Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, recognized it as God's truth, shouldn't we trust it as well?

Is the Holy Bible really the word of God?

     Anyone with children born over the last half century is probably familiar with Dr. Seuss’ Horton, the elephant and his statement, “I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent.”  Christians can accurately apply this statement to their Lord God, “The Lord means what He says, and says what He means. The Lord is faithful one-hundred percent.” This is absolutely true, and in the minds of many Christians this truth has been extended  to, “The Bible means what it says, and says what it means. The Bible is true one-hundred percent.” Let’s explore this a bit.

     Christians accept the Bible as being God inspired and containing God’s word as revealed to humankind.  Some go so far as to say every word must be true, and if one bible passage is questioned the entirety has been questioned. “If you can’t believe one passage, how can you believe anything in the Bible?” But there are inconsistencies within the scriptures, particularly in genealogies. For example, Matthew 1:8 says that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah. If we go to 2 Chronicles 22-26, we find that Jehoram was Uzziah’s Great-great-grandfather. How do we resolve such inconsistencies, yet still believe the Bible is God inspired and true?

     First of all, we might consider how God might have communicated his word to mankind. It seems unlikely that He stood by scribes or prophets, dictating what they were to write or say. It is more probable that He somehow revealed his message to them, and they had to put it into words. Over the ages writing styles change and word meanings change. Thus, translators must attempt to understand meanings of passages written a few thousand years ago. It is not always possible to be perfect in this attempt.

     Secondly, translation itself can be a problem. The earliest English translation of the Old Testament relied heavily on the Septuagint version as being the earliest known. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture. It may also be noted that the written form of the Hebrew language was not developed until about 300 years after Moses. Therefore, if he wrote the Pentateuch, his writing would likely have been in Egyptian hieroglyphics.  Thus, the first five books of the English Bible could have undergone four sequential language translations: Egyptian to Hebrew to Greek to English.  This can be a serious problem, particularly when words with many meanings in one language are translated into a language having different words to specifically convey the various meanings.

     So, where are we? Is the Bible really God’s word? Can we rely on it as being true? Yes and yes. But that does not mean every word, phrase, and even passage must be true as we understand them today. It is the underlying message that must be true, and it is our task to understand this message, regardless of the translation we are reading.

     I have a more extensive discussion of this topic in my recent book, “Scripture Versus Science: Reconciling God’s Ancient Wisdom with a Modern World View.”

Jerry Coyne's book, "Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible" -- Misleading and Wrong!

Despite his claims, Jerry Coyne is wrong! The title of his book, "Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible," attracts attention, but it is an erroneous statement. Comparison of faith and fact is not equivalent to comparing religion and science, despite the title-implied equivalence. Furthermore, science and religion cannot be incompatible. The problem is: in both cases he is comparing apples and oranges.

Facts must be defined. For example, our entire mathematics system is based on ten units of one. From this one fact, every number imaginable can be built. While distances were once physically defined, for modern calculation more precision is required. All time and distance measurements are defined on the basis of electron movement in a Cesium 133 ion at 0 degrees Kelvin!
1 second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium 133 atom. (aren't you happy to know that?)
1 meter =  the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 second
1 foot = 0.3048 meter
These are all defined facts, and all appropriate time and measurement quantities are defined from these definitions. Thus, for example, the speed of light can be measured and defined.

Faith, on the other hand, can never be defined. It is based on belief. Here is where Jerry Coyne's argument falls apart. One does not have to go far into his book to understand that he is really addressing the creation/evolution controversy. Although some attempt to present the creation scenario as fact, even they understand that creation is based on a belief. Evolutionists, however, attempt to convince us that evolution is a fact, whereas it is also based on no more than a firmly held belief.

Let us now moved into the scientific field, where defined facts do not exist, and to say something is a fact simply means all valid experiments to date have supported the appropriate theory (hypothesis). If, however, the next valid experiment disproves the theory, it must be abandoned and a new theory developed.

There are some so-called "facts" that can never be tested by an experiment (i.e. by scientific method). The Big-Bang theory of universe beginning is one of them. While this is being passed off as a "fact," in reality it is merely the currently most popular theory of origins.

Evolution is another example. In this case, there should be archaeological evidence supporting the theory, but to date none of the expected evidence has been uncovered. Therefore, the evolution theory is based solely on physical similarities and DNA similarities. These observations are to be expected if evolution is true, but they are not proof of evolution. They would be equally expected if everything was the work of a creator! Therefore, the evolution theory is just as much a strongly held belief as is creation!

Now, what about science and religion being incompatible? That, again, is comparing apples with oranges. The two basic operation systems are parallel approaches which may support each other or diverge, depending on the circumstances. Religion is based on faith in certain beliefs, whereas science is based on developing and researching theories. One can sometimes support the other and beliefs/theories can sometimes diverge. However, when a scientific theory has been thoroughly tested and supported sufficiently to be considered a fact (the speed of light would be an example), divergent religious beliefs must be altered appropriately, unless those holding these beliefs can create a valid and testable theory to disprove it. 

Religion can sometimes disagree with scientific theories since they are both approaches to life, but it MUST agree with validly tested scientific "facts." I have expounded further on the problems in "Scripture Versus Science: Reconciling God's Ancient Wisdom with a Modern World View."


 

THE HOLY TRINITY = ONE GOD

One God . . . or Three?

     I have touched on this topic in my book, Scripture Versus Science, and thought I would elaborate a bit here.

     Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe there is one God. They differ, however, in how they interpret the nature of God. All three believe there is an afterlife, but their beliefs differ in how we achieve entrance to Heaven. Muslims believe they must earn entry through their actions. Jews believe they must obey all laws given them by God. Christians believe they can only achieve entry through a relationship with Christ which is sealed by the Holy Spirit. Herein lies a major problem. Both Jews and Muslims ask how we can say we worship one God when we obviously worship three Gods: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

     Arabs are the core of the Islamic faith, and they believe they are descendants of Abraham and Hagar’s son, Ishmael.  Jews believe they are the descendants Isaac, who God provided to Abraham and Sarah in their old age. Christians believe they are grafted into Abraham’s line through the unique dispensation of Christ. Since Abraham is a common denominator among the three faiths, I will base my explanation of the Christian view of One God on the book of Genesis from the beginning through Abraham’s life.

The Holy Spirit

     It is easiest to argue that the Holy Spirit is not a separate deity, but one attribute of God himself. In our modern society we might compare the relationship to a computer, which is made up of many individual components, yet operates as a single unit. We can remove any single component, but it cannot fulfill its function unless wired into the computer as a whole.  Perhaps the primary problem is that we have changed the name – Jewish scriptures consistently uses the term, “the Spirit of God,” whereas Christians use the term, “the Holy Spirit.”

     Genesis 1:2 says God created and “the Spirit of God hovered over the water.” Does this indicate that God creates through His Spirit? Later on we do read, “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4)  We also see that the Spirit of God sometimes escorts. (Ezekiel 8:3, 11:1) God also places his spirit in whomever he pleases. Sometimes He might fill a person (e.g. Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Deut 34:9; Micah 3:8), and sometimes He may bestowing it only temporarily. (e.g. Numbers 24:2; I Samuel 10:10, 11:6, 19:23)

      Throughout the Old Testament it is obvious that God tends to work through his spirit, which Christians call The Holy Spirit. For us, a problem arises in that we cannot relate, since we cannot separate ourselves from our spirit and have it work semi-independently. Therefore humans have trouble understanding that the Holy Spirit is one component of a Holy God, and one with the Father. Following our computer example, perhaps the Father could be compared to the mother board, to which all components must be connected. 

The Son

     The idea that the Christ is also one with the Father and the Holy Spirit is a bit more difficult, but not impossible to comprehend. First of all, Elohim is a commonly used designation for God throughout the Jewish scriptures, starting with the creation story. I am not a Jewish language scholar, but I understand that Elohim is a plural designation. The verb associated with this word, however, is normally singular. Thus, right from Genesis 1 we see God presented as a single being, but one with multiple personified components. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the garden (Genesis 3:8-24), yet God told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20) Earlier, Jacob said, “. . . I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” (Genesis 32:30) Thus, the penalty of seeing God’s face was not something new presented to Moses. Many years later several prophets related seeing God on his throne, and it was a frightening scene.

     As we go on through Genesis, Cain talked with God (Genesis 4), Noah talked with God (Genesis 6-9), and Abraham talked with God (Genesis 12-18). In Genesis 18 Abraham greeted three men as though he knew them. In Genesis 19:1 we see that two of them were angels – who was the third? Genesis 18:33 says “when the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham” . . . How can this be? As we go through the Old Testament we periodically read of angels appearing on earth. Sometimes there is an attempt to worship them, an action quickly stopped by the angels, who said something to the effect, “don’t worship me, worship God only.” However, there is one being who DID accept worship, and this being was always designated The Angel of God. The Angel of God always appeared when there was an announcement of importance.

     Many years later The Angel of God appeared as a baby, a person we know as The Christ. He is fully God and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit – just as much as our voice and our spirit are one with our body. The difference is that He can operate fully and semi-independently in one of the three forms – we cannot. We certainly have different facets of our personality, but we can only exits and function as a whole. This is our reality and we have no basis for understand any alternate reality. We certainly cannot understand the reality in which God exists.

IS EVOLUTION A FACT?

     “. . . and that is a fact!” Have you ever heard that? Too often it is used as an emphasis for statement of a firmly held belief. However, too often the word has been misused. One good definition of ‘fact’ can be found on Wikipedia, namely:

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

     One acceptable use of the word is for something that has been defined. 1+1=2 is a fact . . . providing you are using a base ten system. However, 1+1=0 if you are using a base two system. In other words, facts can be defined, and, in many cases, must be defined.These are the facts found in Standard Reference works.

     A scientific fact, on the other hand, must be the result of a hypothesis (theory) having been consistently supported when tested multiple times under varying circumstances. This constitutes the "Scientific Method." One must understand, though, that if any one valid test does not support the hypothesis, it must be abandoned and a new hypothesis developed. Thus, in reality, there are no scientific "facts!" There are only consistently confirmed hypotheses which have become considered facts until and unless disproved. Unfortunately, too often opinions are raised to the fact status with no real scientific support. 

     The latter usually occurs when new research finds information that can be theoretically applied to a firmly held opinion. Evolution is an excellent example of such an application. Biologists have developed methods to "read" DNA. They have discovered that all animals have similarities, and we share over 90% of the measured DNA found in primates. Therefore, it has become considered a fact that all life was evolved from single cell organisms and we are close cousins to apes. Is this valid?

     First of all, it must be understood that not all DNA has been mapped. It has only been that DNA which can be read and understood. There is other DNA which has been called "junk DNA." Biologists are beginning to understand that this is the DNA which identifies the individual. If this fraction is ever understood, we may find that we are nowhere near as close to primates as has been assumed from currently limited knowledge. 

     Secondly, it is assumed that separation of species has been the result of mutations. Now, this is possible, but we must also consider that non-fatal mutations are rare, so this would only occur over a long period of time. That is no problem, because life on earth goes back a long time. However, a problem does arise in that there are no fossils found for what should be intermediate species. That is explained by rapid development of the new species. This presents another problem in that scientists now know, as indicated, non-fatal mutations are rare, and in some cases a series of mutations would be required to produce a viable result. But, if individual non-fatal mutation is rare, a needed series of mutations over a short period of time would be infinitely rare! 

      Now, lets consider the conclusion drawn by evolutionists? Is it possible that they are correct? Possibly, yes. Is, then, evolution a fact? Absolutely not! To be a scientific fact an evolution hypothesis must be tested and supported. While the hypothesis has been developed, it is (and likely will always remain) impossible to develop a viable test. Thus, the hypothesis is based on similarity of DNA, and development via mutations -- but this is countered by a lack of evidence for the needed mutations. Thus, evolution must remain a popular theory to explain otherwise unexplained observations, and it can never be considered a fact. To evolutionists, holding firmly to this explanation for the presence of all life forms is just as much a "religious" belief as is that of those holding to all life having arisen by intelligent design.

Creation vs Evolution

Have you ever  been frustrated and confused by this argument. In fact, both are simply beliefs that have become a religion in their own right. Creationists base their beliefs on the Bible, and evolutionists base their beliefs on … a belief! Both say their explanation is a true fact. To become accepted as a “fact” a theory (or hypothesis) must be supported by research. Neither theory can be repeated, nor has adequate support evidence been collected. Evolutionists claim that DNA proves all animals are related and we are a “close cousin” to the primates. In my recently published book, “Scripture versus Science: Reconciling God’s Ancient Wisdom with a Modern World View,” I have pointed out that DNA similarities can just as easily point to the work of a creator. Creationists simply have not made that argument – at least not yet, so far as I know. The argument, therefore, is simply an equal faith in different and opposing beliefs!