Awesome, amazing video about Genesis and the Chinese Language, presented by Pastor Kong Hee in Singapore (with Mandarin interpreter) …www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-AkJzpKmg I was initially alerted to this video by two books by Ethel R. Nelson – “Discovery of Genesis” and “God’s Promise to the Chinese.” Pastor Hee is an excellent communicator and in my opinion does an outstanding job of explaining this topic. Recently I was able to watch this video with a native Chinese person who speaks Mandarin and who was able to verify the validity of this information.
Coolest Bible study ever … I never knew before that ancient Hebrew used hieroglyphics (word pictures) … I had always heard of Egyptian hieroglyphics, but never Hebrew (Chinese also uses hieroglyphics) … My study of this (thanks to Ken Nair and his “Life Partners” marriage seminar) helped me to finally understand (after 22 years of marriage) the wife’s primary role in a marriage … No it’s not cooking and cleaning and cheer leading … It is “revealing the enemy” (the enemy being un-Christlikeness) which wars against her husband. See pic at left. Ancient Hebrew on left, modern on right. Enjoy. Here’s the Amazon link for the book …LINK HERE. So the ancient Hebrew word “ezer” literally means “revealer of the ‘ax man’ or enemy”, the idea being a military setting. Quite a different sense from the KJV translation of “help meet” and the modern interpretations of this. The wife is a “watchman” designed to detect the slightest bit of un-Christlikeness in her husband. And boy is my wife good at this! Wow. So now that I understand this, I can appreciate my wife’s role much better and actually benefit from it, instead of getting irritated when she reacts against something I do wrong. As Ken explains, she’s SUPPOSED to react like that. That’s how God designed her! Amazing stuff. I wish I had learned this 25 years ago!
I recently got in a discussion about the historical reliability of the 4 Gospels and I realized that I really don’t know very much about this topic. So … I went to a source that has served me well in the area of Apologetics for many years – Josh McDowell, “Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” I’ve only just begun, but here’s one thing I found significant. It’s a statement by Sir William Ramsay.
“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
He also wrote
“Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” 
Who is Sir Willam Ramsay? According to McDowell he is one of the greatest archaeologists of all time. Here’s Wikipedia on him …
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.
William Ramsay paid particular interest in the New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years of the event. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: ‘Further study…showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement’ (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, ‘I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment…’ When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul’s letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were really his. 
 Ramsay, Sir W. M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222.
 Ramsay, W. M., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962 (originally published in 1895), p. 81
A while back, I published an article about world famous archaeologist Nelson Glueck and his strong statement …
“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. (Glueck, Nelson, Rivers in the Desert, New York: Grove Press, 1959, pp. 31-32.)
Glueck apparently also claimed to have found King Solomon’s mines in Faynan/Edom and got laughed at. But a recent discovery has vindicated him. Enjoy …
King Solomon’s Copper Mines?
ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2008) — Did the Bible’s King David and his son Solomon control the copper industry in present-day southern Jordan? Though that remains an open question, the possibility is raised once again by research reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For years, scholars have argued whether the Edomites were sufficiently organized by the 10th to 9th centuries BCE to seriously threaten the neighboring Israelites as a true “kingdom.” Between the World Wars, during the “Golden Age” of biblical archaeology, scholars explored, as Levy describes it, with a trowel in one hand and Bible in the other, seeking to fit their Holy Land findings into the sacred story. Based on his 1930s surveys, American archaeologist Nelson Glueck even asserted that he had found King Solomon’s mines in Faynan/Edom. By the 1980s, however, Glueck’s claim had been largely dismissed. A consensus had emerged that the Bible was heavily edited in the 5th century BCE, long after the supposed events, while British excavations of the Edomite highlands in the 1970s-80s suggested the Iron Age had not even come to Edom until the 7th century BCE.
“Now,” said Levy, director of the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UCSD and associate director of the new Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3), “with data from the first large-scale stratified and systematic excavation of a site in the southern Levant to focus specifically on the role of metallurgy in Edom, we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period.”
Yes, it sure does. Combine this kind of cool stuff with the ongoing demise of the Documentary Hypothesis, the Rise of the Rohl Chronology and such, and Biblical historicity advocates like me are finally starting to have fun again!
I am an avid reader of Joel Rosenberg’s blog and you should be too. Joel Rosenberg is the author of the uncannily accurate predictive fiction works, The Last Jihad, The Ezekiel Option, The Copper Scroll and Dead Heat, all runaway best-sellers.
Yesterday, he highlighted and commented on an article which appeared in Haaretz (a leading Israeli daily newspaper). From Joel’s blog …
The Messiah stories are particularly interesting to me. Iran, as I mentioned the other day, is running a new documentary TV series on Jewish, Christian and Islamic eschatology (End Times theology), consistent with President Ahmadinejad’s on-going call for the Muslim world to prepare for the “imminent” arrival of the Islamic Messiah, known as the Mahdi. The Israeli archaeological community, meanwhile, is currently abuzz over the discovery of a ancient stone tablet dated not long before the birth of Jesus that strongly suggests that religious Jews of the day were expecting the coming of a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected three days later. Most Rabbis and other Jewish scholars have long argued that the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah was a “Christian” invention, not part of long-established Jewish thought or Biblical teaching. But a front-page story in Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, just a few days ago has a lot of people asking: Are Jews really supposed to believe their Messiah will actually die and rise again, and was this really Orthodox religious thinking before the time of Jesus?
The Israeli archaeological community, meanwhile, is currently abuzz over the discovery of a ancient stone tablet dated not long before the birth of Jesus that strongly suggests that religious Jews of the day were expecting the coming of a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected three days later. Most Rabbis and other Jewish scholars have long argued that the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah was a “Christian” invention, not part of long-established Jewish thought or Biblical teaching. But a front-page story in Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, just a few days ago has a lot of people asking: Are Jews really supposed to believe their Messiah will actually die and rise again, and was this really Orthodox religious thinking before the time of Jesus?
Myths are not the only records that scientists should take notice of. They should also take notice of one of the most carefully recorded and transmitted collection of records on the planet — the collection of documents we now call “The Holy Bible.”
There’s a new scientific discipline out there called “Geomythology.” What is it? And how does it work? Here’s the article that alerted me to it … “Tracking Myth to Geological Reality” …
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 762 – 764
Tracking Myth to Geological Reality
Once dismissed, myths are winning new attention from geologists who find that they may encode valuable data about earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and other stirrings of the earth
More and more geoscientists are willing to combine their work with such stories these days, in a budding discipline called geomythology. Read more »
By the end of the decade [1970s], however, and continuing throughout the 1980s and into the present decade [1990s], one major study after another, like a series of hammer blows, has rejected the main claims of the Documentary Theory and the criteria on the basis of which they were argued. Winnet’s view, for which he expected few if any converts, is now in the driving-seat, so to speak, and those who adhere to the Documentary Theory are very much on the defensive. As a result, Pentateuchal research since the mid-1970s has become a mirror image of what it was in the years following the publication of Wellhausen’s study of the composition of the Pentateuch in the mid-1870s: whereas at that time the Documentary Theory which he had so persuasively argued was in the ascendant, commanding ever increasing support, today it is in sharp decline–some would say in a state of advanced rigor mortis–and new solutions are being argued and urged in its place. (p. 95-96)
This author still is an advocate of the DH, but the recent convulsions have caused him to modify his positions somewhat.
If you are a Questia subscriber as I am, you can read the book yourself here … http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10126098
And one of those “new solutions” is some form of tablet theory. Not necessarily Wiseman’s … his has some problems. But some form resembling it.
Jean Francois Champollion has been called ‘the Father of Egyptology.’ David Rohl, in his book Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, relates that the Conventional Chronology of Egypt, such as that presented by Professor Kenneth Kitchen is based upon certain key assumptions received from Champollion, one of which, Rohl says, has never been questioned before his time. This key assumption is that the Egyptian Pharoah, Shoshenk I whose name is found on the Egyptian monuments is one and the same as ‘Shishak,’ the Pharoah who plundered Solomon’s temple according to the Bible (II Chron. 12). (Rohl, p. 10) This Conventional Chronology is probably out by several centuries because of this, and it has caused archaeologists to look for Israel’s activities in the wrong time period. But where did this assumption come from? It came from Champollion when he made his first (and only) visit to Egypt. Rohl writes (p. 122) … Read more »
I have been studying the Book of Genesis for some time now and I am particularly intrigued by the recent rise of “Tablet Theories” of Genesis. My interest came about as a result of the late Henry Morris’ “Defender’s Study Bible” in which he speaks of the Wiseman Hypothesis. The picture above shows a picture of a tablet recently unearthed in Pakistan and dated by the discoverers around 5500 years ago, which is very close to the approximate date of the Great Flood of Noah. Quite a few of these early post-Flood tablets have now been found, but to my knowledge NO pre-Flood tablets have been found. This is not surprising, given the fact that the Flood was global in scope and destroyed everything. Yes, we have found fossils buried during the Flood, but the majority of them have been marine organisms which would have been abundant. Clay tablets would not have been near so abundant and to my knowledge, no pre-Flood human artifacts have been found.
Yet there are many traditions not only of the Great Flood, long-lived patriarchs, a Golden Age before the Flood, and many other details paralleling the accounts in Genesis, there are also traditions of Sacred Writings handed down from these patriarchs. It is some of these writings that we postulate were the source material for Moses when he compiled the Pentateuch and added his own material. Many folks have asked me for evidence of these writings, so I present this now. Linked below is a scan from Volume 2 of a fascinating 3 volume set I have by George Stanley Faber, entitled The Origin of Pagan Idolatry (London, 1816).
I have referenced him before and his Volume 1 is available in a Google Full View Book HERE. Various forms of “Genesis Tablet Theories” are now coming to the fore and the previously reigning theory, the Documentary Hypothesis, is garnering more and more skepticism.
My Book Review on the Wiseman Hypothesis
“Modified” Wiseman Hypothesis by Curt Sewell
Wikipedia Article on Wiseman Hypothesis which references my blog article.
See also Garrett, Duane, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch, Baker Book House, 1991, referenced in my recent Formal Debate on Genesis.
Current ongoing debate on The Documentary Hypothesis.
A “MEGAFLOOD” FORMED THE ENGLISH CHANNEL
Interestingly, this is the conclusion of a recent study published in the leading scientific journal Nature. The lead author, Sanjeev Gupta, saw similarities between the English Channel and the Channeled Scablands of Washington formed by the Missoula Flood referred to above.(48) My guess is that as more and more geologists become aware of the major shift in thinking from gradualism to catastrophism caused by the Palouse Canyon debate, we will see more articles like this one by Gupta et al. The authors of this study note that a massive flood was a popular explanation for the English Channel early on, but that evidence to support the theory was lacking. Now, thanks to advances in technology, support for this theory is available and is quite convincing. The authors conclude that normal fluvial processes are inadequate to explain these features and that a megaflood is the only reasonable explanation. Read more »