Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:

[BlackCat]

I watched their story on this youtube film about a year ago, and was so amazed I bought their book.  This youtube film covers their story in great detail and I would appreciate anyone's analysis of it.

 

 

It's quite a long video so if you watch the first fifteen minutes or so, you'll get an idea of whether you'll want to watch it all.

 

They believe that they have found archaeological evidence to support  some events as described in the Bible.  They seem to be a lovely sincere couple and the film was very enjoyable to watch (for me anyway). 

 

Margee- I would particularly welcome your opinion on this.  I am struggling to 'let go' of my former Bible beliefs, and this couple's story is very compelling???

 

 

 

 

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I didn't have to get far into it to not see them as being sincere. The documentary itself seems a bit old, so its value isn't much, especially since the data they present isn't seen the way they see it by those in the field.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello BlackCat, 

 

http://www.squidoo.com/mountsinai#module151936399

 

The above link might be of interest to you.

 

But may I sound a tentative note of caution here?

 

Do you remember this...?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark

Specifically, the claims about the Ark made by the very same Ron Wyatt who's contributed to the search for the 'real' mount Sinai?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

 

Wyatt had no formal training in archaeology, forensic science, dating techniques or ancient Middle Eastern history and culture. That's why his claims are classified as Bible-related pseudoarchaeology by bona fide archaeologists and other accredited experts.  Another very important point to heed is that Wyatt was not an unbiased and impartial observer.  He was very definitely working according to a religious agenda.  The above facts should sound very loud warning bells and caution us to take his claims with extreme skepticism.

 

http://splitrockresearch.org/content/Welcome/

 

Far be it for me to gainsay the Caldwells, since I've only jouneyed to Israel and Jordan, not to Saudi Arabia.  However, I do feel that the same measure used to judge Wyatt's claims should also be applied to Jim and Penny.  Are they professionally trained to do the following?

 

* Make a proper and thorough inspection of an archaeological site.

* Apply the accepted and tested techniques of forensic examination to what they find

* Apply the accepted and tested procedures for recording and archiving what they find.

* Make a proper and thorough geophysical inspection of the site, taking into account it's geological and climatic history.

* Draw professionally-acceptable conclusions about the geology of the site, based upon their training in desert geology.

(Please note that Petrology [the branch of geology used in the oil industry] is not applicable here.  So unless Jim has re-trained, any Petrological expertise he might have is of little practical value.)

* Draw professionally-acceptable conclusions about any of the human artefacts (petroglyphs, stone circles, etc.) they find.

* Draw professionally-acceptable conclusions about the historical and cultural context of any artefacts they find.

 

If the answers are in the negative, then I strongly caution the same degree of skepticism that Wyatt's claims attract.

 

Also, are the Caldwells dispassionate, impartial and neutral observers of what they've seen or do they harbor a similar agenda to that of Wyatt?  Specifically, can we trust them to adequately and professionally distance themselves from their religious beliefs, when they draw conclusions about this site?

 

Again, if the answers are in the negative, then caution and skepticism are strongly advised.

.

.

.

.

Finally, there is an important theological point I'd like you to consider, please BlackCat.

 

Even if every aspect of their claims can be matched up with passages from the Bible, does that therefore mean that the Bible is exactly what Christian evangelicals/fundamentalists say it is?  That is, the true Word of God?  The sensible and considered answer is, of course, No.  I write this with absolute confidence because the Old Testament events which the Caldwells and Wyatt are trying to validate here do not occur in a vacuum.  They are part of a wider narrative of the entire Old Testament.  These Sinai-related events take their cue from the events of the Book of Genesis. 

 

Unless Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace was a real and historical event, why was there any need for Moses and the Israelites to be protected from seeing God?  You see how one set of events can't be taken out of context from the preceding ones?  The events detailed in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy draw their meaning from Genesis.  So, a vital question for us to ponder (before we give any credence to the Caldwell's claims) is this...

 

What about the historicity of the Book of Genesis?

 

Please think carefully about this before making any kind of hasty decision about the 'truth' of the Bible.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stryper]

BAA, you just can't take anything on faith can you.

[BlackCat]

Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

 

Babylonian Dream- you said:

 

''The documentary itself seems a bit old, so its value isn't much, especially since the data they present isn't seen the way they see it by those in the field.''

 

Do you have any links regarding this? 

 

Bornagainatheist- I appreciate your comments and I've checked out the links.  I'm aware of Ron Wyatt's supposed discoveries and it is even claimed he has falsified some stuff, but I haven't checked out those claims.  Unfortunately, the Caldwells seem to be tarnished with the same brush.   I am going to email Penny Caldwell with the points you list and I'll let you know if she replies.  I emailed her yesterday, incidentally, to see if they might be visiting the UK, and she replied quite quickly, so hopefully she'll address the points you've made.  Did you watch the film?  It's the combination of their experiences (e.g the star shaped snow flakes which you can see a film of on their web site, to which you provided a link) as they investigated the mountain, as well as their findings, that present a compelling case.  When the Caldwell's visited the 'accepted' Mount Sinai, they could see clearly without needing any kind of professional training, that the traditional area cannot accommodate the millions of people that the biblical account claims.  It would be interesting to find 'expert' opinions of the Caldwell's 'findings' (and previously Ron Wyatt's) and to establish if their understanding of the sites, are plausible.  

 

I agree that all this has theological implications regarding the Genesis account but less so if parts of Genesis (and other parts of the Bible) are written in a 'parable-like' fashion, in order to convey an idea rather than a literal occurence.  When I was a believer, I never really believed in demons.  I think they are the misunderstandings of the people at that time, and recorded as such.  They didn't know about certain mental conditions.  It's also possible that the Bible is full of 'errors' and not this inerrant book that is claimed by Christendom.  

 

Thanks again for your time and help in this matter.       

[Margee]

 

Margee - I would particularly welcome your opinion on this.  I am struggling to 'let go' of my former Bible beliefs, and this couple's story is very compelling???

 

Welcome BlackCat! I just noticed this! I'm sorry hon, I haven't been posting on the forums very much due to time factors. I will try to watch this and get back to you as soon as I can!  Glad you're here with us! 

 

Hug today!

[bornagainathiest]

 

Bornagainatheist- I appreciate your comments and I've checked out the links.  I'm aware of Ron Wyatt's supposed discoveries and it is even claimed he has falsified some stuff, but I haven't checked out those claims.  Unfortunately, the Caldwells seem to be tarnished with the same brush.   I am going to email Penny Caldwell with the points you list and I'll let you know if she replies.  I emailed her yesterday, incidentally, to see if they might be visiting the UK, and she replied quite quickly, so hopefully she'll address the points you've made.  Did you watch the film?  It's the combination of their experiences (e.g the star shaped snow flakes which you can see a film of on their web site, to which you provided a link) as they investigated the mountain, as well as their findings, that present a compelling case.  When the Caldwell's visited the 'accepted' Mount Sinai, they could see clearly without needing any kind of professional training, that the traditional area cannot accommodate the millions of people that the biblical account claims.  It would be interesting to find 'expert' opinions of the Caldwell's 'findings' (and previously Ron Wyatt's) and to establish if their understanding of the sites, are plausible.  

 

I agree that all this has theological implications regarding the Genesis account but less so if parts of Genesis (and other parts of the Bible) are written in a 'parable-like' fashion, in order to convey an idea rather than a literal occurence.  When I was a believer, I never really believed in demons.  I think they are the misunderstandings of the people at that time, and recorded as such.  They didn't know about certain mental conditions.  It's also possible that the Bible is full of 'errors' and not this inerrant book that is claimed by Christendom.  

 

Thanks again for your time and help in this matter.       

 

Hello again BlackCat and thanks for your reply.

 

I'd like to respond to your message with two points.

 

Firstly, please understand that I wasn't trying to tar the Caldwells with Wyatt's brush. 

My concern isn't about the genuineness and honesty of the people making the claims, but their lack of training and qualifications to do so.  Let's suppose for a moment that the Caldwells are being totally honest about everything they've found.  Does that mean they are therefore drawing the correct conclusions?  Unfortunately not.  It takes a trained eye, years of experience and the professional input of many experts to draw useful conclusions about archaeological matters. The history of archaeology itself is (sadly) littered with many examples of hasty and un-tested conclusions being drawn - either by people who didn't know better or by professionals should have.  Here are just three.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann

Schliemann extracted a gold necklace from the dirt where he was excavating, called his wife to him and placed it around her neck, exclaiming in a loud voice, "You are wearing the necklace of Helen of Troy!"  Now, I don't doubt Schliemann's enthusiasm and dedication BlackCat, but what I do question is the quality of his training, his procedures and his conclusions.  His character is not in question - his objectivity and his professionalism are.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Bingham_III

The same question applies to Bingham.  He discovered a site in the Peruvian jungle (Espiritu Pampa) but didn't appreciate it's significance.  Later on, when he found Machu Picchu, he drew the incorrect conclusion that this was Vilcabamba, the fabled lost city and final refuge of the Incas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilcabamba,_Peru  Bingham was wrong.  Espiritu Pampa was Vilcabamba.  He'd discovered it, excavated it, surveyed it and explored it, yet failed to correctly identify it.  Once again, I'm not calling Bingham's honesty or dedication into question - only his judgement and abilities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

The inital translation of the text on this artefact was performed by Andre Lemaire, who went public with the claim that this ossuary contained the bones of..  "James, the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus"  Lemaire was a respected and trusted scholar who had also translated artefacts such as the Mesha Stele.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

Yet, he was caught out by a modern forgery.  The lesson in this case is that he let his emotions get the better of his professional objectivity.  What he should have done was to check with other experts in other fields of archaeology to see if they could confirm his findings.  Now Lemaire has to live with his error of judgement. 

 

So you see BlackCat, in the absence of a tried-and-tested, rigorous, professional and disciplined archaeological assessment of their findings, the Caldwell's case (imho) can only be considered 'compelling', from an untested, unverified non-archaeological p.o.v.  I hope that you will heed my call for caution in this matter.

 

My second point is a theological one.

 

You might be prepared to see parts of the Book of Genesis in a 'parable-like' fashion, but there is a critical problem with this approach - if you are also prepared to accept that the Caldwell's claims relate to places, people and events that they deem to be REAL.  In a nutshell, they are claiming that their discoveries confirm that the Bible gives a true and accurate report of real and historical events and places.

 

Not parables.  Not allegories.  Not symbolic stories.  Not metaphors. 

Real facts.  Real people.  Real places.  Real events.  Real miracles and therefore... a Real God.

 

Do you see the difference and the problem?

 

If we accept Exodus onwards as real and true and historical, then we must also accept Genesis to be just as real, true and historical.  One demands the other.  If we treat one differently from the other, then we are committing a grave error of context.  We are mixing oil and water.  We are giving ourselves leave to pick and choose which parts of Bible we want to accept as historical and which parts we don't. 

 

As I mentioned in my earlier message, the events in Genesis (the Fall and the Flood) define the context in which Moses, Aaron and Joshua led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.  Genesis also defines the proper context for the incarnation of God in the shape of Jesus Christ.  The Apostle Paul treats the Genesis characters that he lists in Hebrews 11 as real and historical too. What the Apostle John wrote in the Book of Revelation only makes proper contextual sense in the light of a real and historical Fall from grace. 

Please take the time to look up Revelation 22 : 1-3 and take note that the Tree of Life, first seen in Genesis 2:9 and 3:22 is there, in the New Jerusalem.  Please also note that the curses which God laid upon Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:16-19 are lifted by God in Reveleation 22:3.  None of these future events make any kind of sense unless the past events of Genesis 1-3 also happened.

 

So, the bottom line is this, BlackCat.

 

If you accept the Caldwell's claims about the mountain, the split rock, the petroglyphs, the cave, etc. as proofs of the historcity of scripture, then you must also accept that the Genesis events that preceded them are just as real and historical.  Anything less is contextual chicanery.  Anything else is just picking and choosing to suit ourselves.

Now, in the light of all the scientific evidence for a 13.72 billion year old universe, can you accept what the Bible says and believe that it's only about 6,000 years old and was spoken into existence over a period of 144 hours?

Do you accept that we are all descended from a dirt-formed Adam and his 'rib' wife Eve, or did we evolve from the primates over the past 2-3 million years?

Is all of the suffering in the world down to the words of a talking snake?

Did Methuselah really live to the age of 969?

Does Jesus really trace his ancestry back thru Methuselah and Noah to Adam?

Was the world population reduced down to just eight people by a global Flood, as the apostle Peter says?

 

If you can't accept these half-dozen questions as pertaining to real and historical events, then can you really accord any validity to what the Caldwells are claiming about the Exodus narrative?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To answer you question BlackCat, no, I haven't watched the film. 

I may do in the future.  However, I don't need to watch it to change my p.o.v. on the Bible and the existence of a Christian God.  I don't need to watch it, other than to see what other people think is 'history'.

 

Instead, I apply to myself the same theological standard that I've outlined above.  If Genesis isn't historical, then it doesn't matter if the Israelites thought it was.  If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then it doesn't matter if the Israelites thought they did.  All that matters is the historicity of that book. 

 

And all the scientific evidence tells me that Genesis isn't historical, isn't true and isn't real.  Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Palaeontology, Archaeology and many other branches of science agree that Genesis is NOT a true and reliable description of the origins of anything except the supernatural beliefs of a minor ancient Middle Eastern culture.

 

I do hope that the tone of this message doesn't come across as antagonistic or overly-challenging.  It's simply my wish that you pause and carefully consider what the Caldwells are saying in the full context of history.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

Margee, thanks for the hug.  A big hug back. 
 
Bornagainatheist- you make some great points and you have reminded me of the unwelcome theological implications all this has.  I'm busy over the weekend, so I'll come back to you in the next few days. 

[BlackCat]

I don't know why my reply has a line through it????

[Joshpantera]

You just have to check the claims out BlackCat.

 

For instance, around 50:00 the Caldwell's are showing the images of Bulls carved on the granite stones and then logic leaping to conclude that this must be the alter to the Golden Calf, but, of course they're cave painting-like images that date to the neolithic period, and they're also in the plural of many cattle from time when the land was favorable for cattle, not to a single Golden Calf or an Alter built by Aaron himself, alone, as the Bible claims:

 

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/Is-Mount-Sinai-in-Saudi-Arabia.aspx

 

What are we to make of this “evidence”? First, the Bible clearly states that Aaron, not the Children of Israel, made the altar before the golden calf (Ex. 32:5). I find it hard to believe that he could pick up these giant boulders and put them in place to make an altar! Cornuke believed that this “huge mound of stacked granite” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000: 64) was built by “workers skilled in the art of building cities and moving mountains” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000: 65). This view is contrary to the Scriptures. Aaron built the altar, not the Israelites.

 

Second, one Saudi archaeologist who did his doctoral thesis on Saudi Arabian rock art dates the “patched bovine” to the Neolithic period (Khan 1991: 115; plate 1). The Neolithic period is considerably earlier than the Late Bronze Age and the date of the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, it has nothing to do with the livestock the Israelites brought out of Egypt (Ex. 12: 38; 17:3; Num. 20:19; 32:1; Deut. 3:19).

 

Third, during the Neolithic period there was much more rainfall in Saudi Arabia than at the present (Ingraham 1981: 62). Thus there would be ample grazing places for cattle then. One does not have to make the assumption the Israelites drove the livestock to Saudi Arabia.

 

Fourth, let’s assume for a minute that this was the site of the golden calf (However, I do not believe it is). Moses destroyed the golden calf because it was an idol. He would also have erased the petroglyphs of the bovine because they were graven images. Petroglyphs would be totally contrary to the Law that Moses had just received from the Lord on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 20:4).⁶  To answer Cornuke’s question, “Had we really stumbled upon the altar of the golden calf?” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000:67). The simple answer is no.

 

This has all been thoroughly refuted here as well: http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/jebel-al-lawz/

 

Wyatt (now dead) was an SDA crack pot who lectured about some of these findings @ camp meetings. I saw him lecture on this material as an SDA youth here in Florida, in Orlando, our central meeting location for the state. He claimed the chariot wheels in the Red Sea as evidence of the Exodus and went so far as to claim the discovery of Noah's Ark while he was at it. I remember wondering why this huge world changing break through proving the Bible literally true wasn't on every news station around the world?

 

Later it became obvious that that's because none of it's true. The whole thing is psuedo-archaeology at best, which, makes perfect sense because there's zero evidence in Egypt of the Israelites as slaves in the first place, nor any credible evidence of that many people wandering around in the dessert, and on top of it all Canaan was ruled by Egypt at the time that they would have been arriving there for the conquest of Joshua, full of Egyptian authorities with out posts all around the region. Israel Finkelstein covers this extensively in "The Bible Unearthed," which you should refer to for a better understanding of the actual archaeology verses the psuedo-type you find coming from Biblical literalists, such as Wyatt and crew...

 

And back to BAA's main point, of course this doesn't add up literally because Genesis doesn't add up literally by any stretch of the imagination. And so why in the world would Exodus add up literally? The simple truth is that it doesn't....

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I was a Christian I was told (don't remember by whom) that each Israelite had 90 donkeys carrying plunder from the Egyptians when they left Egypt.  The estimate was some millions of donkeys on the journey.  Is that in Exodus or is it a later Talmudic legend?  Either way you'd think that such a huge train would leave traces.  Plus, how to feed all the animals if it's in the desert.  I don't recall Exodus saying that the livestock ate manna from heaven.

[Akheia]

If these weirdos had managed to find something that epochal, that ground-breaking, and it was really legit, you have to stop and wonder why mainstream science hasn't leaped all over it. It's not like there aren't believers among the ranks of real scientists and archaeologists. It's not like they're suppressing it or somehow keeping it from getting to all those.. wait, who? All those Christians filling the Western World who'd LOVE to see this all be true? Like with "intelligent design" (0 for 2 with the name there, eh?) and the anti-vaccination movement, it's just a bunch of charlatans and pseudo-scientists snowing the shit out of the uneducated. I know it's enticing to think that a moldy book of fairy tales has actual history in it, and who knows, some of it might be true in the most metaphorical sense. But metaphor is all it is. I saw something the other day about a Black Sea flood that might have been so bad it was remembered in folklore for YEARS among many different peoples in that area, explaining why so many different ancient cultures from that general area have flood myths. Metaphor only--certainly the flood wasn't worldwide or caused by a god (or goddess, and I'm looking at you, Inanna) getting tetchy and throwing a fit. As BAA's so ably noted, even if there had been a worldwide flood, that opens a floodgate of other theological issues that must be confronted head-on. And weirdly, nobody in any credentialed field seems to be doing that.

 

Be real careful when you go hunting for evidence. WHO is presenting the evidence is as important than WHAT is being presented, to a great extent. It's not that untrained historians, archaeologists, and amateur scientists can't make discoveries, not at all! But that we must be really leery of "discoveries" that are not confirmed by established procedures and bodies of real historians, archaeologists, and scientists. You may be falling into a postmodern trap of not knowing how to ascertain what is and isn't actual science and what is and isn't trustworthy. There's a lot of noise out there, but very little signal, and the further you get from actual credentialed sources and actual established procedures, the more noise you're going to hear. Without the discernment to figure out what sources you can trust, you'll get overwhelmed by noise--as you did here.

 

In conclusion: David "WTF" Barton.

[bornagainathiest]

(Snip)

 

 I saw something the other day about a Black Sea flood that might have been so bad it was remembered in folklore for YEARS among many different peoples in that area, explaining why so many different ancient cultures from that general area have flood myths. Metaphor only--certainly the flood wasn't worldwide or caused by a god (or goddess, and I'm looking at you, Inanna) getting tetchy and throwing a fit. As BAA's so ably noted, even if there had been a worldwide flood, that opens a floodgate of other theological issues that must be confronted head-on. And weirdly, nobody in any credentialed field seems to be doing that.

 

(Snip)

 

Here's something else that should sound alarm bells, Akheia.

 

Looking thru scripture we see that Paul and Peter treat Noah's flood as a real and global event, not as a metaphor nor as a regional flood, either.  (Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5)  Ok, they can be forgiven for thinking the flood was real and global.  After all, they were just fallible men who earnestly believed the stories they'd been told.  So far, so good.

 

But you'd think God Himself would know the truth, wouldn't you?

After, He foresaw it, before the universe was created, right?  He's the one who carried it out, right?  So, surely he'd tell the Israelites the truth, wouldn't he?

 

And He does...

 

Isaiah 54:9

 “To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.

So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again."

 

Matthew 24:36-39

³⁶ “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

 

 

So there we have it!

From out of the mouth of the Old Testament god and from the lips of His New Testament Son.  (See also Luke 17:26 & 27.) Noah's flood was not a parable or metaphor, nor was it limited to the Black Sea region.  God toe's the Genesis line.  Noah's flood was worldwide and spared only 8 people.  And in case we're in any doubt over this, read on...

 

Hebrews 6: 16-18.

¹⁶ People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument.

¹⁷ Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

¹⁸ God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

 

Therefore, all the scientific evidence that says otherwise must be Satanic lies.

 

'nuff said?

 

BAA.

[Akheia]

PRECISELY. The evidence suggests that there may indeed have been a bad flooding of the Black Sea. But that is not a worldwide flood by any means. To the people affected it might have seemed so, and it took on its bigger form in their stories and myths. But in reality it was not. So why would God's word have said it was? And not to put too fine a point on it, but pretty much every body of water floods at some point, so it's pretty safe to assume that yes, at some point the Black Sea flooded really bad. No, the only way to take any of it is on a "germ of truth" metaphorical way, not in any sort of literal way. We do these and other cultures' myths a disservice by trying to "prove" them correct or incorrect. They're not meant to be history. It wasn't until fairly recently that Christians even thought that; the Jews certainly don't think their Torah is an accurate telling of history.

 

I've seen some progressive Christian blogs that are moving away from a literal reading of the mythic-history presented in the Bible and think they're heading in the right direction there. It's admirable to see, even though I know how much pushback these people are getting by doing it. After all, if there was no Fall of Man, as you've said, BAA, then how in the world is a Redemption significant? I think the literalists know that and fear the house of cards falling down.

[Joshpantera]

The Bible does portray these events as if they were literal history, and yet, at least in the case of Origen, you can see how they were not received as literal history by those who understood the mythological symbolism aspect of what was written:

 

 

Origen of Alexandria (185-254AD): http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
De Principiis (Book IV) 16. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky?

 

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil?

 

No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account.

 

The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

 

And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

We could go further and ask the same question about all of the literal animals in the world crowding, two by two, into a literal ark?

 

Or about the Red Sea parting, a great multitude of Israelites wandering the desert with a cloud following them by day which turned into fire by night, blasting trumpets to bring down a city wall, etc. etc.

 

The Caldwell type of people in this world would just as soon go looking for a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or a literal mountain in which all of the kingdoms of the world can be viewed. Typical fundy mind set. And they somehow miss the fact that they're moving away from anything spiritual by insisting on the literal historical reading of the mythological symbols. I think Origen caught that because he was from the Alexandrian school and knew good and well about mythologizing and how it works. Plus the mysteries were about metaphor and allegory and I assume that he recognized the Judeo-Christian mythos as a type of mystery school along similar lines as the Alexandrian varieties. That simple perspective outlines what these literalists are trying to do and answers why they keeping failing at it. They have no idea how to read and interpret mythological symbols...

[Akheia]

I'm starting to realize that a religion's "truth" depends not upon whether or not its mythology really happened but upon how well it works for an individual and a society, how well it breeds understanding and peace, and how it advances humanity rather than impedes it.

 

Even if the Caldwells and their ilk manage to find a literal Ark or a literal Flood or a literal Garden of Eden, they're still going to be left with proving how these things link to the existence of a god, then to the existence of their particular narrow-minded little tribal Middle-Eastern storm-god, then to Jesus Christ's literal existence and death, then to his literal resurrection, then to the Bible's accuracy in retelling his demands and lore, etc etc etc. There's no damn way they're going to be able to leap from OH YAY AN ARK to JESUS IS FO'REALSIES Y'ALL AND HE'S TOTALLY PISSED. And all the while the truth of their religion is that it breeds heartache in all but the top levels of its adherents; it brings all too much intolerance and inequality; and it actively impedes humanity's advances in philosophy and science.

[bornagainathiest]

Just a quickie for BlackCat to mull over.

 

In the gospels, does Jesus treat the characters from Genesis as real people from Israel's history?

 

Please read Matthew 19: 1 - 12 and note that Jesus puts Adam and Eve (v. 4-6) on an equal basis with Moses (v. 8 & 9).  Jesus treats Genesis and Exodus equally.  Therefore, it is contextually dishonest to say that Exodus is historical, but Genesis is a parable.  So, applying the same standard, if the Caldwell's claims are historically accurate - so are all the events in Genesis.  You can't cherry pick!

 

Please read Luke 17: 28 - 37.  "Remember Lot's wife!"  Abraham, Sarah, Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are ALL historical, according to Jesus.

 

Jesus may have used these Genesis characters in his parables, but that doesn't mean they were just myths to Him. 

 

The answer to the question must therefore be... 'Yes, to Jesus they were real and historical'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

Just a quickie for BlackCat to mull over.

 

In the gospels, does Jesus treat the characters from Genesis as real people from Israel's history?

 

Please read Matthew 19: 1 - 12 and note that Jesus puts Adam and Eve (v. 4-6) on an equal basis with Moses (v. 8 & 9).  Jesus treats Genesis and Exodus equally.  Therefore, it is contextually dishonest to say that Exodus is historical, but Genesis is a parable.  So, applying the same standard, if the Caldwell's claims are historically accurate - so are all the events in Genesis.  You can't cherry pick!

 

Please read Luke 17: 28 - 37.  "Remember Lot's wife!"  Abraham, Sarah, Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are ALL historical, according to Jesus.

 

Jesus may have used these Genesis characters in his parables, but that doesn't mean they were just myths to Him. 

 

The answer to the question must therefore be... 'Yes, to Jesus they were real and historical'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Those stories don't need to be historical.  No such requirement exists.  Someone can certainly refer to an earlier fictional/allegorical story, particularly in their own allegorical story.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Just a quickie for BlackCat to mull over.

 

In the gospels, does Jesus treat the characters from Genesis as real people from Israel's history?

 

Please read Matthew 19: 1 - 12 and note that Jesus puts Adam and Eve (v. 4-6) on an equal basis with Moses (v. 8 & 9).  Jesus treats Genesis and Exodus equally.  Therefore, it is contextually dishonest to say that Exodus is historical, but Genesis is a parable.  So, applying the same standard, if the Caldwell's claims are historically accurate - so are all the events in Genesis.  You can't cherry pick!

 

Please read Luke 17: 28 - 37.  "Remember Lot's wife!"  Abraham, Sarah, Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are ALL historical, according to Jesus.

 

Jesus may have used these Genesis characters in his parables, but that doesn't mean they were just myths to Him. 

 

The answer to the question must therefore be... 'Yes, to Jesus they were real and historical'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Those stories don't need to be historical.  No such requirement exists.  Someone can certainly refer to an earlier fictional/allegorical story, particularly in their own allegorical story.

 

 

I happen to agree with you sdelsolray. 

I'm certain that the Genesis stories aren't historical.  My point was that Jesus thought they were - which tells me that He wasn't the Messiah, the Son of God, nor 1/3 of the Trinity.

 

Please read John 8: 48 - 59, which I contend, confirms my point.  Verse 56 reads... " Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”  That is not from anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is Jesus referring to Abraham as a fictional/allegorical figure.

 

He was telling the Jews that he knew Abraham personally. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

'nuther one!

 

Luke 10:18

 

"He [Jesus] replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

 

Q.

When did Satan fall from heaven? 

 

A.

Not during the mortal lifetime of Jesus.

 

Orthodox Christianity asserts that the talking snake which tempted Eve was actually Satan.  Since he was practicing evil in Eden, he must have fallen from heaven before then.  It doesn't matter that Jesus claimed to have witnessed this event, when he clearly couldn't have.  What does matter is that Jesus thought and believed that the characters from Genesis were real.  Not symbols, metaphors, allegories or story-telling devices.  REAL PEOPLE.  REAL EVENTS.  REAL HISTORY.  This is what Jesus believed.

 

So you see sdelsolray, for Jesus to be the real and historical Messiah and Son of God, the Book of Genesis has to be history. There is an absolute requirement for this. This is also why Christianity can be so easily debunked and refuted. Genesis isn't history - it's fable.  Therefore, the rest of the Bible is built upon... a fable.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

Sorry I've taken so long to come back to you guys.  You've certainly given me much food for thought.  What started as a plausible 'down to earth' possibility, has opened a big can of worms.  Upon reviewing the Caldwell's findings, and reading their account, I was struck by how 'natural' the wanderings of millions of people in a desert (as portrayed in the Bible) could be.  The area in Saudi Arabia meets all the geographical etc criteria that would accommodate such a crowd, and whilst being skeptical that the sites found were the original ones, it enabled me to see how encampments, altars, a rock with gushing water etc, could have been a real occurrence.  You would need to watch the video I linked to, to appreciate where the Caldwell's are coming from.

 

As for that can of ever riggling worms........I cannot in all honesty, resolve the theological claims e.g the fall, with what science is revealing about our world.  I know 'Christians' who have no problem disregarding large chunks of the Bible that contradict science (and common sense) and hold onto the parts that do make sense: 'love each other'.  It was this 'cherry picking' that brought me to my crisis of faith recently, because I've always been of the opinion, that if one part of the Bible is suspect, then how can you rely on any of it?  The NT validates the OT, and so I don't think it's possible to throw out a part you don't happen to like.  I'm still holding out hope that Someone is out there listening (I can't help it, this hope is a part of me and never seems to wain) and so I've told them (like Margee did) that I just can't make sense of the Bible and for this Person to help me understand what it's all about (our existence).  I don't want to accept that there is no point to our existence and that my hopes, loves etc are merely a result of combinations of molecules.   My friend sent me a Christmas video the other day, that although is quite cheesy, actually brought a tear to my eye, because I could see the love and goodwill in people and how we are affected for 'good'.  Check it out:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vnt7euRF5Pg&vq=medium

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again BlackCat. 

 

I can see that there's a struggle going on inside you - between your head and your heart.  You have my sympathies.  Many of us have been where you are now.  It's not a happy place to be. 

 

Now, I cannot and will not try and appeal to your heart over the issue of the Caldwell's claims. 

All I can do is to present you with the facts and leave the decision to you.  I reckon that I've supplied plenty of scriptural and theological arguments to adequately show that the book of Genesis (and therefore, Exodus and everything else in the Bible) cannot be historical, cannot be factual and cannot be the truth.  I hope that I've also demonstrated that a mythical/symbolic approach to Genesis is unworkable - if other parts of the Bible are then taken as historical reportage.  Jesus simply cannot be seen as historical in the isolated context of the four Gospels.  His own words ensure that.  When he says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven"  what are the possible meanings of that sentence?  The options are very limited.

 

1.

He was lying.  Therefore, he's not God and the debate is over... Christianity is false and should be rejected, no matter how appealing it is.

 

2.

He didn't see Satan fall with his physical eyes.  This was revealed to him and he saw this spiritually, with his 'inner' sight.

Problem!

New Testament scripture always tells us when a person is seeing something spiritually.  The Bible tells us quite plainly that the apostle Peter and the centurion Cornelius saw spiritual things in visions (see Acts 10 and 11), not with their own eyes.  Paul describes his spiritual visions and revelations from God in 2 Corinthians 12: 1-4.  John prefaces his visions and revelations on the island of Patmos with the fact that on the Lord's day he was in the spirit (see Rev. 1:10). 

This is not the case in Luke 10. 

The passage in question is a report of the dialog between Jesus and the seventy-two he had appointed and sent out.  There is not even a hint that Jesus is describing something that he saw in a spiritual vision.  Verse 21 says that he was full of joy, thru the holy spirit, but that is all.

 

3.

Jesus actually saw Satan fall from heaven. 

He saw that event because he was there, when there was war in heaven.  Please look at Revelation 12, verses 7 to 9.  This is the event Jesus was describing in Luke 10:18 and this is why he talks of snakes and scorpions in verse 19.  These are the fallen angels who fought with Satan and fell with him - like lightning.  Which is why Genesis and Exodus must be taken historically, if the Gospels are to be taken historically.

Problem!

Please remember BlackCat, that even though scripture appears to hang together, Genesis cannot be history and the events described in it (Eden and the Flood) are not historical.  If you do want to consider them to be so, please go back to my message to you of December 14 (post #7) and re-read the questions I put to you. 

 

'Is all the suffering in the world down to the words of a talking snake?' (Called Satan, whom Jesus said he saw fall from heaven?)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As before, I don't need to watch a video to know that Christianty is false... so I won't be clicking on that link, ok?

 

Btw, you do understand that videos like this (and the Caldwell's) are designed to manipulate the viewer's emotions and to stop them from thinking clearly and critically about the vital issue of Christianity's truth, don't you?

 

Last point.

Please do a Google image search, using the words, "split rock".

.

.

.

 

Yes, BlackCat. 

There are many, many stunningly split rocks around the world.  Nature split them.  Not God, nor Moses.  In fact, given the harsh conditions of the Middle East, it's a statistical certainty that there'll be at least one split rock, somewhere in the Bible lands.  Does that therefore make the Bible true?

 

Please use your head to answer this question and to consider what I've written here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlackCat]

Hello Bornagainatheist,  as my memory is getting bad I'll type my responses throughout your post.

Hello again BlackCat. 

 

I can see that there's a struggle going on inside you - between your head and your heart.  You have my sympathies.  Many of us have been where you are now.  It's not a happy place to be.    Yes, it's a real struggle.

 

Now, I cannot and will not try and appeal to your heart over the issue of the Caldwell's claims.  It's true that for the Caldwells, it was a 'spiritual experience' and so a matter of the heart, that led them on a journey that has provided physical tangible findings.  I have had a lengthy reply from Penny Caldwell regarding the points you made in an earlier post.  I'll post her reply in my next post.

All I can do is to present you with the facts and leave the decision to you.  I reckon that I've supplied plenty of scriptural and theological arguments to adequately show that the book of Genesis (and therefore, Exodus and everything else in the Bible) cannot be historical, cannot be factual and cannot be the truth. Yes, you have, although I would suggest some of the events in the bible could be historically 'true' or partly true.  I hope that I've also demonstrated that a mythical/symbolic approach to Genesis is unworkable - if other parts of the Bible are then taken as historical reportage.  I'm not decided on this.  The Bible clearly contains symbolic things e.g a talking 'snake' with legs, a beast with horns, etc, teeth that never wear down with constant gnashing, and worms that can survive fire??  I have no problem with the hyperbolic language and exageration used in the Bible, or rather, I can see that certains passages cannot be literal, and thus we have this problem of deciding what is symbolic and what is literal.  Maybe it's not that difficult??   Jesus simply cannot be seen as historical in the isolated context of the four Gospels.  His own words ensure that.  When he says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven"  what are the possible meanings of that sentence?  The options are very limited.

 

1.

He was lying.  Therefore, he's not God and the debate is over... Christianity is false and should be rejected, no matter how appealing it is.

 

2.

He didn't see Satan fall with his physical eyes.  This was revealed to him and he saw this spiritually, with his 'inner' sight.

Problem!

New Testament scripture always tells us when a person is seeing something spiritually.  I'm not sure you are right.  It may seem to 'always' tell us, but maybe it doesn't or Jesus is not 'seeing' anything but rather the language of the time has a meaning of 'perceiving' that the accuser (anything that is in opposition to God- not a literal fallen angel) is defeated. The Bible tells us quite plainly that the apostle Peter and the centurion Cornelius saw spiritual things in visions (see Acts 10 and 11), not with their own eyes.  Paul describes his spiritual visions and revelations from God in 2 Corinthians 12: 1-4.  John prefaces his visions and revelations on the island of Patmos with the fact that on the Lord's day he was in the spirit (see Rev. 1:10). 

This is not the case in Luke 10. 

The passage in question is a report of the dialog between Jesus and the seventy-two he had appointed and sent out.  There is not even a hint that Jesus is describing something that he saw in a spiritual vision.  Yes,  he seems to be using a figure of speech like 'I've whooped his ass'.  If I say I'll kick the shit out of someone, I'm not going to literally kick the shit.      Verse 21 says that he was full of joy, thru the holy spirit, but that is all.

 

3.

Jesus actually saw Satan fall from heaven. 

He saw that event because he was there, when there was war in heaven.  Please look at Revelation 12, verses 7 to 9.  This is the event Jesus was describing in Luke 10:18 and this is why he talks of snakes and scorpions in verse 19.  These are the fallen angels who fought with Satan and fell with him - like lightning.   Most of Revelation is in a 'code' of symbols, so I would be very cautious about literalism and symbolism.  As for fallen angels, I have studied this subject and I'm of the opinion, they may not even exist.  'Angels' can refer to men and Satan, can be an accuser ie a human.  It's a big subject for another discussion.  Which is why Genesis and Exodus must be taken historically, if the Gospels are to be taken historically.  Yes, but maybe the obvious symbolic content need not necessarily negate any historical 'truths'??

Problem!

Please remember BlackCat, that even though scripture appears to hang together, Genesis cannot be history and the events described in it (Eden and the Flood) are not historical.  If you do want to consider them to be so, please go back to my message to you of December 14 (post #7) and re-read the questions I put to you. 

 

'Is all the suffering in the world down to the words of a talking snake?' (Called Satan, whom Jesus said he saw fall from heaven?)  No- there are no talking snakes.  The apostle Paul claims that all the suffering in the world is down to God ultimately: God created this material universe and as it wears down, it is subject to 'frustration' or suffering- but Paul goes on to talk of a hope- which is the hope I am clinging to, or cannot shake off- the hope that the God who started all this frustration in the first place, will be the one to 'fix' it and thus 'all will be well' in the end.  I'm aware it's the most fantastical 'fairy story' and in my heart I probably know it is just a story- but the hope is burning strongly. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As before, I don't need to watch a video to know that Christianty is false... so I won't be clicking on that link, ok?

 

Btw, you do understand that videos like this (and the Caldwell's) are designed to manipulate the viewer's emotions and to stop them from thinking clearly and critically about the vital issue of Christianity's truth, don't you?  Yes, that is true, but the Caldwell's story as presented in the film, provides ample physical 'evidence' that can be tested with science.  The Christmas film I linked to is totally a 'heart tugging' event, but then being 'touched' in a way that makes you want goodness, peace, love and a hope for the future, is not wrong surely?  That's what makes us human. 

 

Last point.

Please do a Google image search, using the words, "split rock".

.

.

.

 

Yes, BlackCat. 

There are many, many stunningly split rocks around the world.  Nature split them.  Not God, nor Moses.  In fact, given the harsh conditions of the Middle East, it's a statistical certainty that there'll be at least one split rock, somewhere in the Bible lands.  Does that therefore make the Bible true?

 

Please use your head to answer this question and to consider what I've written here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

The rock that the Caldwell's provide photos of, is very large and there is evidence of water running from it.  This is pysical (not spiritual) proof, that a literal rock, big enough and placed in the right spot (with an unground water source maybe?) could have been feasible, as reported in Exodus.  It's a mundane explanation.  The tapping of the rock is not miraculous as maybe previously understood.  This is what struck me about the Caldwell's findings- many things we might have understood as having to be miraculous, have a perfectly mundane, scientific explanation.  I've got to dash off now, but will post Penny's reply later.  It's good to discuss these things with you BAA. 

[BlackCat]

I emailed Penny Caldwell regarding the points made by BAA in an earlier post.  Here is some of the reply I received:

 

''And let me be the first to say that we ALWAYS make it known that we ARE NOT professional archeologists, particularly when we are speaking in front of people. Being as we are not archeologists, the answer to most of the questions from the person who commented are clearly “no”. However, let me also be clear that we have thoroughly documented by way of video and photograph what lies behind fences inside Saudi Arabia. And since the Saudi’s have not been wont to allow any western archeologists into the site, this is unfortunately, all we have to work with.

 

We have since the early 1990’s put our photos and film before professionals. Others have taken our footage and placed it before professionals as well. Miles Jones, PhD, for example, has studied the photos and video of the petroglyphs (rock art) and he is in agreement with our thoughts that these were placed there on the rocks by the wandering Israelites. He is indeed qualified to make such a judgment.

 

Dr. Yuris Zarins, archeologist with many years of field work in the Middle East, has stated that the land of Midian, archeologically, can only be located to northwest Saudi Arabia, due to the very distinct nature of Midianite pottery, found only there. That is in agreement with our thinking that Midian is not located on the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt. And, if the Exodus story in the Bible is true, then Moses fleeing to Midian had to be in what is now NW Saudi Arabia.

 

James L. Phillips, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois at Chicago, Dept. of Anthropology, The Field Museum, has stated that there has been no archeological evidence whatsoever found in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt that relates to the time period it is assumed the Exodus occurred.

 

Dr. Lennart Moller from the Karolinska Institute of Sweden, who is a well known and respected scientist, is in agreement from a scientific viewpoint that the Land of Midian is in NW Arabia, and that Jebel Lawz is the most likely candidate for the Biblical Mt. Sinai due to the archeological and historical record. He has also analyzed our findings and agrees that the wandering in the wilderness most likely occurred on the Arabian Peninsula.

 

Dr. Sunk Hak Kim, former personal physician to a high ranking member of the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, visited the site 12 times over a number of years and came to the same conclusions that we did. Although not an archeologist, he did have a great advantage in that he spoke fluent Arabic, and spoke to the local Bedouin of the area. They told him very clearly that this was the mountain of Moses, the prophet, and that “Yahud”, or “Israel” had made the rock carvings and Thamudic writing on the rocks. They also told him that the Split Rock was “prophet Moses rock”, and water had come from that rock miraculously. The testimony of Dr. Kim, a man of science, from the historical vantage point is most valuable in that the record of the history of the region known to the people living there is quite valid to piece together the past when added to the remains there.

 

Under no circumstances have Jim and I come to these conclusions based upon our findings alone, nor or we attempting to “carry on Ron Wyatt’s findings”. We don’t even agree with Ron on many things. But we do believe this mountain is the real Mount Sinai of the Bible. There are many, many more instances and many more findings that are in the hands of the experts as I type this, which will be coming out as they make their own decisions and give us the feedback. But I wanted to get some examples to you as soon as I could, especially because we will be out of the office shortly for the remainder of the year.

 

I do encourage you to remain at least undecided about these findings until more research has been done. Of course, we believe that they are real, due to our own personal experience. But I have no problem whatsoever that people are skeptical, especially given the number of charlatans out there. What I can prove is that there are a huge number of very interesting artifacts in Saudi Arabia that are not allowed to be properly looked at by western professionals, and the historical record by their own admission is quite profoundly similar to the record of the Bible with regard to the Exodus and the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness. What has been proven archeologically is that this record does NOT exist on the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt. As a result, many have drawn the conclusion that the Exodus simply did not happen. But if the artifacts lie just beyond that landmass, in Arabia, then it is true that it is a matter of looking in the wrong place. And since looking there is not at present allowed, we have to work with the options we have. We can only hope that someday, they will allow the trained and professional to go in and do a proper dig inside Saudi Arabia.

 

Hope this helps your understanding of our viewpoint!''

 

I'm sure Penny wouldn't mind me sharing her reply to you guys.  Again, I would recommend you watch the interview of Jim and Penny to really understand what they found in Saudi Arabia and what drove them to embark on such an adventure.   Whatever their findings may actually mean, their story is very interesting.  I remain open minded and struck by the similarity in the Exodus account to their findings. 

[Margee]

BlackCat, I was exactly where you are right now when I joined this  board. Everybody here has a different approach to help guide us along this very distressing topic of the christian god and the so-called, `word of god.` The people on this board who know the apoligetics is amazing.  I don`t understand all of it. I don`t know enough history and politics to be a bible scholar. I kinda go by what does or doesn`t make sense to me.

 

When I studied the first chapter of Genesis....I knew my christian days were over. The stupidity of the  christian god is beyond anything.....I can`t believe that I believed it for so many years. I always remember saying to god (Even as a christian) that I thought he could have done a much better job considering that he was all knowing, all powerful, all good, all loving. He was supposed to be `Omnibenevolent` and have all intelligence for designing the earth. Stating than an omnipotent, omniscient deity is omnibenevolent  restricts what that deity can do....it can’t or should NEVER do evil. This creates MANY problems with the

so-called loving christian god..

 

Just study all his `fuck-ups` in the first 3 chapters and you won`t have to go any further once you understand that this could not possibly have been the  `set-up` of an intelligent god.  Read carefully how he asked Adam which animal he would choose for a mate!! Look at the operation in the garden...how he cut Adam open and removed one of his ribs to make a woman. No blood - no nothing.....just reached his invisable hand in his chest and removed a rib. And yet as miraculous as this was, he didn`t seem to have any sense on how to work all this power!! If he created `man`- why couldn`t he have just simply created `woman`also.

 

   Read how he set them up for failure by allowing the serpent that he created come in the garden and decieve these two, very innocent new humans who didn`t have 2 clues what they were even here for!!  What a stupid god!!  His whole design` was a total diaster.

 

Then, after you read Genesis, go and study how the earth actually formed in the universe. It may cut many years of you trying to figure out these `man spoken`, so-called scriptures from the ancient peoples. I don`t want to burst your bubble too quickly because I know how all this hurts.

 

You are safe my dear, being here on EX-c. It won`t be long before you know in your heart that what we say is true. You will grieve and form some new opinions, even if that does includes another `higher power`of some kind. It`s going to be OK. You will find something that makes you comfortable.

 

The biggest relief I ever felt was when I realized that I wasn`t `born in sin`- therefore...I did not need a savior.  Saying goodbye to jesus was the hardest thing for me because I hated the old testement god with a passion for screwing things up in the first place, where he would need to use a human sacrifice (his own son) to save us. Makes me want to puke today.

You hang in there hon, it gets better. You will eventually come to `acceptance`.

 

Hug for you today!