PROOF OF GOD

Thanks for posting this link. It will take me a few days to digest all this info/claims.If I have an area of expertise it is word meanings/theology of the New Testament and its infolding in the Old Testament. I am not anywhere in your O.T. league.

It certainly isn't clear that it refers to the same object or that the Great Pyramid can be described as "an "altar to the LORD" as Isaiah 19:19 has it.So reasons to disagree:
1) it is not clear that the altar and the pillar are the same thing at all.
2) even if it were accepted that the altar and the pillar were the same thing and it were accepted as identifying the area of Giza that is far from conclusive evidence that the Great Pyramid is meant given that other monuments are in the same area (such as the Sphinx) and more could built
3) There is nothing to identify the Great Pyramid as an "altar to the LORD" and the use of cut stones to build it would disqualify it under the rule of Exodus 20:25
4) Isaiah does not identify the altar as any existing structure - it wil exist in "that day" whch suggests it has yet to be built.
5) given that in Isaiah 19:18 5 Egyptian cities are supposed to convert to Judaism it is likely that they would set up an altar to the Lord - which they will need for the sacrifices referred to in Isaiah 19:21There is really nothing solid suggesting that it refers to the Great Pyramid at all.Egypt has a history of pyramid building - the Great Pyramid is neither the first, nor the last. Pyramids developed from the earlier Mastaba tombs - and they too, were tombs.And now we know that the "sacred inch" is an arbitrary unit - why would the Egyptian builders have used a unit they could not calculate ? ANd so we cannot use it to ecode" the Pyramid. YOu could simply adjust the unit and assign the "Exodus" to any other date you liked - or make it refer to some other event.I note also that there is no real link between the chosen point and the Exodus. nor any reason for choosing to measure along the upper passage rather than the lower.On this basis it seems clear that the emasurements are worthless and the whole thing rests on arbitrary decisions designed to give the desired result.No proof of God here.

---

You see, you read way too much into his words...The English/Brittish inch IS The Sacred inch. It's one and the same! At some point in history, England decided that since they were such a swell nation, they should call their inch the Sacred inch to differentiate it from the load of other (widely varying) inches in the world.

---

Oh. My bad.As I said, it is really hard to tell with Willowtree's writing.
Thanks for the heads up.

From: http://greatpyramid.org/aip/gr-pyr2.htmThe Great Pyramid exalts--without gold and jewels--the Creator and His plans and purposes for mankind. No king or pharaoh is buried there. It carries not the name Caesar, nor Sears, but the Creator, who is called in Daniel 8:13 "The Wonderful Numberer." Back to the meter--cubit(inch) comparison. The fact that scientists have only recently calculated the radius of the earth argues for the divine origin of the sacred cubit. Interest is compounded with the fact that the British system of measurement, based on the inch, is directly related to the cubit. Sir Isaac Newton has shown that the sacred cubit contained 25 inches (unlike the more recent cubit whose length is usually given as about 18 inches, or the royal cubit of about 20 inches used in ancient Egypt). Adam Rutherford, in his book series entitled Pyramidology, has laboriously argued that the sacred inch (the 1/25 part of the sacred cubit) is only a hair's breadth different from the British inch. The present work will not differentiate--as Rutherford continually does--between the Pyramid inch (1/25 of a sacred cubit) and the British inch, because it seems to me that the practical accuracy possible in measuring the elements of the Great Pyramid makes frivolous the minuscule distinction between the inches.7 For practical purposes, the two inches are one. Rodolfo Benavides claims that the English inch and the pyramid inch were the same during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.7aFrom: Prophetic timelines in the PyramidPyramidology is a very interesting study that began in the 19th century. Robert Menzies, in 1865 thought that the various passages were constructed according to a chronological scale of a geometric inch to a year. For example if you start at a certain point in the descending passage and this is represented by a certain year, than every inch you move represents one year forward. Major landmarks in the pyramid seemed to correlate with major historical dates. For example, let us start in the descending passage at the location of some scored lines. We will assign this location a date of 2141 BC (we will explain later why this date was arbitrarily chosen) and move down the passage. For every inch we move we move forward in time one year (one inch equals one year theory). When we get to where the ascending passage intersects with us, we are at the year 1453 BC which is thought to be the date of the exodus. If we move up the ascending passage, we finally come to a place where it opens up into the grand gallery. At this juncture, the date is 33AD, the assumed date for the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus pyramiologists have correlated major locations in the pyramids passageways with important biblical and secular dates.In order to have a chronology, you must have a starting point. Let us see how this was determined in the great pyramid. If we start from the outside of the north entrance and move down the descending passage about 40 feet, we come to series of so called "scored lines". These are straight knife-edge lines cut into the blocks from roof to floor. They are on each side of the passage and directly opposite each other. Also the descending passage is in exact alignment of true north. It can be shown that in the last 5,000 years, only at one time did the north star line up exactly with the descending passage and shine directly down. This occurred in 2141 BC and the north star at that time was Draconis also called the dragon star. The northern star changes gradually over long periods of time because of the precession of the earth on its axis (like a spinning top). Also only at that time, the star cluster known as the Pleiades in the constellation Taurus was in alignment with the scored lines. Thus this is the date that pyramidologists accept as the starting date at the scored lines. Measurements in inches from the scored lines represent chronology in years. Thus we count one year for every inch we move from the scored lines, starting at 2141 BC.Now, if we move down the descending passage to the beginning of the ascending passage, we have moved a distance of 688 inches. If each inch represents one year we are at (2141 BC — 688 = 1453 BC). This year 1453 BC is accepted as the date of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. It symbolizes now the ascent of man towards god. If we move up the descending passage to a distance of 1485 inches, we come to the opening of the grand gallery. This year, 33 AD (1453 BC — 1485 = 33 AD) is considered to be the date of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If we move up the grand gallery to its end, we move 1881 inches. This year 1914 ad (33 AD — 1881 = 1914 AD), was the date of the beginning of the first world war. We can continue moving in the different passages and come up with different dates. Please refer to pyramid diagram above. Some of the pyramidologists attempted to predict future events, like the second coming of Jesus, the millennium, etc. But these events did not come to pass. It is possibly there is a chronology but the relationship is more complicated than the inch year theory.Why did the pyramidoloigst chose the inch as the standard unit of measurement? The pyramidologists believe the linear unit used in the design of the great pyramid is the sacred cubic of 25.0265 British inches. The sacred cubit divided into 25 equal parts results in the sacred inch (also called pyramid inch) which equals 1.00106 British inches. Thus the pyramid inch is very close to our standard geometric inch. The derivation of this unit comes from measurements in the high central section of the King’s chamber passage, called the "antechamber". It has been found that the length of the antechamber is equal to the diameter of a circle having a circumference which measures as many pyramid inches as there are days in the solar year,365.242. Pyramidologists also point out that there are scientific values incorporated in the great pyramid, many not calculated or known since modern times.For example, we mentioned that the unit of measurement in the pyramid is the pyramid inch. It turns out this is the basic unit of the measurement of the earth's polar radius. Remember there are 25 pyramid inches in a sacred cubit and there are exactly 10,000,000 sacred cubits from the center of the earth to its pole. Thus the earth's polar radius is 10,000,000 sacred cubits or 250,000,000 pyramid inches exactly.Pyramidologists also have discovered many other scientific values in the pyramid. They include the mean density of the earth, the weight of the earth, mean temperature of the earth, the values of the solar, sidereal, and anomalistic years, and many others.One of the most famous pyramidologists was Adam Rutherford who published a monumental 4 volume set on the subject. In our archives, we have a signed presentation copy from Dr. Rutherford to Dr. Louis Alvarez. Dr. Alvarez was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics, and developed the use of cosmic ray probes to find hidden chambers in the pyramids.

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
On this basis it seems clear that the emasurements are worthless and the whole thing rests on arbitrary decisions designed to give the desired result.
______________________________________________________________________Quite the opposite is true.This is a statement that defies all the evidence presented. Your words best reflect a dogma driven religious fundie who ignores evidence that contradicts everything he has already spoken up for.No other measuring unit fits except the sacred inch. How the starting benchmark was scientifically determined, the measurements from the positions, the passageway symbolisms, the Isaiah text, all of this and whatever I have incidentially not mentioned is anything but arbitrary.You or I or anyone cannot change the fixed in stone interior of the Pyramid. This is incontrovertible proof demonstrating the claim of God's existence and control over history.The ONLY thing God does not know for certain is what an individual will do when faced with the freedom to trust Him or not. God is ready in either scenario to lift us up via the Resurrection/Well Shaft or we can remain on the broad road of destruction that leads to the pit/hell.

General ReplyAll the other pyramids that surround the Great Pyramid were built by man trying to imitate the Pyramid.The Great Pyramid originally contained no heathen writings of any kind.No mummies were ever found inside or treasures.The coffer in the King's Chamber was empty and is the only movable object in the Pyramid.The coffer had to of been placed in the King's Chamber prior to its enclosure because the passageways are too narrow. Nobody has any idea as to how this was accomplished.

"Defies all the evidence" ? There's been a lot of speculation but VERY little evidence provided.Explain why the "Sacred inch" and the choice of the Exodus are NOT arbitrary. There's been no EVIDENCE provided that addresses either question. Speculations are NOT evidence.And I've already enumerated reasons to doubt the claimed connection with Isaiah 19:19.Now your claim that the speculations you offer are "incontrovertible proof of God" - THAT defies the evidence of this thread.

More about the sacred inch from another website.http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/greatpyramid1.htmThe Great Pyramid was placed, not only at the exact center of the Nile delta quadrant, but, it is also placed at the exact center of all the land mass of the earth. That's right. Lines drawn north, south, east and west from the pyramid equally divide the earth's terrain. The longest land meridian, and the longest land parallel. The pyramid is aligned with True North, not magnetic north. Our closest achievement in that alignment is the Paris Observatory, it is six minutes of a degree off of true north. The pyramid is only three minutes off and that was proven to be the result of the land shifting and not by an error of the builders. True North is when you take the earth's axis and extend the north line out into space, it hits a point, usually a star, now it is Polaris.There is what is called the "Precession of the Equinoxes". A twenty four to twenty six thousand year cycle, when, as this earth is spinning like a top, there is a wobble, the true north point in space, rotates, completing a circle in the heavens. Thus every so often the North star changes. Embodied within this pyramid is that knowledge. We're just starting to figure these things out. How in the world did the builders of the pyramid know these things? They did. On one day, at the Vernal Equinox in the year 2141 BC, Alpha Draconus, the "Dragon Star" in the Draco constellation, was the pole star and it was so perfectly aligned with the descending passage, that if someone was at the bottom holding a mirror, that star would reflect that light. A seeming total impossibility, but they did it. The basic unit of measure within the pyramid is the "Sacred Inch". This same inch, in the sacred cubit, is also used in Noah's ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple and in the New Jerusalem. This inch is only a half of a hair's breadth different than the English inch and the American inch.The source of this inch, is the axis of the earth. 1/500,000,000th part of the earth's axis is equal to the sacred inch. The Metric system uses the circumference of the earth from the pole to the equator as it's source. Since that distance varies at different places measured, the most logical and accurate system of measurement then would be the sacred inch system, because the earth's axis doesn't change.

So now you've moved the Great Pyramid from the Border between the Upper and Lower Kindoms to the exact center of the Nile Delta Quadrant and the center of all the land mass of the Earth.And now true north is taking the earth axis and pointing it at a star?And the other pyramids were copies?Damn, if the fools that built them had only been smart enough to wait until the Great Pyramid was finished they might have done much better.Coach, pour me another beer would ya! Make it a Sacred Yardglass this time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Brian:Yes, I have read your summary about when the Exodus happened. For a summary to be respected it must clearly say what you believe and why you believe it. You have accomplished this - no Brad McFallistic logidemicizing/bullshit.I cannot get past the fact that you do not believe the Exodus happened at all, but if it did then......Whats to prevent someone from saying that your rendition of the facts is nontheless biased against the basic claims of the O.T. ?I cannot refute your summary myself. I am not qualified. I rely on persons like Dr. Scott who have the tools and reputation and most importantly the same Divine commonalities as myself.Dr. Scott owns a 80,000 volume library on Church history. He says "and it doesn't even scratch the surface on the subject". This is why I can only trust someone who has spent their life studying the Bible, otherwise, I would get lost in the vast amount of information and never proceed past agnosticism. Scholars like Dr. Scott eliminate massive amounts of sources pertaining to issues that we christians have long ago settled. I won't even entertain the notion that the Exodus didn't happen because I know it did via God keeping His word to me in other areas of His word. This fact, and the fact that there are plenty of evangelical scholars who evidence that it did negate all the subterfuge who claim it didn't. A person has to make up their mind based on evidence and I have.The Pyramid "comes along" and confirms everything I have been taught.
Anyone who says the Exodus happened in the 13th or 14th centuries B.C. are "only" a couple hundred years off. I say only because my point is that the common denominator that is not in dispute is the fact that the Exodus did indeed happen.The Pyramid becomes the ultimate corroborating evidence of the event happening AND its accurate date.Your dating and your reasons are an interpretation of evidence.Here are a couple of links that disagree:http://www.doig.net/OT_Chronology.htmhttp://www.mystae.com/...ricted/streams/thera/newchrono.htmlMy point is that the amount of evidence is so vast I have to trust someone's interpretation. In my case it is Dr. Scott. He agrees with the Pyramid and makes statements like "archaeology constantly proves the Bible correct". These statements have a lifetime of research to back them up. Bottom line: I go with people who have had a life changing experience with Jesus Christ, like myself, their explanations
and interpretations of the evidence in my judgement are absolutely true.What makes the Pyramid incontrovertible is the fact that it is in stone and the list of brilliant people who objectively affirm its claims - claims that I can verify myself without any reliance on one or two persons.

Hi WT, I don’t believe that it happened as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, there is no good reason to. There is nothing to stop this, but if they want to have any credibility they have to say why they think my rendition is biased, and provide examples to support this. There are many conservative Christian scholars who have had to change their opinions about the Enslavement/Exodus/Conquest narratives in view of the huge amount of contrary evidence. The most famous is William Albright, he was a conservative protestant theologian/Archaeologist (although he described himself as an orientalist and he didn’t have any formal archaeological qualifications), who, in the first half of the 20th century, believed that he had found more than enough evidence to support the Bible’s version of events. However, as improved archaeological technologies and improve dating techniques developed, Albright had to alter his views, he ended up claiming that there were two phases of conquest, one a peaceful settling of nomads, the other a military conquest at a much later date. The same has happened with all the so-called ‘maximalists’, I cannot think of a solitary maximalist who supports the Bible’s version of events 100%.I have no idea what Dr. Scott’s approach would be, I have no idea what evidence he would use to support whatever conclusion he would arrive at. What I do have is a familiarity with the evidence and all of the popular proposed ‘models’ of Israelite origins in the last 100 years or so, and I have serious doubts if Dr. Scott, or any other scholar for that matter, can harmonise the available archaeological, anthropological and textual information into something that support the Hebrew Bible’s version of enslavement, Exodus and conquest. This is not to say that Dr. Scott couldn’t do this, maybe he could, but the main protagonists, the people who have worked on the excavations in Palestine and Egypt all agree that the Hebrew Bible’s version of events cannot be supported by the available external data. The only disagreements are over the degree of accuracy of the Bible narratives, but even the staunchest Bible supporter would not argue for an Exodus as described in the Book of Exodus. I totally agree, it isn’t humanly possible to know absolutely everything about the history of the Church, or everything about all the debates on every issue that has been raised about Church history. This is why I believe if you do not have the time to start at grass roots level that you should read the work of people who specialise in a particular area that interests you. On a personal level, I became interested in this subject while studying the Old Testament under Prof. Keith Whitelam, although I had a good background knowledge of the Bible through being a Christian for around 20 years. But once I identified an area that really interested me, the historical origins of ancient Israel, I read as much of the material as I could that was written by the main scholars involved in the subject, for and against. I have the feeling that Dr. Scott’s scholarship is spread over a very wide range of subjects, it is difficult to be an expert in a wide range of subjects, and very few people manage to gain a worldwide reputation as a leading authority in more than one area, although some people do. Dr. Scott is not quoted anywhere in any of the mainstream literature as either a leading archaeologist, a leading biblical scholar, or a leading anthropologist, I am not saying he isn’t competent in these areas, I am only saying that if you wanted to any particular person’s word as being gospel about Ancient Israel’s appearance into the world stage, then maybe you should read the work of people who specialise, Dr. Scott is not a specialist in this area. Well there are Christian scholars involved in the debate that have also spent their lives studying the Bible, I believe it would be more beneficial to read some of their works. If you would like me to recommend a few just let me know. But all you are doing is taking Dr. Scott’s interpretation of the evidence, and you are allowing Dr. Scott to do your thinking for you. Relying on only one source is not really that good a way to decide things, you have no idea what information Dr. Scott leaves out, and it may be important information that negates a lot of what he says. This approach is entirely your choice, I personally wouldn’t dream of taking only one scholar’s word for anything. This is hardly an open minded approach to the subject, in fact, it puzzles me why you would even bother looking for any evidence at all for any of the biblical narratives as you have no intention of changing your mind. So why bother even engaging in any debate if you are not prepared to accept any negative evidence? Again, this is entirely your choice, it just puzzles me. Don’t you have to be in possession of as much evidence as you can get your hands on before making a conclusion. Coming to any conclusion should involve looking at arguments for and against a subject and then deciding which body of evidence is the more plausible and convincing. Approaching a subject that you have no intention of looking at in a critical way is pointless. I wouldn’t put any great faith in these gimmicks WT, that’s all they are. This is quite some time WT in our short history, and it doesn’t help the pyramid theory at all. But this is in dispute, there are many scholars who say there was no exodus at all, and the one common denominator is that the biblical exodus did not happen, and only that some other exodus may have. The Bible is wholly incorrect regarding the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan, its narratives do not belong to history, only ideology. The pyramid does absolutely nothing to corroborate anything in the Bible; no one has ever shown that there was a group on Egypt who referred to themselves as ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Israelite’, no one has ever shown that a massive group of millions up and left Egypt one day, no one has found anything at all of the time in the wilderness despite a camping at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years by 2-3 million people, in fact, Kadesh-barnea only begins to show signs of habitation in the 10th century BC, so the evidence is totally against the biblical narrative yet again. That’s all any one’s conclusions are WT, even Dr.Scott’s. If you really want me to critique thse two links I will, but would there be any point in me doing so? I do have very limited time on my hands so I would only critique these links thoroughly if it would make any difference to you. As I have no idea what his interpretation is based on, it would be difficult for me to comment on his work. This is a meaningless statement without any supporting examples. This is absolutely fine, just don’t be surprised to discover that what you believe to be true has been debunked by people using a more realistic approach. But you appear to only take Dr. Scott’s word for anything, he is not the ultimate authority on everything scriptural and archaeological, in fact, I have never seen him quoted in any mainstream archaeology/Old Testament journals or books. You are of course welcome to hold Dr. Scott as a leading light in your life, but I prefer to read a whole range of scholars who are actively involved in the debate.Brian.

Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Scott is not quoted anywhere in any of the mainstream literature
______________________________________________________________________Yes, this is a fact.The reason why is because Dr. Scott is the Pastor of the "Church at Los Angeles". He is a worldwide television and radio Bible teacher. He is not an author, nor does he publish his research, he teaches his research via Satellite, Short Wave Radio, Television, and Internet 24 hours a day/365. Dr. Scott is a teacher and his exhaustive research can only be received via the mediums previously listed.Last night I watched Dr. Scott give a comprehensive 90 minute lecture on why the LXX is the eminent source. He incorporated the entire big picture starting in 300 B.C./Origen's Hexapla/Oral-Written Torah/Masoretic Text/Modern LXX/and various versions/ending with why Paul's handling of the LXX is "disheveled". I couldn't take notes fast enough !Brian excerpt:
______________________________________________________________________
On a personal level, I became interested in this subject while studying the Old Testament under Prof. Keith Whitelam, although I had a good background knowledge of the Bible through being a Christian for around 20 years. But once I identified an area that really interested me
______________________________________________________________________I am just curious as to why you finally forsook christianity ? Did hypocrisy in the Church play a part ? Looks like you decided against the faith aspect but it didn't ruin your interest in the Biblical literature ?May I ask if you are pursuing a doctorate ?Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I have the feeling that Dr. Scott’s scholarship is spread over a very wide range of subjects
______________________________________________________________________Absolutely correct. He is a true renaissance man. In fact he adheres to the gestalt/field theory of learning, where the listener is hit with the entire field. And each time the listener remembers a little more, and before you know it the student will know the whole gestalt/field on any given subject.Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I personally wouldn’t dream of taking only one scholar’s word for anything.
______________________________________________________________________I understand and totally agree.Dr. Scott, of course, believes the same. Dr. Scott ALWAYS employs the counter arguments and evidence in his teachings. Then he takes a position and tells you why. Then he challenges everyone to not take his word on anything - to go out and check it for yourself. Never once have I discovered Dr. Scott to be incorrect about anything.Dr. Scott has a gift of showing the student something to be true, not because he says so, but because he shows it to you and you see that which is already there.But the number one reason why I am a student of Dr. Scott is because the N.T. DECLARES that God ONLY speaks through the Gift Minister/Preacher ('domata' in the original greek). God gives us the choice as to who speaks for Him, but when that is determined I/you/anyone is Divinely obligated to follow that Domata as he or she follows Christ. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice (the voice of His word) and that voice to me comes through Dr. Scott.Brian excerpt:willowtree quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I won't even entertain the notion that the Exodus didn't happen because I know it did via God keeping His word to me in other areas of His word.
______________________________________________________________________This is hardly an open minded approach to the subject, in fact, it puzzles me why you would even bother looking for any evidence at all for any of the biblical narratives as you have no intention of changing your mind. So why bother even engaging in any debate if you are not prepared to accept any negative evidence? Again, this is entirely your choice, it just puzzles me.
______________________________________________________________________An event as big as the Exodus and the fact that I have made up my mind is not a closed mind. I am in fact constantly disturbed by negative/contrary evidence. Dr. Scott BEGINS with the premise that the Bible (whatever source that means)/whatever well known claim (in this case the Exodus) IS TRUE. Then he looks at 'all' the evidence pro/con for/against. He then presents his interpretation of the evidence and proves how God's word "lucks out" again. Dr. Scott plainly declares that if the Bible aint true and God won't back His word then he is off to be a beach bum and not waste his time with fallacy.Dr. Scott spent 5 years teaching the DIFFERENCE bewtween Israel and Judah. Without this distiction being understood all the promises given to Joseph and Judah FAIL.I am currently not up to date on his 2nd Exodus teaching views. I have been studying his exhaustive research on the 1st Exodus of the Shepard Kings when there rose up a Pharoah "who knew not Joseph".For me the issue of the Red Sea Exodus is a settled fact - the Pyramid confirms this in spectacular fashion - only when is the issue.
For you to claim that archaeology has proven no evidence of a populous habitating at Kadesh Barnea is disturbing to me and I intend to research this myself.I duly listen to everything you write and argue. I am presently about to use your views in another debate forum. I will argue that if "atheist scholar(s) confirm thus and such despite their personal beliefs then this sets the parameters that Event X happened and the only dispute is the details etc.etc." In fact I have several questions I wish I could trouble you with pertaining to things in other posts/other subjects.I know your time is limited. Please do not waste it refuting those links. I know your presence here is enjoyment as spare time provides. My time on line will suddenly and dramatically decrease very soon due to career advancement.The existence of Satan in hebrew and christian Holy Writ is a fact.
Whether any given person believes in his existence or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Scriptures declare him so. This fact then logically explains why there is not a lot of physical evidence for any given issue; like the Davidic line; Satan proceeded to wipe it out when God declared that his seed would never fail to rule over Israel. Nebucadnezzar thought he had extinguished it when he slew the sons of Zedekiah, but Jeremiah preserved the "tender twig" of Ezekiel 17:22 which interpreted aright refers to a daughter of David that Satan/Nebuchadnezzar did not kill. Numbers 27 establishes in the Torah/Law of God that if no male heirs are alive then the birthright can matriculate through the daughters/"tender twig". Hence, my point as to why there is no evidence/very little pertaining to the existence of David. Biblical claims have been under attack by a army of demons since the Fall. This is objective fact indigenous to Biblical claims when one may agrue as to why there may be a paucity of evidence.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-14-2004 04:06 PM

Hi WT, I was devastated at the sudden death of my mother when I was 14, I lost interest in many things, I asked a lot of qustions and didnt receive any satisfactory answers, the comfort I had felt from Jesus was not there anymore. This is obviously a very condensed version of events, the outcome of my rejection of God took about 6 years.I did remember, and I still have fond memories of rushing into the church hall on a cold sunday morning for Sunday School, the stories were great (they still are), I also have great memories of Bible studies with my good friends, I actually still go to church now and then, I was there about a month or so ago listening to a talk from John Mackay the 'creation scientist' guy, it was an enjoyable evening. I am unsure of what I will be studying in the future. In scotland the leading universities only allow you to study for a ph.d if you have a masters degree (at least the divinity schools require this anyway)and at the moment I have about 3 months to go of a Master of Theology degree by research, the topic being ancient Israel's origins. However, I have become more interested in the archaeological side of things and as a result I have decided to begin a master of archaeology degree starting in september this year. The application has been accepted, but I can delay it if I wish and I may delay it for a year. If I achieve both master's degrees I will then have a choice of Ph.d's to study for in 2006. It is my long term aim to lecture on the subject of the social world of ancient Israel and/or syro Palestinian archaeology, I realise it may take another 4 or 5 years but I am happy to wait.I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow, I have a few things to do.Brian.PS, thanks for understanding my time restraints and your kind decision for me to forget the critique of the links.

Hi WT, I am afraid that this means that Dr. Scott’s mind is closed. You cannot begin an historical investigation with a conclusion and then look for the evidence, this is not an objective stance, all he is doing is to interpret the evidence to fit whatever his preconceived notions are. When I was a Christian my faith was in a loving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with some collection of ancient literature. The Bible contains a lot of symbolic language, a great deal of it cannot be taken literally, so does it really matter that the Bible is not 100% accurate in everything it says? Is this the Hyksos expulsion? I think you need a great deal more background evidence before the Exodus can be established as a true event. An event of this magnitude would have widespread results. What you will be looking for is information about Ain el-Qudeirat, it has been identified as the site of ancient Kadesh-Barnea. Feel free to either ask anything either here or in an e-mail, if I can help in any way, I will. It’s a pity you wont be online as much, but congrats on the job advancement. Yes, but what the scriptures say and what is actually true, don’t always mean the same thing, but I realise the stance you take on this, I personally cannot approach any subject in this manner, but we are all different. This is hugely convenient though, and all it really does is to offer a get out clause when any difficulty arises, any claim, however absurd, can be explained away by Satan. Ah back to interpretation, the problem with this is we never know for sure whose interpretation is right, Satan covers up the truth doesn’t he? What is to stop Satan from misleading the person who interpreted this reference in that that they have, how do you know Satan hasn’t misled them to keep the true interpretation from us? There is only one very ambiguous reference to the ‘House of David’ outside of scripture, and it can be found in the Tell Dan Stele. This is surprising when we consider the claims made for David in the Bible. Also, no evidence outside of the Bible for Saul or Solomon, or any of the Judges despite huge claims made for them in the Bible, but again if we are putting that down to Satan then we really cannot trust anything we encounter, or anyone’s interpretation as Satan could be interfering. It is a great excuse though isn’t it?Brian.

Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I am afraid that this means that Dr. Scott’s mind is closed. You cannot begin an historical investigation with a conclusion and then look for the evidence, this is not an objective stance, all he is doing is to interpret the evidence to fit whatever his preconceived notions are.
______________________________________________________________________Dr. Scott assumes Biblical claims are true BECAUSE regardless of what "other" scholars claim they assume the same claims are false. When a claim is made it is presented under the pretense of being true.
Supporting and corroborating evidence prove the claim (as you know).
Dr. Scott is tired of "guardians of the truth"/scholars who under the guise of unbiased objectivity assume Scripture untrue/false. He says everyone (including himself) has an ax to grind, but he has the decency to admit it.Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
When I was a Christian my faith was in a loving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with some collection of ancient literature.
______________________________________________________________________I am not a bibliolatrist, the written word from Genesis to Revelation is a shadow cast by the substance of Christ.Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Is this the Hyksos expulsion?
______________________________________________________________________Yes, these Shepard Kings departed Egypt and eventually were responsible for founding the high culture of Greece.Brian quote:
______________________________________________________________________
This is hugely convenient though, and all it really does is to offer a get out clause when any difficulty arises, any claim, however absurd, can be explained away by Satan.
______________________________________________________________________I understand your point.This is not a "get out clause"/free ride for God. This only makes it way more difficult, but the activity of Satan also leaves a trail; when exposed and seen aright it helps evidence the claims and the devils attempts to make God's word fail. Satan only has ONE objective: To make the promises of God seen to fail so mankind will lose confidence and trust in God. Dr. Scott is in the business of presenting God's side of the evidence and showing how He has kept His word which is intended to make the believer believe that God will keep His word to them in things pertaining to Christ.Brian excerpt:
______________________________________________________________________
Ah back to interpretation, the problem with this is we never know for sure whose interpretation is right, Satan covers up the truth doesn’t he? What is to stop Satan from misleading the person who interpreted this reference in that that they have, how do you know Satan hasn’t misled them to keep the true interpretation from us?
______________________________________________________________________It takes a little God sense and indwelt spirit to know. The "imageness" of God in us IS the mechanism that has the ability to recognize light. It takes (in)sight to see light and that insight is controlled by God to make us understand that it is indeed Him when He is speaking. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice" and if you are seeking God the scripture promises that you won't get the devil.Satan's/demonic function is to sow doubt in response to the received light. For anyone to recognize the Biblical declarations of Satan, and then use that claim to say there is no way to really know, is in essence being an outlet of doubt, hence Satan is realized momentarily to dismiss the whole of which he is a part of.Brian:Thanks for your offer to answer questions. I will post them soon. I will be a learner and not an opponent in this context.Your sharing about the sudden death of your Mother and the subsequent loss of personal faith in Christ leaves me speechless. My uncle was in a car accident. He was responsible for getting the driver drunk and putting him behind the wheel. The driver and two other friends in the car died. He walked away uninjured. He has been guilt ridden his entire life and blames God for not killing him - therefore there is no God. I am speechless to him also. But I must ask the question, how can tragedy negate the existence of God ? In my uncles case, God used him to be a father to me because my father left us when we were infants. If it wasn't for my uncle I wouldn't know how to act like a man because a woman cannot teach a boy that. God's "unfairness" to my uncle benefitted me.______________________________________________________________________