LMLK Blogspot

LMLK Credit, Publishers Edition

2012-01-22T20:13:00.000-08:00

The 2nd important form of support I received while building the LMLK Research website 10 years ago came from several key authors/publishers.

From the director of excavations at Timnah, & author of the popular textbook, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E.:

Amihai Mazar on April 2, 2002: "Dear Mr. Grena, I can grant permission to scan photos from Qedem 37. By the way - In the mean time we published Qedem 42 with a full publication of the impressions from Timnah - Tel Batash."

Amihai Mazar on April 6, 2002: "You don't have to ask J.Aviram for permission to reproduce photos from Qedem 42- permission is granted by me herewith. If you need additional photos - please let me know. If you want to include color photos - I may be able soon to send you digitized photos (we plan to digitize all our slides)."

From the longtime director of the Israel Exploration Society, the administrative editor of its Israel Exploration Journal, & the editorial director of its numerous archeological books such as the Eretz-Israel & encyclopedia (EAEHL & NEAEHL) volumes:

Joseph Aviram on April 07, 2002: "Dear Mr. Grena, In reply, we agree to grant permission for you to utilize the material you have requested for the web site only. Permission is not granted for use in any future published material based upon your website. Please be sure that full credit is given to the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, with links provided to our website, as you indicated."

From the primary author/editor at Archaeological Center Publications:

Robert Deutsch on April 22, 2002: "You have permission to use any of the photos of all my publications."

From the longtime director of excavations at Lachish, & at the time of this correspondence, the editor of Tel Aviv, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology:

David Ussishkin on June 28, 2002: "Dear Mr. Grena: Thank you very much for your message. ... You are most welcome to use the illustrations you need for your new web site. I wish you all success in your project and I am looking forward to seeing the new site in the near future on the web."

From the Palestine Exploration Fund curator:

Felicity Cobbing on September 11, 2002: "As for use on website/academic publication, this should not be a problem. In the case of the website, which I have had a brief look at (very impressive!) I will pass the request over the website committee, who may well suggest setting up a link."

Felicity Cobbing on October 25, 2002: "Regarding putting the images of the website, I see no problem as long as unworthy and dishonest people unlike your good self can't download them and use them without our permission. Other than that, it's no different from an article in a journal."

Those were the most important permissions I received in that first year, which significantly boosted the content value of the website. Of course I've received others, plus those from fellow collectors, some of which I'll feature in later blog articles.

It surprised me when people from other organizations refused to grant a similar courtesy or ignored me completely. So I remain extremely grateful to the people & organizations listed above for lending their support to my project.

G.M. Grena

LMLK Credit, Robert Deutsch Edition

2012-01-08T09:52:00.000-08:00

Back in 2005, I found an online check-printing company that allows customers to design their own checks. You can make a single design, or buy a single checkbook with 4 designs. It wouldn't take a great imagination to know which 4 images I chose:

Late last year, the credit union that issues my credit cards also began offering a design-your-own feature, amazingly at no extra cost. Since I own 2 credit cards, I decided to use 2 different designs:

I can't believe it's been 10 years since I began building the LMLK Research Website, & some credit is certainly due for posterity's sake. One of my blogging goals this year will be to highlight some of the wonderful people who have in some way helped, inspired, assisted me with the content over the years.

First & foremost, I'll feature epigraphy expert & antiquities dealer, Robert Deutsch. Here's a couple of sentences from p. 13 of my LMLK v1 book:

"As I awaited the arrival of [Vaughn's "Chronicler"] book from Amazon Dotcom, I discovered a website for archaeologist/scholar, Robert Deutsch. This began a tremendously fruitful correspondence & he essentially mentored me as I got deeper into this field."

Though I didn't have space to elaborate in the book, the first time I wrote to him was March 3, 2000:

"Hi! I'm a private collector & recently acquired a LMLK handle. The upper right portion is missing, but the lower left portion shows "SCH". I've noticed your name attached to scholarly articles about these items & I'm wondering if you can recommend a publication in particular that would contain either a photograph or a sketch of a complete "SCH" variety of the LMLK handle. I saw the review of your new book in the latest issue of BAR; does it contain any illustrations of the "SCH" handles? Thanks for your help!"

His reply came in only 25 minutes!!! As I soon learned, this was highly unusual, especially among museum curators & other scholars:

"Hi (name). Your interest in lmlk handles is my interest. A good book which contains ancient inscriptions is: Ancient Inscriptions, Voices from the Biblical World by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. On page 143 you will find the drawings of two handles: lmlk mmst and lmlk hbrn yours is similar. As also, I hold two auctions of antiquities every year at Passover and Sucoth. The next one will be held on 23 April 2000 in Tel Aviv. If you like a free catalog let me have your address and phone/fax. Sincerely Robert"

He eventually sold many handles to me, including the 5 most famous ones in my collection, which I now consider to be priceless:

#4, the nearly perfect S4L, which provided the flawless "LMLK" used on my book's cover, checks, & Visa card.

#16, an extremely rare member of the highly prized pithos family of jar types, completely distinct from the Type 484 class. Furthermore, it bears an impression from the extremely rare Z4CY seal.

#21, the nearly perfect double-stamped M4L, used for a promo ad in BAR vol. 30 #1, the Wikipedia entry for MMST, the MMST on the cover of my book, & now my checks & MasterCard, or maybe I should now say MMSTercard!

#22, the nearly perfect H2D, impressed upon a special lump of clay added to the leather-hard handle to facilitate the royal seal (described for the first time by Vaughn in his aforementioned book). Aside from accompanying the Wikipedia entry for "LMLK seal", I used it on the title page of my Winter 2005 Bible and Spade article, & it also appears on p. 11 of The Archaeology Book by David Down (first printing February 2010).

#27, an extremely rare member of the highly prized "LMLK"-less LMLK set, this nearly perfect specimen belonging to the Z2T family.

Three more honorable mentions:

#18, the S2DW used for SUKE on my book cover, checks, & MasterCard. It's completely missing the Kaf due to the handle's ridge, but it's an overall excellent specimen preserving portions of all 7 other letters, as well as the entire icon's outline, plus the characteristic incision extending from the bottom-left of the icon's tail towards the Kaf, further distinguishing this design from the S2DR.

#23, the H4L used for HBRN on my book cover, checks, & MasterCard. It never had a top half, but most of the bottom half is excellent.

#28, the Z2U used for ZYF on my book cover, checks, & MasterCard. Its top half is poor, but the bottom inscription is excellent.

So "credit" for all 5 handle-words used on my book-cover, checks, & credit cards goes to Robert Deutsch. But more importantly, his words of encouragement fueled my interest in the phenomenon, & led me into university libraries where I learned more about what scholars thought. After more than 700 pieces of correspondence between us, I thought it would be fun to celebrate the past decade by sharing some other highlights from the early years. Here's how little I knew about the various types of LMLK seals, now known to be 21:

GMG on October 7, 2000: "[The G2T] seems to have no city name like the other four I've heard about, so that would mean that there are five types now. Is that correct, & do you know of any other variations?"

RD on October 8, 2000: "There are several variants beside the four with the usual inscription: 1) only the LMLK as the one in the auction, 2) only the name of the city at the top without the term LMLK, 3) upside down script, etc."

GMG on December 31, 2001: "[O]n page 53 of the latest BAR [vol. 28 #1] there is a photo of a LMLK handle [excavated from Aroer]. They don't mention which city is inscribed & I don't recognize the letters. I'm guessing that it is ZYP, but you are the authority. I recently obtained a copy of the book, "Inscriptions Reveal" [by Efrat Carmon & Ruth Hestrin], & enjoyed seeing so many photos of LMLK handles with each of the city names. Do you know of any other book that has this many photos (6) of LMLK handles--I am referring to the ones I collect, not the more expensive ones with personal names."

RD on December 31, 2001: "Books are seldom and you have to see the excavation reports such as Jerusalem, Lachish, Natsbeh, etc."

This particular response did more to inspire me to begin researching than anything else. Until this point, I didn't know such excavation reports existed. He faxed a copy of Lemaire's 1981 "Classification" to me on February 23, 2002. By then I had already constructed a preliminary version of the LMLK website, launched on my personal AT&T page. After sending my bids for his 2002 Passover auction, he commented:

RD on March 25, 2002: "You have by now the lmlkmania"

After returning from a month of supervising excavations at Megiddo, he wrote:

RD on July 30, 2002: "[W]hen we will see www.lmlk.com"

GMG on July 30, 2002: "Although the URL you mentioned above (www.lmlk.com) is available for me to own, I chose not to use it because I don't want any scholars to think it is a commercial site for profit. Some publishers only allow me to reproduce their photos since it's non-profit for research purposes. My website has been online at http://lmlk.home.att.net since May with about 200 pages & 300 handle photos (800 images)."

It took a few days for my brain to figure out that I could place the Research portion of the website under a sub-folder titled "research", while using the domain for anything related to LMLKology, & not disappoint any curators or other publishers.

So Robert Deutsch not only enabled me to own many of these rare treasures, but he pointed me in a research direction, & inspired me to purchase the LMLK dotcom domain.

This song by Lanny Wolfe will serve as the theme song for how I feel about Robert & everyone who has helped me with this project over the past decade:

G.M. Grena

Ineligible Bachelorettes

2011-12-30T17:55:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: 3RD CONTESTANT ADDED TO BOTTOM 21-JANUARY-2012

Too bad it's not this easy for me to spot a prospective companion:

Caption she provided: "First place at the costume relay race!"

Definitely my type in this photo, but simply not my type overall (& not just because she has no idea what the significance of the # 484 is). This next one was my type in the photo AND overall.

I wrote to her explaining my interest in that particular tattoo with compliments galore. Her reaction? She canceled her membership! I know I'm not Brad Pitt, but it's pretty sad when a lady would rather not date anyone if there's a chance she might receive a friendly message from me. And she listed herself as a Christian too!

Both women were from online dating services. I originally began visiting these websites thinking it would help me sort out all the chronological systems that have been proposed for the Israelite monarchy... Okay, just kidding. Too bad it's not that easy to tell when ladies aren't serious, because usually they are!

In my Nov. 5 blog, I published an actual conversation I had with a beautiful 42-year-old atheist named Sue, who bragged about being logical & true, only to reveal herself to be an intellectual 4- or 2-year-old. This past week I had another hard-to-believe-she-said-that encounter with a Jewish lady (different than the one I've mentioned a few times in recent months):

GMG: "Dear Margarita, first I want to say that I like you, otherwise I wouldn't be writing to you. How can you write so eloquently about the virtue of being 'a loving mom', & tell others that 'Nothing could be compared to the level of satisfaction you get from being a parent', yet simultaneously say you consider abortion to be an option in case you yourself acted irresponsibly (i.e., an 'accidental' pregnancy)? As someone who practices Judaism, who presumably sees Nazi Germany as evil for killing Jews, how would you be able to justify your own killing of a Jew?"

MARGARITA: "Hi George. The answer is very simple. I don't consider that abortion as [sic] killing a human. Rather removing a piece of meat. Its [sic] like your eating an omelet (eggs r [sic] similar case). There's no soul there yet. In Judaism, for boys for example, the soul meets the body on his 8th day of birth, during circumcision. Before that, - it is not a human. I also believe forbidding to make a personal choice for a woman will lead to a dictatorship, military-like society. And as someone who grew up in such society, I can tell you - America is the most wonderful country with the most freedom. Trust me on that! Move to Russia for a few years and you'll see how lucky we are! Happy Holidays!"

GMG: "Thank you for clarifying your position on this issue, though I must confide that your response startled me. As a Christian, I'm not that knowledgeable on the varieties of Judaism present in today's world, ranging from ultra-orthodox to ultra-liberal; however, I have never heard of the 8th-day status you mentioned. Most of what Christians believe is based on the same Torah passages that mainstream Jews cite (Exodus 21:22). For example, consider this statement from 'Abortion in Jewish Law' written in 2004 by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D. on the moderate Jewish 'Aish' site:

'[O]nce the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's...'

"If what you have been taught is true, I would very much like to know what it is based on, since I see no basis for it anywhere in the Tanach. For example, in Judges 13:5, an angel of God refers to Samson as being a Nazirite (specially dedicated in service) to God 'from the womb', not from circumcision 8 days after the womb. Ditto for the inspired writer of Psalms 22 & 71, who hoped in God 'from the womb', not from his 8th-day circumcision. And the great prophet Jeremiah, whom God formed, knew, sanctified, & ordained before he even came out 'of the womb' (1:5), not from his 8th-day circumcision.

"If a Jewish boy is not human till circumcision, it raises these immediate questions:

"1) When does a Jewish girl become a human?

"2) Are non-Jews non-humans?

"3) If non-Jews convert to Judaism, what were they prior to conversion, just a soulless piece of meat, even when they made the conscious, voluntary decision to convert?

"4) In all the above cases, do you really believe it's okay to kill anyone who is not a Jewish human just as you would kill an animal for omelet meat?

"This flows into your second statement I'm having trouble understanding, namely that forbidding a human to make a personal choice will lead to a dictatorship. Isn't that what our police officers are paid to do (arrest suspicious people to forbid them from making certain personal choices that harm others)? If you argue that abortion is legal, that would be circular because that's the very issue we're discussing. In other words, if slavery were still legal, would you show the same support for it by arguing that slaves are not humans?

"I agree that America is better than Russia, but from the baby's perspective, an abortion leaves him/her just as dead in either country. Shouldn't each baby be given the chance to live & enjoy the same freedom as you have in America?"

MARGARITA: "I most likely misunderstood something about circumcision :) Please forgive me. I think it means the boy becomes a Jew, but not necessarily have to do with soul. So sorry - I never studied the Torah, because I grew up in USSR where religion was forbidden. So, - please do research on that, but don't trust my words. As for your other questions, - ask the Rabbi!"

At least we aborted our brief relationship on a pleasant note. Most ladies who support abortion are just like Margarita, having no idea what they're talking about, or the reasons for what they believe. Some other ladies I've questioned either don't respond at all, or avoid the issue by saying they can believe whatever they want to believe. True. Everyone has the freedom to be as irrational as they like. It's a good thing not all mothers have shared such a view on pregnancy...

[composers: Chris Eaton, Amy Grant]

I have traveled many moonless night
Cold and weary, with a babe inside
And I wonder what I've done
Holy Father, You have come
And chosen me now
To carry Your Son

I am waiting in a silent prayer
I am frightened by the load I bear
In a world as cold as stone,
Must I walk this path alone?
Be with me now
Be with me now

Breath of heaven
Hold me together
Be forever near me
Breath of heaven
Breath of heaven
Lighten my darkness
Pour over me Your holiness
For You are holy
Breath of heaven

Do you wonder as you watch my face
If a wiser one should have had my place
But I offer all I am
For the mercy of Your plan
Help me be strong
Help me be
Help me

"Open thy mouth for the mute, in the cause of all helpless children."--Proverbs 31:8 (Note that "helpless" is my own translation of Hebrew "HLUP", which is what aborted/destroyed children are.)

G.M. Grena

P.S. Queried this beautiful Catholic lady in January 2012 about her intersting jug, but never received a reply (& yes, I made it clear that I was primarily interested in her "jug" [singular]):

Praises to the King

2011-12-11T20:59:00.000-08:00

While searching for a song to accompany my roof article last month, I came across one titled "Me & My House" on YouTube, performed by Heritage Singers. The song didn't quite fit, but it led me to other tunes by Heritage, & I quickly became a fan.

Formed in 1971 by Max Mace, who still leads & sings with the group, Heritage has recorded over 100 albums & performed in over 65 countries. Other members of the Mace family contribute: his daughter Val has sung soprano with them since the early years, his son Greg has been their sound engineer, Greg's wife Adriane has sung alto with them for more than a decade, & Max's wife Lucy sang alto during the 1970s & now manages their Gospel Heritage Foundation & works behind the scenes at shows.

Although I'm just beginning to get acquainted with their discography, 2 tracks stand out: "Peacespeaker" & "Strike Up the Band". As best I can tell, Heritage has not composed any of their own songs, but they add a distinctive touch to each Gospel classic they sing, marked by a mellow, soothing, harmonious blend of vocals & instruments. Their pure talent shines in an "a cappella" performance of "Gentle Shepherd" at a spacious cathedral during their summer 2009 tour of the Czech Republic (Mikulassky kostel, Znojmo):

During their concerts most of their background music is pre-recorded, but their singing is all live, karaoke style. "Peace Speaker", spelled as 2 words by its original composer (Geron Davis), features lead verses by alto Shani Judd-Diehl, & tenor Tim Davis. This clip was recorded on the occasion of their 35th anniversary at the Crystal Cathedral:

I was thrilled to learn that every year they perform at the Loma Linda University Church of Seventh-day Adventists the first sabbath after Thanksgiving. I enjoyed the long but pleasant ride to this lovely town I had never been to before, the performance was a blessing, it was so touching to hear each of the members introduce their family & share a little of their Heritage history. Afterwards I had the honor of meeting Mr. Mace, as well as several other members of the group. I must look like a photographer (or like I'm dating a professional one) because I was asked by some fans to take photos of them with the singers, so then I asked one of them to reciprocate & take my photo with Mr. Mace & Mrs. Judd-Diehl, which I had hoped to include in this article, but alas, she never E-mailed them to me. (Marjorie, are you out there? What happened?)

This afternoon I discovered that somebody had posted 6 tracks from the show (the entire concert lasted about 100 minutes, not counting the intermission). Aside from their performance of "Peacespeaker" that evening, I was thrilled to hear them perform "Strike Up the Band" (composed by the late Roger Bennett). Tim Calhoun is the featured lead singer on the verses, Tim Davis gives a rousing improvisation during the final chorus, & bass Dave Bell bellows out his magic harmony at the very end ... & I really enjoy the false ending with repeated chorus (a better quality version from their Prague DVD is also on YouTube, but it doesn't include this awesome ending)!

Strike up the band, that angel band, assembled now and ready
To proclaim heaven's praises TO THE KING,
That music's planned, prepared for those who come by way of Calvary,
It's a song that the angels cannot sing,
The redeemed of all the ages will be there to sing along
On a brand new song never heard by mortal man,
Oh I'm longing for the day when I hear KING JESUS say,
"Welcome to the Promised Land, strike up the band!"

G.M. Grena

Largest Paleo-Hebrew Inscription in the History of the World

2011-11-12T14:31:00.000-08:00

In case anyone ever wonders just how "into" LMLKology I am, the proof is on my roof:

Unlike most of my 400-pixel-wide blog photos, this one is linked to a 1663-pixel-wide version if you click on it.

For the sake of Guinness researchers (warning, repulsive images on their site), the actual size of the painted region spans:

298" (24.8 feet; 757 cm) right-to-left in the image, east-to-west on the planet

151" (12.6 feet; 384 cm) top-to-bottom = north-to-south

My measurement tolerance was about 1". At about 312 square feet, I'm not aware of any serious competition. Here's a quick survey of the closest contenders:

The famous Balaam plaster texts found at Deir 'Alla in highly fragmented condition spanned about 56 square feet (11.5 x 4.9 per P. Kyle McCarter's "Ancient Inscriptions", p. 96).

The largest/longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Temple Scroll) spans about 28 square feet (generously granting its original size to have been about 1 foot tall), though it is not in Paleo-Hebrew as a few of the other fragments are.

The Mesha Stele (a.k.a. Moabite Stone) was a mere 10 square feet.

The largest Phoenician-alphabet letters I'm aware of are on the Nora Stone, which span just under 7 square feet in its present condition (it was probably a little larger originally). Its 4th line begins with "LM" (the middle of "peace"), & its 6th line begins with "LK" (the middle of a person's name). If rearranged to form "LMLK", it would only be about 8"x4", though still quite huge for an ancient inscription (a bulla recently auctioned by Robert Deutsch contained a "LMLK" only a few millimeters wide).

I've been wanting to do this ever since I bought the house 3 years ago, mostly because I thought it would look cool on Google's Maps or Earth program (or other satellite-image sites such as Bing, Mapquest, & Yahoo) the next time they update their images.

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."--Joshua 24:15

And we definitely belong to the King!

G.M. Grena

P.S. No song for this article; considered "Up On a Roof" & "From a Distance", but neither seemed quite right.

Lying Lips of Simmons and Sue

2011-11-05T20:46:00.000-07:00

"Let the lying lips be put to silence..."--Psalm 31:18

"I hate & abhor lying..."--Psalm 119:163

"HaShem hate[s] ... a lying tongue & ... a false witness that speaketh lies..."--Proverbs 6:16-9

"Lying lips are an abomination to HaShem..."--Proverbs 12:22

Normally I put some apropos lyrical music at the end, but since this one's an instrumental, I'd recommend kicking it off now for background music.

After posting my AJJ essay more than a week ago, October 23 to be exact, I submitted a courteous comment for Rabbi Shraga Simmons on his perpetually popular page, "Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus". I've posted numerous other comments on Aish pages written by other authors, & know it usually takes a day or 2 for them to be screened before getting published. I was confident that Rabbi Simmons, or his authorized screener, would post my message since he concluded his article with the reminder that it was important "to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well." Doesn't the Torah's Author encourage us to speak the truth?

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth..."--Exodus 18:21

"Now therefore fear HaShem, & serve Him in sincerity & in truth..."--Joshua 24:14

"Only fear HaShem, & serve Him in truth..."--1Samuel 12:24

"And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, & wrought that which was good & right & truth before HaShem his God."--2Chronicles 31:20

"Behold, Thou desirest truth in the inward parts..."--Psalm 51:6

"For my mouth shall speak truth..."--Proverbs 8:7

"He that speaketh truth showeth forth righteousness..."--Proverbs 12:17

"These are the things that ye shall do: Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor..."--Zechariah 8:16

"Thus saith HaShem-of-Hosts: ... love the truth..."--Zechariah 8:19

As you can see if you visit his page, 3 other AJJ comments have been approved since Oct. 23, but not mine. Since that's his cowardly way of admitting his position is wrong & mine is correct, I'll have to post my remark here for posterity.

But before doing that, since we have Truth playing in the background, I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose a conversation I had with a woman last week, ironically while waiting to see if Rabbi Simmons would defend his position. Socially, men are stereotyped as aggressive fighters, willing/able to defend whatever it is they care about; whereas women are cast as the gender in need of protection, especially from men who want to trick them.

Her real name is Sue (as you'll discover during the conversation), but I won't reveal her moniker or the social networking site where we encountered each other. I'll begin with what she wrote about herself in her profile, which obviously I found quite attractive, exceptionally well written. She listed her Religion as "Non-Religious", which piqued my curiosity since she seemed intelligent & sincere. If you'd like to associate an image with her, imagine a 42-year-old version of current pop-star Katy Perry, & you'll be extremely close.

SUE: "I've learned to appreciate good people, avoid drama, enjoy the moment you're in. Me ~ outgoing, grounded, logical, creative, passionate, fun, feisty, considerate. I appreciate people for their smarts, being goodhearted, thinking outside the box, a willingness to take chances in life, optimistic attitudes, and preferring an active and productive life rather than being a couch potato on a gorgeous day. I'm attracted to a confident personality, a man with opinions is important to me, has ideas, can make a plan, takes control of the situation when need be, and is communicative. These qualities can describe both of us, smart, good hearted, can be sweet and let his guard down, and knows how to have fun and enjoy life. I'd like to meet someone who knows what he wants and what he's ready for, as I do. None of us are perfect. The key is finding someone you like, someone you enjoy spending time with, and are both willing to put some effort into making a relationship work. I don't want to date forever, do you?! I'd like to meet just one good guy who I click with, have fun & good conversation with! We make a fun team, we can talk and are real friends, we enjoy hanging out together :) I’m loyal, passionate, and when I like a guy I’m affectionate and like to do little things to show I’m thinking about him. Don't wait for life to happen, make life happen! Everyone here is looking for the same thing (Long Term Dating) but how is it that time passes and we're still single? How can we change that? If we really want to meet someone for dating or long term - we need to make a little time to talk and get to know that person & meet. Conversation starters when you write a woman here.. let me know what we might have in common based on our profiles & why you think we might click! I think if people took the time to get to know each other (and to know themselves!) the divorce rate would be significantly lower and relationships would be healthier. I do prefer a healthy monogamous relationship rather than long term single :) Side note ~ my thoughts on chemistry. When people say 'chemistry', do they mean instant visual attraction?! That seems so rudimentary and shallow. For me attraction is more than looks, it's personality, what we like about each other, and most important - how easily we communicate. I don't think it's possible to learn all that within 2 hours of meeting someone, or even at the end of a first or 2nd date. You might be halfway attracted to someone's looks or personality, and mistakenly think halfway means 'no chemistry', but as you get to know them on a 2nd or 3rd date, their personality can hit a home-run, making them 10x more attractive! When you first met one of your lifelong friends, did you know right off the bat how awesome they were and how much you'd click?! Did you select them as a lifelong friend based on their looks? Hopefully not! Getting along well means you can talk easily, laugh, inspire each other, be excited in life together, look forward to things. Isn't that what good friends do? To everyone out there shy or hesitant to reach out to people here and in life's path... It's choice - not chance - that determines your destiny. true true :)"

GMG: "Sue, I'm currently beginning a relationship with another lady I've been corresponding with for a few months & met earlier this week for the first time, & for her birthday present next month, I'm ... [NOTE: I DON'T WANT TO REVEAL THIS ON MY BLOG FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.] ... I clicked on your profile because it was the first in my Search Matches list, & couldn't help but notice your long, thoughtful writing. Things are going well with the other lady, but I couldn't pass you by without complimenting you on what you wrote, & pray that God will help you meet a wonderful man one day who will appreciate you like you deserve. Have a great night!"

SUE: "Hi, you're sweet, thank you, and congrats on your new lady, however, how do you know my name? It's not posted here."

GMG: "Good evening! I assumed Sue to be your real first name since your profile's username contains 'Sue'. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Oddly enough, the lady I'm courting used a completely fictitious username of "Juliet", which I assumed was her real name until she told me. (She still hasn't told me why she chose that name.) By the way, I noticed that you listed your Faith as "Non-Religious", & yet what you wrote about yourself is so thoughtful, & so outstanding among other profiles I've read over the years (as is the lady's I'm courting, as well as a handful of others, but so rare). If you'd like to share your thoughts on that subject, I'd be interested in hearing them. I'm not a pushy proselytizer, just curious. I'm guessing you believe God exists, but have been turned off in one way or another by most religions. Am I wrong again?"

SUE: "Oh, wow, I thought I had changed it, thanks for letting me know. No, of course I dont [sic] believe in god, I'm an adult and stopped believing in fairy tales long ago. ridiuculous [sic] that people still believe in 'god', ha ha, so laughable. Some people are just simpletons. No I'm not turned off by religion, I am an atheist because I'm not a moron. It's simple. I dont [sic] believe made up fairy tales written 2000 years ago. Anyone who does is stupid."

GMG: "Thank you, Sue, for explaining how you feel about God. Again, just out of curiosity, if you made a mistake about not having changed your name in your profile listing, is there any chance you could be making a mistake about God's existence? This is not a rhetorical question; I'd very much like to hear you explain the basis of your belief. Surely you must be aware that some very mature, bright, intelligent, thoughtful people believe God exists, so I'm confident you would agree that another person's IQ is not the most rational argument against what they believe or don't believe."

SUE: "Yes, there's something missing in your brain if you seriously believe that there is a god. It's insane really, to believe in what equates to santa claus at your age. good luck. There are PLENTY of similar brainwashed christian women out there, straight out of that movie 'Stepford Wives'. You should try www.ChristianSingles.com Then you're guaranteed that everyone there will have your matching belief system. Take care."

GMG: "Hello again, Sue! I hope you had a delicious, candy-filled day! ... [NOTE: I SENT THIS ON HALLOWEEN EVENING.] ... I'm grateful that you took the time to express your thoughts on this subject yesterday. I'd very much like to continue the conversation to understand what you're basing your statements upon. If there are millions of Christian women, & millions of Atheistic women, how do you know that the Christians are 'insane' & 'brainwashed', rather than the atheists? Earlier you said that Christianity was a 'made up fairy tale'. Surely you must be aware that the early Christians claimed to be eyewitnesses to historical events. Like what you say about yourself in your ad, they were passionate, considerate, good-hearted, optimistic, etc. I'd like to hear if you believe in any historical events, & if so, what is your basis for determining their validity. All I've heard you do so far is use an Ad Hominem logical fallacy (ridiculing the people instead of falsifying their position). In that vain, here's a humorous anecdote for you to consider: School boy objects to teacher saying God doesn't exist. Teacher asks boy if he sees various objects around the classroom & outside such as chairs & trees, to which he replies, 'Yes, I see them.' Teacher says we can't see God because God doesn't exist, a fairy tale made up a long time ago. After class ends, a smart little girl (probably named Sue) in same school asks boy if he saw the teacher. 'Yes, I saw the teacher,' he replies. Girl asks him if he saw the teacher's brain. 'No, I didn't.' Girl explains that based on what they learned in class that day, the teacher must not have one. You see, Sue, it's one thing to belittle another person, but another thing to prove your point. I agree with you that there are many stupid theists, but there are also many stupid atheists. IQs are not our subject. I'd like to hear you explain why you are correct. Are you familiar with Aristotle's point about the 'First Principles' of science? If so, what I'm asking is what your first principle is for determining whether God exists or not. If someone were to accuse you of being an atheistic Stepford Wife, how would you defend yourself? By the way, do you still admire men who have 'a confident personality, opinions, ideas, & [are] communicative'?"

SUE: "I've had this discussion with believers since I was 15, I have no interest in discussing the possibility of the existence of unicorns. they [sic] dont [sic]exist. I'm not here on this site to delve into pointless discussions that lead no where [sic]. If you want to argue the belief in god, join an atheist discussion group and post your ponderings there."

GMG: "Sue, I did not consider it a pointless discussion to understand your thought process; anything else would be, as you said in your ad, 'shallow'. You are a very attractive lady, both in your physical appearance, & in the way you express yourself by your writing. I would hope that you want to meet a man who will not only enjoy your physical company, but who will enjoy exchanging thoughts with you in a deep, long-lasting, & meaningful way, not some superficial chit-chat about your favorite music or food. You advertised yourself as being 'logical' & 'feisty'. If you are genuinely secure in your atheistic statements, I'm disappointed that you are not living up to your ad. Do you really want to be in a loving relationship with someone who cares about you & 'think[s] outside the box' (Did the believers you met at 15 reference Aristotle?), or do you want somebody who goes along with everything you say, do, & believe, like a Stepford Husband? You asked for 'conversation starters', & I assumed that you would be interested in discussing the problems with religious people, since I am non-religious like you. Can we 'talk and be real friends'? Feel free to suggest an alternate conversation starter about something that interests you, & that is important."

SUE: "not reading ... blocking"

What that means is that she used an option these websites provide to block someone from sending additional messages to you. It's the 21st-century equivalent of the ancient practice of digging a hole in the sand & sticking your head in it, not realizing how ridiculous it makes you look, especially after you boast about being logical & smart, thinking outside the box ... & "keep[ing] the mitzvot of the Torah."

So here's what I wrote to Rabbi Simmons (with minor edits for this blog presentation; I'm always improving my arguments):

"Last week I posted a lengthy-but-thorough rebuttal to this article, which can now be found online under the title 'Wild, Wilder, Wildest Anti-Jesus Arguments'. I not only addressed your points, but also those of people who have posted comments here sadly supporting you (I read all 200), plus points made by other prominent Jews such as Aryeh Kaplan, Yisroel Blumenthal, Asher Norman, even Ramban. Quick examples:

1) It is not possible for a non-divine "messiah" to know whether hatred has ended since only God knows our hearts (1Samuel 16:7; Jeremiah 17:10); & your statement 'in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists' is a lie (Daniel 9:25-6); otherwise Daniel 7:13 & Zechariah 9:9 appear contradictory.

2a) Nothing in the Tanach states 'prophecy ended upon the death of ... Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi'; it won't end till sin ends (Daniel 9:24).

2b) Nothing in the Tanach states 'The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David'; HaShem allowed women to inherit if they had no brothers (Numbers 27:8).

2c) Jesus never violated the Shabbat because it's never against God's laws to do good deeds.

3a) Jewish scholars translated 'alma' as 'parthenos' ('virgin') before Christ was born; your assertion that it was a 'Christian idea' is a lie.

3b) Your interpretation of Isaiah 53 relies on 3 logical fallacies: Special Pleading for switching grammatical number & narrator, Hasty Generalization as your actors don't represent their class' majority, & Wishful Thinking in ascribing uncharacteristic traits to your actors.

4) Your National Revelation argument ignores the Israelites' plea for God to speak through a messenger (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27), which ties in with your 2a. Was Elijah a charlatan?

Use logic, not lies! Refute me or repent!"

"But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by Him shall glory; but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped."--Psalm 63:11

G.M. Grena

Screaming Stones

2011-10-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

"I tell you that, if [My disciples] should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out!"--Luke 19:40

In recent years Halloween has evolved from a 1-night candy giveaway into a month-long house-decorating festival in many parts of America. Instead of simply carved pumpkins bearing candles, a typical layout now includes extensive orange twinkle-lights, faux spider webs, inflatable characters, spooky sound-effects, dangling ghosts, & fake gravestones, which usually bear comedic inscriptions such as "Forget the dog, beware of me!"

About every other property in my neighborhood gets decorated to some extent. The most spectacular one I've seen is about a couple blocks from me, over on Pinckard Ave, 2 doors up from a nationally famous house built for the ABC TV series, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (Season 4, Episode 9, Aired 12/10/2006) as a community gift to Officer Kristina Ripatti, shot & critically injured, narrowly escaping (by the grace of God) an untimely death in her courageous line of duty as a Los Angeles police officer.

Here's an overall view including the south half of the graveyard:

A close-up of the balcony creatures:

Ghosts dangling in the wind from a network of nearly invisible guide-wires suspended over the yard:

And the north half of their faux cemetery:

The message in nearly all these Halloween decorations is one that pokes fun at death & murder (eerily ironic, being juxtaposed near the Ripatti house), & encourages imaginations to run wild (not unlike the arguments of certain anti-Jesus religious groups). The message it sends to impressionable children misleads them, & that bothers me. Since moving to this neighborhood several years ago, I've wanted to use my own property in a way that steers the community, kids & adults, in a positive direction. If so many other people express their interpretation of Halloween based largely on what's sold at stores for this special day of the year, I feel obligated to join the crowd in my own way.

So I went to a few department & specialty stores, bought 5 styrofoam gravestones, searched the Scriptures, & added some artistic flair (in the form of flat-black paint). Altogether I found 10 passages that I thought might be appropriate, but narrowed it down to 5 based on several considerations (size, visibility, existing markings on the gravestones, yardlights). Behold (because of the shadows & obstructions in these nighttime photos, I'm including the full text below each picture):

I will
ransom
them from
the power
of the
grave!
Hos.
13:14

By the way, I can't resist mentioning that the anti-Jesus Artscroll English Tanach (March 2011 first edition, first impression) renders this as "From the clutches of the grave I would have ransomed them." Under what circumstances would God have ransomed them? Do righteous people need to be ransomed?

He
is
risen from
the
dead
Mat. 28:7

By the way, due to the angle between this gravestone & yardlight, the shadow cast on my wall is amazingly similar to the typical LMLK 2-winged icon. I did not even notice this as I was positioning the gravestone, or while taking the photo! You can imagine my shock & delight as I was reviewing/cropping the photos for publication.

The dead
in
Christ
shall
rise first
1The. 4:16

This is the only one I made a spacing mistake on, running out of room on the last line. No room to make a full upper-cross on the "T; no room for an exclamation mark.

He is
risen!
He is
not
here!
Mark
16:6

Again, I didn't realize how similar the icon under the skull looked like a 2-winged icon until I was reviewing these photos. Even while painting, my mind remained focused on the layout.

Be thou
faithful
unto death
and I will
give thee a
crown of
life! Rev. 2:10

"So you children of the world
Listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in
Spread the words today
Show the world that love is still alive
You must be brave
Or you children of today are
Children of the Grave!"
--Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, Bill Ward

G.M. Grena

Wild, Wilder, Wildest Anti-Jesus Arguments

2011-10-16T13:15:00.000-07:00

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes & examines him."--Proverbs 18:17

*******
Prologue
*******

What I'm writing here should bother Jews, because Christians don't merely teach that Jesus was a localized savior to Gentiles, but that He was the Messiah prophesied in Hebrew scripture, preserved & transmitted by Jews. For the most part, they have despised & rejected Him. That's a serious indictment, so unlike my usual blog tone (where I mix in humor & trite pop culture for entertainment purposes whenever possible), I will do my best to remain serious throughout this one.

To eradicate any basis for being labeled "anti-Semitic", I will name my opponent AJJ, Anti-Jesus Jew, to distinguish him or her as a subset of Jews in general. I am not against Jews or Judaism or Jewish traditions so long as they glorify God in the process. I am not against anyone who does not understand how Jesus can be one with God as the Son of God, how His death alone could atone for our sins, or how He could have been resurrected from the dead by God. I am against anyone who has studied these issues, & claims that they are lies. Even then, I'm not necessarily against the person per se, just against the person's fraudulent claims.

Being brought up in a Catholic family, I was never exposed to Jewish opinions on the subject. I've been wondering what reason erudite AJJs would offer to defend their rejection of Jesus. Now I know!

In my 2 previous blog entries focusing solely on Isaiah 9 (as a preview to this long one), I showed how AJJs arbitrarily ignore the grammar of certain verses to suit their bias. One justification they offer is that the context of the verse demands the interpretation to harmonize with other passages. My purpose in this essay will be to show that AJJs have no rational basis for their interpretation of those other passages either; hence, I will flush their entire argument down a spiritual sewer.

In this essay I will not address the problems of people who profess to be Christian or who attempt to explain Christianity using fallacious arguments. On some other occasion or in some other forum, I will join Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, & atheists in agreeing that many Christians don't know a sound argument from a hole in the ground.

Nor will I address spurious claims by AJJs who base their reasoning on hearsay, without specific Bible references, or on other Jewish writers beyond the TNK (i.e., the OT). The Talmud & Jewish sages may bear educational, informative writings, but they do not claim to contain revelations from God, & that is the core issue I'm discussing here. Today our primary evidence for who Jesus is & what He did comes from historical documents containing revelations from God, communicated by otherwise-ordinary people like you & me (not much different in style from the TNK writings).

Again, this essay is not an argument for Christianity, nor against Judaism; it's a rebuttal of arguments used by AJJs against Christianity. My theme throughout will be not merely "Here's my defense of what I believe" or "My interpretation is just as valid as an AJJ's", but will be "My Christian theism is correct & rationally defensible, whereas AJJs are incorrect & irrational." It's a war, & I intend to figuratively slay my dragon-opponent, not find some harmonious middle-ground. In fact I not only plan to slay this dragon, but I want readers to conclude that I thrust in my "dagger" so far that "the haft also went in after the blade" (Judges 3:21-2). In this respect, if you are an AJJ, "I have a message from God unto thee."

The inspiration & choice of this essay's pun-title came from an August 2011 E-mail by the Hebron community spokesman, David Wilder. Ironically, his statements reflecting how AJJs feel about Christians match these 3 definitions of "wild":

"5. Lacking regular order or arrangement; disarranged"

"6. Full of, marked by, or suggestive of strong, uncontrolled emotion"

"11. Based on little or no evidence or probability; unfounded"

Aside from Wilder's E-mail, the 40 AJJ arguments (AJJAs) I'm listing below are either exact quotations or compilations/redactions based on these AJJ sources:

"You Are My Witnesses (Is. 43:10): The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" by Yisroel C. Blumenthal (PDF available online at Jews for Judaism)

"Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus: Reason 8 of 26" by Asher Norman

"Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus" by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (including more than 100 comments by AJJs in support of Simmons)

"The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries" by Aryeh Kaplan (PDF available online at Jews for Judaism)

"The Disputation of Barcelona (1263): the Hebrew Report of Moshe Ben Nachman" by Ramban himself (translated into English by an AJJ)

"Mashiach: The Messiah" on Judaism 101 by Tracey R. Rich

"Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant" by Marshall Roth

"Almah, virgin and parthenos" by Gerald Sigal

After having read these documents, I could discern the consensus of reasoning. If, however, you are aware of any valid arguments not addressed below by me, feel free to post a comment.

When discussing specific Hebrew words, I'll utilize my own system of 22 English symbols (which I chose for working with ancient Hebrew seal inscriptions):
A B G D E U Z H @ Y K L M N C O P $ Q R S T

*******
SECTION I OF IV: ONE GOD, A SINGLE TRINITY
*******

AJJA #1) "God is one & cannot be divided, multiplied, added, or subtracted; therefore the Christian Trinity concept is heretical. Jesus was a blasphemer, & Christians are idolaters."

The primary basis AJJs use to support this statement is "The Shema" (named after the opening word in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 6:4): "Hear, O Israel: The LORD, our God, the LORD is one." The key words here are "LORD" (YEVE; hereafter "HaShem" out of respect for this Jewish tradition), "[our] God" (ALEY[NU]), & "one" (AHD).

Is "one" always only a single whole thing from God's perspective?

Christians, like Jews, believe there is only one God ... but we believe the One God has been revealed to us in 3 persons, the Father (supreme authority), the Son (spokesman), & the Spirit (inspirational force). This is not a contradiction claiming that 1=3 or 3=1 because when the 3 Persons are mentioned, it's not in the same context as saying there's only 1 Person; or when it refers to 1 God, it doesn't also say there are 3 Gods in the same context. A philosophical contradiction only occurs when something is said to be not-something at the same time in the same context.

Aristotle articulated emergence in his famous saying that the whole is distinct from (or greater than) the sum of its parts ("Metaphysics" book 8, section 1045a, lines 8-10).

A classic modern example is an airplane: none of its individual parts is capable of flight. Though all analogies break down eventually, you could think of a trinitarian single-thing-that-flies, or "flyer" in terms of its physical parts, its human pilot, or its organization. Then you could say that a Boeing 747 flew me to Israel, or Captain X flew me to Israel, or El Al Airline flew me to Israel. You could translate this into an equivalent Shema, "Captain X, our flyer, Captain X is one," or "This Boeing 747, our flyer, this Boeing 747 is one," or "El Al, our flyer, this El Al is one."

So I can dispel this AJJA from several angles using TNK texts about God:

1) Poetic angle: There was "one" ancient nation named Israel, yet it was comprised of multiple (originally 12) tribes. Judges 20:1 equates all the men of Israel as "one" (AHD) man. In Ezekiel 23, God poetically analogizes the kingdoms of Israel & Judah as 2 harlots, though obviously they were comprised of multiple people. (Later in my Section III, we'll see AJJs rely on this concept for interpreting a single figurative man as the Jewish nation.)

2) Hermeneutical angle: 6:4 doesn't say "our God is only one" (some AJJs arbitrarily insert the word "only"); it says HaShem, our God, is one HaShem. This is equivalent to me saying that Jesus, the Christian God, is one Jesus. As with my airplane example, this interpretation doesn't rule out the possibility that a Holy Spirit can exist in a different context for a different divine purpose, while still representing the same unified God.

3) Theological angle: Coincidentally while drafting this essay, I began a relationship with a nice Jewish bachelorette. We are 2 independent chunks of flesh. As improbable as it may be, if some day we marry, thereafter we will still be seen by other people as 2 pieces of flesh, but from God's perspective, we will be a single flesh per Genesis 2:24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father & his mother, & shall cleave unto his wife; & they shall be one (AHD) flesh." Unlike Judges 20:1 where Israel is described poetically "as one man" (KAIS AHD instead of AIS AHD, the Kaf prefix creates the figure-of-speech simile), Genesis 2:24 says the 2 people (man & his wife) "are one" using the same Hebrew grammar that Deuteronomy 6:4 uses to say that HaShem is one. Jesus employed this same theological premise when saying "I & My Father are one" (John 10:30). It stays consistent with a unified, multi-Person deity.

4) Physical angle: Multiple passages describe God in time-based circumstances with physical attributes (see AJJA #15 below for references). Genesis 1:1 states that "God" (ALEYM) created everything. 1:2 states that "God's Spirit" (RUH ALEYM) interacted with [physical, time-captive] waters. If God cannot be divided, why didn't 1:2 simply state that "God" interacted with the waters as 1:1 said God created? Some Hebrew scholars translate RUH ALEYM as "Divine Presence", which is a legitimate translation; however, 6:3 again refers to God's Spirit (RUHY = "My Spirit" of the same HaShem as in Deuteronomy 6:4) in a dynamic action with descendants of Adam (not just primordial waters). Again, if God is always a single One in a sense where It can never be divided or multiplied into distinct/distinguishable attributes or constituent Parts/Persons, why didn't the quotation say "I" will not always strive with [physical, time-captive] Adam? Furthermore, 3:8 records "God's sound" literally walking in the garden. (Note that some AJJs translate QUL as "sound" in 3:8, but "voice" is equally valid as in 3:17.) Same argument: If God cannot be divided or multiplied, why didn't Genesis simply say Adam & Eve heard "God" walking in the [physical, time-captive] garden? So here in the early chapters of the Torah we have clear evidence for at least 2 Persons of God: the Spirit & the Spokesman.

5) Scientific angle: Is it not curious that Genesis 1:1 records God creating a world defined by 3 parameters: time ("In the beginning"), space ("the Heavens"), & matter ("the Earth")? Is it not curious that each of these 3 things is described/defined scientifically in terms of 3 parameters: past/present/future for Time, length/width/height for Space, & solid/liquid/gas for Matter? Looks like the consistent trademark of a Master Craftsman to me.

Conclusion from Section I: My Christian interpretation of God as a Trinity is defensible from multiple perspectives, whereas the AJJ cannot account for God being divided into an entity named HaShem with a distinct Spirit & distinct voice that at times act together with or apart from HaShem (or Elohim or Adonai or El Shaddai). This revelation of God in the Hebrew TNK/OT continues consistently in the Christian Greek NT; it even harmonizes with empirical science & secular metaphysics.

Since AJJs cannot account for these descriptions in a logically consistent manner, AJJs are wrong, & my Christian position withstands this test.

Deeper dagger thrust: The ALEYM of Genesis 1:1 is a plural word. The common interpretation of this is that it represents a single God's greatness or majesty; however, as we've seen God being revealed in the Torah to be a Trinity, there's no theological problem interpreting this plural word for God as that of 3 majestic Persons, which at times are described as being "one".

*******
SECTION II OF IV: DUAL MESSIANIC ROLES/PURPOSES
*******

We saw in Section I via multiple TNK passages that the AJJ's concept of a one-Person deity does not comport with Scripture & must be rejected. Now it's not their limited-view of God vs. the Christian full-view of God; it's their messiah vs. the Christian Messiah. Here I'll tackle 2 closely related arguments:

AJJA #2) "Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the end-of-time messianic kingdom, therefore could not have been the real Messiah. From a Jewish perspective, the messiah is identified by his tangible acts, and promises to finish the job in the future aren't going to convince us."

This is rather easy to dispel because even the AJJ's interpretation of the messianic kingdom requires an extended period of time for events to complete before Jews can identify him:

"Event A) Build another temple & re-establish worship there (Isaiah 2:2-3; Jeremiah 33:18; Ezekiel 37:26-8; Micah 4:1)."

"Event B) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:11-2; 27:12-3; 43:5-6; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3)."

"Event C) Usher in an era of world peace, ending all hatred, oppression, suffering & disease, by establishing a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government for Jews & Gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1; Jeremiah 33:15; Micah 4:3)."

"Event D) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one (Isaiah 11:9; 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9; Jeremiah 31:33; Zechariah 14:9)."

(Sidebar: AJJs can't resist referring to humanity as "one", consisting of multiple persons, thereby demonstrating they understand the basic Trinity concept, & profess it to be legitimate when applied to humans made in the image of God!)

None of those prophecies were foretold to happen overnight, nor could they without multiple miracles, & elsewhere AJJs argue that their messiah will be an ordinary human, not a miracle-worker like Jesus (see AJJA #15 below). For example, to fulfill B, Jewish leaders will first need to agree upon who qualifies as a Jew, then identify them, locate them, & transport them. Though Zechariah 14:11 assures the safety of Jerusalem's residents, the overwhelming theme of that chapter reference in D is one of war, slavery, & plagues, thereby delaying events described in C for an indeterminate period.

There could be a time when some Jews will point to a human & assert that he's the messiah because of certain tasks he has accomplished (e.g., the building of a temple on the Temple Mount), but other Jews will point to things remaining to be accomplished (e.g., the end of disease & sin; see also AJJA #34 below). Days may turn into weeks, into months, into years, into decades, into centuries, or even millennia. How can I argue this with confidence? Because it has already happened once!

The prophecy of another temple in Ezekiel 37 was given at a time prior to the rebuilding of the 2nd temple after Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. Jews flocked to it, & it stood in use for several centuries till being destroyed by Romans. So even if another temple were to be rebuilt in our 21st century through the leadership of one man, it would in no way guarantee that he is the real Messiah. Scripture doesn't specify a limit to the number of temples that will be built/destroyed prior to the final one!

How will anyone know if someone in China hates people in America? Who could definitively say that nobody in Africa has an asymptomatic disease? Though modern technology could help a human messiah in ways never imagined by ancient people, only God knows each person in the intimate, internal way required by the prophecies ("[M]an looketh on the outward appearance, but HaShem looketh on the heart"--1Samuel 16:7; "I HaShem search the heart..."--Jeremiah 17:10); therefore the real Messiah must be divine in some respect, & must be capable of speaking authoritatively on behalf of God to inform us that the prophecies have been fulfilled.

Jesus qualifies for this role after returning in glory (Daniel 7:13-4). Christianity comports with the TNK on this issue, whereas the AJJ interpretation poses a logical inconsistency, requiring contradictory circumstances (e.g., an ordinary human who can know whether all people are perpetually at peace).

AJJA #3) "In the Bible no concept of a second coming exists."

Daniel 9:25-6 prophesies that "Messiah the Prince" will appear & "be cut off", but other passages (including some from other prophets) such as Daniel 7:14 assure us that the Messianic kingdom will be everlasting. If Jesus is the Messiah with a 2-fold mission on Earth, this makes sense. The AJJ interpretation of 9:25-6, however, is that the referenced messiah was an ordinary anointed person, not the Jewish Messiah. This interpretation seems viable when taken in isolation from the rest of Scripture, so let's test it.

"Of the increase of his government & peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, & upon his kingdom, to order it, & to establish it with judgment & with justice from henceforth even for ever."--Isaiah 9:7

Sounds like the messianic kingdom, doesn't it? Too bad it doesn't tell us the name of this eternal governor/peacemaker ... oh, wait a minute ... the preceding verse actually gives us several of His names including Mighty God, Everlasting Father, & Peace Prince! It's not that AJJs aren't aware of the Isaiah 9 prophecy; it's that they deliberately mistranslate it to suit their erroneous interpretation. But that's not the only problem for AJJs on this issue.

The Messiah's appearance in Daniel 7:13 on "clouds of heaven" receiving "dominion, & glory, & a kingdom" directly from "the Ancient of days" is completely opposite that of Zechariah 9:9, where He appears "lowly, & riding upon an ass, & upon a colt, the foal of an ass." Jesus already fulfilled this latter prophecy, commemorated annually by Catholics during their Palm Sunday celebration.

It should strike you, my readers, as somewhat odd that all but one of the AJJ sources I read even mention this problem. At least Aryeh Kaplan mentioned it (on p. 43 of the "The Real Messiah?" book in "The Real Messiah" chapter):

"The Talmud was aware of this CONTRADICTION, and answered it by stating that there are two basic ways that the Messianic age can commence. If we are worthy of miracles, it will indeed be miraculous. If we are not, the Messianic Age will arrive in a natural manner (Sanhedrin 98a, OrHaChaim on Num. 24:17)."

I emphasized "CONTRADICTION" because the Holy Bible does not contain any philosophical, theological, or metaphysical contradictions (at least not if you're a rational Christian)! If it were to contain a single contradiction (in the strict sense as I defined earlier), then it would be a worthless pile of words in its entirety (as I explained in my blog article about Islam, "Muhammad the False Prophet, Jesus the True King").

Conclusion from Section II: Though AJJs don't admit it or don't understand it, their messianic beliefs require an extended period of multiple occasions & a Messiah with divine attributes per Isaiah 9 & Daniel 9. Jesus fits this description without posing a contradiction, so the AJJ arguments fail.

Since AJJs cannot account for these passages in a logically consistent manner, AJJs are wrong, & my Christian position withstands the test.

Deeper dagger thrust: AJJs figuratively shoot themselves in the foot by asserting that Jesus was a false messiah, because the 2nd temple has been destroyed, & therefore the prophecy given in Haggai 2:9 was left unfulfilled. However, if Jesus really was the Messiah, the Prince of [true] Peace, it was fulfilled when He taught there (Matthew 21:23; 26:55; Mark 12:35; 14:49; Luke 19:47; 20:1; 21:37-8; John 7:14,28; 8:2,20; 18:20).

*******
SECTION III OF IV: ISAIAH 53, THREE ACTORS & THREE AJJ FAILURES
*******

We saw in Section II via Daniel that the AJJ's fallacious, ordinary-human messiah must be rejected. Now it's not their messiah vs. the Christian Messiah; it's themselves (Jewish people) vs. the Christian Messiah.

AJJA #4) "The so-called Suffering Servant prophecy of Isaiah 53 is not about the Messiah suffering on behalf of sinners to atone for them; it's about the Jews who've suffered at the hands of Christians."

When I first read this argument, it shocked me. Even now I have a hard time believing any Jew would assert this, so for posterity, here are 2 exact quotations by AJJs so I won't be accused of maligning or misrepresenting their position:

"Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ('Israel') are regarded as one unit." [Note by G.M. Grena: AJJs can't get away from the many=one Trinity concept, can they?!?!] "Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the 'Servant of God' (see Isaiah 43:8). When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly refers to the Jewish people being 'bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter' at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people. Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews."--Rabbi Shraga Simmons

"[Isaiah 53:9] is speaking of the entire Jewish people. A careful reading of the entire passage may well convince you that it is speaking of the Six Million Jews killed by Hitler. ... According to the commentators who contend that the 'Suffering Servant' [of Isaiah 53:11] is the entire Jewish people it is not very far fetched to say that the prophet is speaking of the Six Million who died for the sins of mankind."--Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

Isaiah 53 centers around 3 actors; in order of appearance, they are:

we/our/us/"my people"

God/He

he/him/his (a.k.a., the "suffering servant")

There is also a controversial "they" or "them" (53:8), which I'll discuss below.

Christians interpret actor #1 as Isaiah foreseeing 1st-century Jews & other people at the Crucifixion in the shallow/temporal context, extending to all humans in the deep/spiritual context. Christians interpret actor #3 as Jesus Christ in His role as our vicarious sacrifice for our eternal salvation, which had been typified throughout the Hebrew Scripture via animal sacrifices, the initial one being killed by God in Genesis 3:21 (rather than killing Adam & Eve for their sin, God "covered" them with skins of animals killed in their stead). Though Isaiah's book covers many topics, I see the overall subject as Jews (representing all humans) being warned of impending punishment for their evil ways, yet God provides a method by which everyone can legally be saved in the end. God does not judge capriciously.

AJJs interpret actor #1 as Gentiles (non-Jews), where Isaiah imagines the guilty reaction of Gentiles to their atrocities against Jews, whom AJJs interpret as the innocent actor #3 ("the Jew" or Israel/Jacob as a nation).

How can we know for certain who the speaker & servant really are? Isaiah 1:18 records HaShem extending an invitation: "Come now, & let us reason together..." The AJJ's interpretation fails in three fallacious ways.

First failure: sudden switches (a logical fallacy named Special Pleading).

The AJJ's interpretation only works for the first 10 verses, so they arbitrarily switch roles for the last 2 verses, & instead of Gentiles speaking, they believe it's God suddenly speaking. For Christians, this switch is unnecessary; Isaiah the writer remains the prophetic reporter throughout.

AJJs also have to make an awkward, arbitrary switch in verse 8 from a singular actor #3 ("he") to a plural one ("they"), then immediately back to a singular one in verse 9. Again, the Christian interpretation maintains a consistent singular actor #3.

Second failure: identity crises (a logical fallacy named Hasty Generalization).

AJJS disagree on actor #1, alternately ascribed to world leaders, Nazis, popes, Christians, Palestinians, or any Gentiles (non-Jews); if anyone afflicts/tortures/kills Jews, whichever group they can be associated with becomes actor #1, no matter how misrepresentative that person is of the group. It's a form of bigotry, unjust stereotyping.

Historically, most Jews have not suffered affliction, but have lived ordinary lives like other ethnic groups (AJJs admit that Nazis accrued wealth stolen from Jews after killing them). Historically, most Gentiles have not afflicted/killed Jews; in America we've respected them & highly valued their contributions to society as doctors, lawyers, & entertainers. Historically, most Germans have not afflicted/killed Jews; not to minimize the tragic loss of life during the Holocaust, but Nazi Germany only lasted about 1 decade out of many centuries. Historically, most world leaders have not afflicted/killed Jews; in fact world leaders joined forces to defeat Hitler. And out of more than 250 Catholic popes, far fewer than 125 have ever condoned the torture/death of Jews; altogether only about 50 ruled between the 15th-18 centuries during the Inquisition. So the "bad guy" in the AJJ's interpretation (actor #1) lacks definition.

Also actor #3 lacks clarity. Some AJJS claim it's Israel (including the highly esteemed Rabbi Nachmanides/Ramban at the Disputation of Barcelona in AD 1263), but it would have to be Jews as a subset of Israel because some world leaders can trace their lineage through the "lost tribes" of Israel (Hosea 1:10; Ezekiel 37:16-22; LXX 2Esdras 13:39-47 & 1Maccabees 12:20-21), so this contradicts the AJJs who claim that world leaders comprise actor #1. Even some Nazis were ethnically Jewish.

Furthermore, while other passages in Isaiah refer to Israel as a servant, Israel is surely not God's only servant, so actor #3 is not necessarily Israel:

""And the LORD said, 'Like as My servant Isaiah hath walked naked & barefoot three years...'"--20:3

""I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah..."--22:20

""I will defend this city to save it for My own sake, & for the sake of My servant David."--37:35

(Note that God distinguishes other people as "My servant" in other books.)

Here is Marshall Roth's AJJ-biased translation with the proposed actors inserted in brackets by me (Roth irrationally assigns ambiguous "world leaders" to actor #1 & a misrepresentative Israel to actor #3, but that is so untenable for the aforementioned reasons that I felt obligated to substitute Nazis & "the Jew" to make it seem as plausible as possible, lest I be accused of creating a strawman fallacy; nonetheless, feel free to consistently substitute Roth's or any non-Christian's set of actors for the pronouns, & it will be just as easy for me to refute):

"Who would believe what we Nazis have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed! The Jew formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; the Jew had neither form nor beauty. Nazis saw the Jew, but without a desirable appearance. The Jew was despised and rejected of Nazis, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness. As one from whom Nazis would hide their faces, the Jew was despised, and we Nazis had no regard for the Jew. Indeed, the Jew bore our Nazi illnesses and carried Nazi pains – but Nazis regarded the Jew as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted. The Jew was wounded as a result of Nazi transgressions, and crushed as a result of Nazi iniquities. The chastisement upon the Jew was for Nazi benefit; and through the Jew's wounds, Nazis were healed. Nazis have all strayed like sheep, each Nazi turning his own way, and God inflicted upon the Jew the iniquity of all Nazis. The Jew was persecuted and afflicted, but the Jew did not open his mouth. Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, the Jew did not open his mouth. The Jew was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a generation? For the Jew" [singular] "was removed from the land of the living; because of Nazis' sin, Jews" [plural] "were afflicted. The Jew" [singular] "submitted his grave to evil people; and the wealthy submitted to the Jew's executions, for committing no crime, and with no deceit in the Jew's mouth. God desired to oppress the Jew and God afflicted the Jew. If the Jew's soul would acknowledge guilt, the Jew would see offspring and live long days, and God's purpose would succeed in the Jew's hand. The Jew would see the purpose and be satisfied with his soul's distress. With the Jew's knowledge, the Jew will cause the masses to be righteous; and the Jew will bear their sins." [new speaker] "Therefore, I, God, will assign the Jew a portion in public and the Jew will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out the Jew's soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for the Jew bore the sin of the many, and prayed for the wicked."

Third failure: character mismatches (a logical fallacy named Wishful Thinking).

When facing torment & death, do history records show that "the Jew did not open his mouth" (i.e., did not protest in any way)?

According to section "III. The 1929 Riots" in Noam Arnon's article on the history of Hebron (brought to my attention by David Wilder, thank you, sir): "The Jews pleaded for mercy, wailing and beseeching at the top of their lungs. The Arab monsters responded by ... mercilessly tormenting and butchering old people, babies, women and children."

According to #30 on The Simon Wiesenthal Center's "36 Questions About the Holocaust": "[M]any [Jews] engaged in armed resistance against the Nazis ... there were many ghetto revolts in which Jews fought against the Nazis." (See also "Jewish Resistance to the Nazi Genocide" at the Jewish Virtual Library.)

According to the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation, approximately 30,000 Jews fought against the Nazis in a formal, organized manner. "These Jews were responsible for blowing up thousands of armored convoys and thwarting the Nazi war machine in countless ways." We have no way of knowing how many Jews fought during their final moments inside the gas chambers. If AJJs are correct, they were fighting against God (as I'll demonstrate below).

But AJJs are not correct, because sheep don't fight "in a formal, organized manner" while being led to the slaughter. According to the Vilna Partisan Manifesto, "We will not offer our heads to the butcher like sheep. Jews defend yourselves with arms!" (p. 15 "Resistance during the Holocaust" by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, published after 1996).

If an AJJ argues that 30,000 rebels were only a small subset of the 6,000,000 that were killed, then they need to be consistent & recognize that those 6,000,000 were a small subset of all Jews throughout history, & therefore this cannot be the correct interpretation of Isiaiah 53. But irrational people are seldom consistent.

AJJs imagine Isaiah foretelling how Gentiles will react in the future when they realize how badly they've treated Jews. If so, then it's completely unrelated to the context of God criticizing Jews in chapter 52 where 4 times the context is clearly located in Zion, 4 times Jerusalem is named, & 3 times God refers to the Jews as "My people". Nowhere does Isaiah imagine speaking on behalf of Gentiles alone. Throughout Isaiah, God primarily addresses the problem of recalcitrant, faithless, idolatrous, evil Jews, hoping they will repent; if not, their once-great kingdom would disintegrate. And it did!

AJJs ignore the Jews' problem God addresses in 52, then in 53 suddenly imagine a small subset of modern Jews as a victim of a small subset of Gentiles, rather than all Jews learning after-the-fact why God allowed them to be conquered, & Zion/Jerusalem destroyed. They rejected God during Isaiah's time, & centuries later they rejected Jesus.

I can't overemphasize this point: Have Jews truly been "innocent" victims, "committing no crime, & with no deceit in [their] mouth" while suffering historically at the hands of "evil" Gentiles? Let's look at how God views Israel & the Jews as reported unequivocally by Isaiah:

"I have nourished & brought up children, & they have rebelled against Me. The ox knoweth his owner, & the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken HaShem."--1:2-4

"For Jerusalem is ruined, & Judah is fallen: because their tongue & their doings are against HaShem."--3:8

"[T]his people draw near Me with their mouth, & with their lips do honor Me, but have removed their heart far from Me..."--29:13

"Who gave Jacob for a spoil, & Israel to the robbers? Did not HaShem, He against whom we have sinned? For they would not walk in His ways, neither were they obedient unto His law."--42:24

"[S]how My people their transgression, & the house of Jacob their sins."--58:1

Obviously if Israel & Judah had been in harmony with God's ways, God would have had no cause to complain against them like this, then use Assyrians & Babylonians to conquer them, & lead them into captivity. How can anyone imagine such a sinful, guilty people (as we all are) being characterized as "committing no crime, and with no deceit in [their] mouth"?

It is also against God's character to "desire" to afflict any creature, especially humans:

"'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?' saith HaShem. 'I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, & the fat of fed beasts; & I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he- goats.'"--Isaiah 1:11

"For Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it. Thou delightest not in burnt offering."--Psalms 51:16

"'I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,' saith the Lord HaShem."--Ezekiel 18:32

"As I live, saith the Lord HaShem, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked..."--Ezekiel 33:11

Of course, if God has no pleasure in the death of animals or the wicked (such as the House of Israel in the context of 33:11), certainly God would not be pleased by the death of non-wicked people (assuming there are any, which there are not; AJJs arrogantly assume God owes them an overall reward for their occasional good deeds).

It is heretical to assert that "God desired to oppress the Jew," especially in the context of the Inquisition & Holocaust. AJJs are literally saying that God desired the Catholics & Nazis to torture & kill Jews. How then can any Jew blame any Gentiles for atrocities against the Jews? It's one thing for a righteous God to punish a sinful nation such as Israel & Judah; it's another thing to assert that God desired to do it. Parents don't desire to afflict their children, but a responsible parent must discipline the child (Proverbs 22:15; 23:13; 29:15), & would gladly give his/her own life to save the life of their child. Absalom deserved to die for his rebellion, yet how did God's anointed king, David, react to the news of his death?

"O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! If only I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!"--2Samuel 18:33

That's Christianity.

Here is the same AJJ-biased translation using actors proposed from the Christian interpretation (bear in mind that this prophecy focuses on the horrific crucifixion of Jesus, not on the inspirational delivery of His beatitudes speech, nor on His vindictive resurrection, nor on His glorious future return):

"Who would believe what we people have heard! For whom has the arm of God been revealed! Jesus formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; Jesus had neither form nor beauty. People saw Jesus, but without a desirable appearance. Jesus was despised and rejected of people, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness. As one from whom people would hide their faces, Jesus was despised, and people had no regard for Jesus. Indeed, Jesus bore our illnesses and carried our pains – but people regarded Jesus as diseased, stricken by God and afflicted. Jesus was wounded as a result of people's transgressions, and crushed as a result of people's iniquities. The chastisement upon Jesus was for people's benefit; and through Jesus' wounds, people were healed. People have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted upon Jesus the iniquity of all people. Jesus was persecuted and afflicted, but Jesus did not open His mouth. Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, Jesus did not open His mouth. Jesus was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a generation? For Jesus was removed from the land of the living; because of my people's sin, they were afflicted. Jesus submitted his grave to evil people; and the Wealthy submitted to Jesus' executions, for committing no crime, and with no deceit in Jesus' mouth. God desired to oppress Jesus and God afflicted Jesus. If Jesus' soul would acknowledge guilt, Jesus would see offspring and live long days, and God's purpose would succeed in Jesus' hand. Jesus would see the purpose and be satisfied with Jesus' soul's distress. With Jesus' knowledge, Jesus will cause the masses to be righteous; and Jesus will bear their sins. Therefore I, Isaiah will assign Jesus a portion in public and Jesus will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out Jesus' soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for Jesus bore the sin of the many, and prayed for the wicked."

(Note on Roth's translation of plural "executions" instead of singular "death" in verse 9: Jesus, the eternally wealthy One, indeed submitted to multiple executions in the form of crucifixion & stabbing. If AJJs insist that the plural word for "executions" must imply multiple persons dying multiple deaths, then I would ask them to be consistent & interpret ALEYM in Genesis 1:1 as a multiple-person God. Jesus' death here is arguably the greatest, most important death, so if ALEYM can be translated as a single great God, I don't see any reason why the same rationale couldn't apply to His "Death" since it atoned for "the many".)

Again, this is not the way I would translate Isaiah 53, but it shows that even an AJJ-biased translation can make sense from a Christian perspective.

AJJs rely upon a theological contradiction to support their interpretation of chapter 53: On the one hand they believe that Gentiles (world leaders, Arabs, Christians, &/or Nazis) have afflicted them, while on the other hand verse 10 tells us plainly that God is the one afflicting the servant, & that God desired to do so. This "desire" is such a crucial point. Verse 10 is unambiguous in translations from an AJJ bias as well as a Christian one:

"God [HaShem] desired to oppress him and He afflicted him."

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; He hath put him to grief."

Atonement is God's way of temporarily sparing humans from what they deserve, because God wants something from humans that makes the sacrifice worthwhile.

In a Christian context, this interpretation of Isaiah 53 harmonizes with Scripture since we already have a record in Genesis 3:21 of God killing an animal for Adam & Eve's sake because of their sin. We also have a record in Genesis 22 of God rewarding Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, yet restraining him from doing so. And we have the extensive list of required animal sacrifices throughout the other 4 Torah books.

What we do not have is any precedent for the AJJ context. We do not have a record of God desiring Adam to kill Eve (or vice versa), though they both deserved to die. We do not have a record of God allowing Abraham to kill Isaac & blessing him for it. We do not have a record of God desiring Gentiles to kill "innocent" Israelites in the tabernacle or the first temple (note that the people HaShem ordered to be killed in Ezekiel 9 were against God; those who were on God's side were marked & spared).

When you truly love somebody else, it would please you to make the ultimate sacrifice for them (as a decent husband would for his wife & children). That's what God did for us, for the Jews, not to us, not to the Jews. AJJs insist that God desired to oppress & afflict Jews in the same context as a Nazi death camp, completely counter to what God revealed to us in Ezekiel 18:32. While throughout the Bible God allows us to be tested as gold gets refined by fire, nowhere in the Bible is there a suggestion that God desires to oppress or afflict anyone other than this special Servant.

AJJA #5) "The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. God never told the Jewish people to believe in the Messiah for salvation. Christians can't find a verse which states that worship of the Messiah can achieve atonement."

God never told the Jewish people to build & worship a golden calf, but they did it anyway. Which demonstrates allegiance with God, choosing to do something wrong without being told, or choosing to do something right without being told? I just showed that the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is the only sensible one: Jesus, our Messiah, atoned for our sins. I agree, though, that it's foreign to "[anti-Jesus] Jewish thought"!

AJJA #6) "We must obtain forgiveness from those we have wronged, and receive it by our own efforts, not through the vicarious act of another."

The person making this claim apparently has no understanding of the extensive animal sacrifices recorded throughout Leviticus. Repentance can only apply to sins we know about. (If you're not aware of any sins, why would you repent?) Yet how many times have we repented, then repeated the same mistake? Repentance can be pragmatic for society (relationships between people), but as persistent sinners, we need something else to legally repair our relationship with God, otherwise we become presumptuous (e.g., "God will forgive me, so why should I bother being obedient?"). If repentance alone were an adequate cure-all (from a judicial perspective), the majority of Leviticus becomes irrelevant, as does the Wilderness Tabernacle & Solomon's Temple (which were types foreshadowing Jesus). Christians look beyond the shallow temporal aspect of animal sacrifices to a deep eternal message God is teaching us. I'll cover this subject even deeper in AJJA #33.

AJJA #7) "Jesus obviously did not save us from our sins because there is so much sinning in the world still today. If Jesus was God, what restricted him from convincingly redeeming the world from its woes?"

This person doesn't understand what the word "redeem" means; it's an exchange, not a change. If you've ever used paper currency to purchase something in a store, you understand what redemption means; it's a legal transaction between 2 parties. Christianity doesn't claim an end to sin; it claims a judicial act that figuratively breaks down a legal barrier between God & humans, thereby granting us true spiritual peace knowing we'll have eternal life with God. The payment Jesus made was a legal transaction that will apply to each of us on Judgment Day. We're temporarily forgiven & allowed to live freely now, but we'll eventually die (this concept was typified by 2 goats in Leviticus 16:7-10; one was killed, the other was allowed to wander in the wilderness till it died naturally). What God ultimately wants is figurative gold tried in fire, literal faithfulness, not blood. On Judgment Day, we will exchange this faithfulness in the Messiah for eternal life (Zechariah 3:1-4).

AJJA #8) "Why would God want to sacrifice his son?"

God wants something that can't be created (voluntarily faithful creatures, not robots), but the first humans were unfaithful, & caused legal consequences for themselves & their descendants. According to the common Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 I articulated above, God considered it worthwhile to make the ultimate sacrifice to rescue us from our legal predicament. Jesus, by becoming kindred with humanity, accomplished this task similar to the way Boaz redeemed Ruth's dead husband's inheritance (Ruth 4; the literal events recorded therein prophetically foreshadowed what Jesus would do).

AJJA #9) "There is no Torah Law that makes man a Valid sacrifice. This means that Jesus was not Kosher for sacrifice."

Isn't God kosher?!?! Seriously. Was Isaac kosher in Genesis 22:2? Christians interpret the Torah laws as shallow temporal acts teaching deep eternal truths that harmonize extremely well with Isaiah 53. Guilty people must pay for their crimes, & Jesus is our financial Instrument. The sacrifices recorded in Leviticus were adequate at the time they occurred, but we continue sinning every day (on some level) until we die. We're not just sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners. It pleased God when Jesus chose to be our Sacrifice, to the same extent that it displeased God when Adam chose to be unfaithful.

Conclusion from Section III: AJJs cannot identify the actors in Isaiah 53 without resorting to logical fallacies with nonsensical claims, & attributing contradictory attributes to God (e.g., claiming to not desire any human deaths at any time, but desiring deaths of Jews at the hands of Inquisitors & Nazis). Even with a skewed translation, the elegant Christian interpretation of this passage remains logically consistent, & harmonizes with the rest of the TNK.

Since AJJs cannot account for this holy Scripture in a logically consistent manner, AJJs are wrong, & my Christian position withstands the test.

Deeper dagger thrust: Genesis 22:8 records Abraham saying unwittingly but prophetically, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering."

*******
SECTION IV OF IV: FURTHER FALLACIOUS AJJ ARGUMENTS
*******

Herein I will refute many of the other misinterpretations/misunderstandings of AJJs pertaining to Jesus, but will not defend any arguments of AJJs against Christians (i.e., Catholics & Protestants who uphold erroneous interpretations of the Bible). As you read these, bear in mind that Sections I-III already destroyed the AJJs' foundation. These 31 remaining AJJAs bulldoze the building.

AJJA #10) "God would not pray to God if they are the same person, so since Jesus prayed to God (John 17), Jesus cannot be God."

God created humans in God's image, & humans are capable of talking to themselves (our ears are functionally distinct from our mouths), so there's no problem with God the Son praying to God the Father. I don't claim to fully understand the nature of God, or the 3 Persons of God who have been revealed to us; I just know there's no logical problem with them intercommunicating. By analogy, an Ephraimite could speak to Reubenites, Gadites, & Manassites, yet they were all one Israel (Joshua 1:12; 22:1).

AJJA #11) "Certainly no 'G-d' or 'Son of G-d' could have called out on the cross as Jesus is supposed to have said, 'My G-d, my G-d, why have you abandoned me?' If he was G-d’s son, he would at least have said, 'My Father ...'"

He was quoting Psalm 22:1 in a moment of severe anguish. Since when was it a bad thing for God to quote Scripture? Who is God's God? (Hints: Genesis 22:16; Isaiah 45:23; Jeremiah 49:13) I would not recommend telling God what God cannot say unless you've got some really big brass matzo balls. (Did you really think I could post a blog article this long without at least one attempt at humor?)

AJJA #12) "Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended, therefore could not have been the Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-8)."

This is a great example of a horrendously irrational argument! If prophecy indeed ended during the Persian period (after Jews had returned from Babylon), then that would mean that the Deuteronomy 18 prophecy can never be fulfilled, & therefore Moses himself was a false prophet. Actually, there is no statement from God or any of God's prophets suggesting that prophecy would end after the Temple was rebuilt. Daniel 9:24 makes it clear that "vision & prophecy" won't end till sin ends. If your local newspaper has a Crime Statistics section, it's still possible for God to give us prophecies.

AJJA #13) "The Bible openly states that there would never be another prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 34:10), 'And there shall not arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses.'"

If that were the correct translation, it would nullify 18:18, "I will raise them up a prophet among their brethren, like unto you (Moses)." The correct translation is, "And a prophet has not arisen again in Israel [at the time this verse was written] like Moses who knew HaShem face to face."

AJJA #14) "Messiah means 'anointed with oil'. In Israel, every priest, every prophet, & every king was anointed with oil into God's service. Jesus was never anointed with oil in this formal tradition, so he wasn't the Messiah."

Was Melchizedek, the priest to God Most High (LAL OLYUN) in Salem (Genesis 14:18), anointed with oil? Where was that event recorded?

Was Balaam, the prophet for the Moabites (Numbers 22:5) who is often quoted by AJJs ("God is not a man"), anointed with oil? Where was that event recorded?

God has the supreme authority to anoint anyone a king; in fact, the first king over Israel was of the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah (Genesis 49:10; 1Samuel 9:1-2; 10:1; 12:13). God also exercised that authority to de-select Eli's family from the priesthood (Exodus 29:9; 1Samuel 2:30). I'll repeat Religion Rule #1: Don't tell God what God cannot do!

Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 61:1, where HaShem anointed Him with the Spirit of God (John 1:33-4; Luke 4:17-21). God's Spirit has higher anointing authority than physical oil processed by humans.

AJJA #15) "The Messiah must be fully human; saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19; 1Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9)!"

Tell that to Abraham, who saw HaShem appear in the form of (at least one of) three standing men (Genesis 18:1-3), & addressed them as "My Lord" (ADNY). Tell that to Isaiah who saw "the Lord" (ADNY) appear in the form of a seated man (Isaiah 6:1), & addressed Him as HaShem (6:5). The context of those verses in Numbers, 1Samuel, & Hosea declares that God is not merely a human, not that God can never appear to humans in human form while remaining divine. If God is not human in any way, why does Hebrew Scripture record God speaking, walking, sitting, & creating humans "in the image of God"?

AJJA #16) "If Jesus was divine, why did his own family turn against him?"

His mother, Mary, never turned against Him (Matthew 13:55; 27:56; Mark 15:40,47; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25-6). Obviously she was the only person living at the time who knew she had been impregnated by God. Though James, His brother, was not with Him at His crucifixion (for reasons unknown), he remained loyal to Jesus till his own martyrdom (while doing his best to remain loyal to Judaism). As for any other biological family-members, Jesus Himself said that families would be divided over Him (Matthew 10:36).

AJJA #17) "Christians borrowed the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus from pagan religions. The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was only relevant to the people living at that time, centuries before Jesus was born."

Christians used the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Hebrew Bible. More than a century before Jesus was born, Jewish scholars chose the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos). While AJJs interpret the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 as merely "the young woman" (EOLME), a young woman giving birth is not much of a miracle, which is the context of the verse. No other instance of this word in the TNK precludes it from meaning "virgin".

Some AJJs argue that the birth of Jesus centuries after the prophecy would have no meaning to King Ahaz; yet God did the same thing in Genesis 15. Abram asked God how he would know that he'd inherit the land. God's response was a prophecy that would span 4 centuries; it would not be verifiable till long after Abram had died. Also, Genesis 3:15 records a prophecy about a "seed" of the first woman (not necessarily a child of the first man & woman) that can be interpreted in a messianic context, which comports with the concept of a virgin birth. Finally, there is no record at the time of King Ahaz of an ordinary child named Immanuel documenting that the prophecy had come true (as was done in 8:3 for another prophetic child, plus 3 others recorded in the first chapter of Hosea).

AJJA #18) "Matthew 1 & Luke 3 list contradictory genealogies for Jesus, obviously fiction."

Christians interpret the Luke 3 genealogy as Mary's, with verse 23 stating parenthetically that Jesus was believed to be the son of Joseph. The emphasis is on the humanity of Jesus, tracing Him through Mary's father back to Adam. We interpret the Matthew 1 genealogy as Joseph's, which is only a partial list emphasizing the role of women in the royal lineage (Tamar, Rahab, & Ruth) as a prelude to announcing the birth of Jesus via Mary. There is no way to prove or disprove genealogies, but they don't contradict any aspect of Christian theism.

AJJA #19) "Tribal affiliation goes only through the birth father's side, not the mother's (Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59). Even if the genealogies in Matthew 1 & Luke 3 are genuinely of Joseph & Mary rather than fictitious contradictions, Mary couldn't confer her father's inheritance to Jesus."

Numbers 27:8 records HaShem allowing women an inheritance if they had no biological brothers. Since there is no record of Mary having any brothers, her Son, Jesus, could legally claim her father's inheritance.

AJJA #20) "The Messianic King must be descended from Judah (Genesis 49:10), Jesse (Isaiah 11:1), David (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:17), & Solomon (2Samuel 7:12-3; 1Chronicles 17:11-2; 22:9-10; 28:5-7). While the Matthew 1 genealogy traces Jesus to Solomon, it goes through Jeconiah/Jehoiakim who was cursed (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30); & the Luke 3 genealogy traces Jesus to David bypassing Solomon; therefore Jesus does not qualify."

Jesus was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah/Jehoiakim, so the curse against his physical descendants remains valid ("no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne"). The promise to Solomon was that of an eternal kingdom ("his throne shall be established for evermore"); it was not restricted to his biological "seed", but could be transferred legally to qualified recipients (for an analogous precedent, see Genesis 25:31-3 where Esau transfers his birthright to Jacob, allowing Jacob to be treated as a firstborn). By not being a physical descendant of Jeconiah/Jehoiakim, Jesus was able to inherit the right to Solomon's promise when Joseph legally married Mary. As her biological "seed", He was also able to fulfill the promises given to David & Jesse ("a rod out of the stem of Jesse, & a Branch shall grow out of his roots"; "unto David a righteous Branch, & a King").

It's highly unlikely that Matthew or Luke would use fictitious genealogies that disqualify Jesus in an effort to demonstrate the historical veracity of Jesus as the Messiah (especially true for Luke, who in all likelihood had read Matthew's account, & was aware of the genealogy therein; Luke 1:1-3). It would make more sense to invent genealogies going through Solomon while circumventing Jeconiah/Jehoiakim, which neither of them does.

AJJA #21) "Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat; anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-4)."

No verse of the New Testament records Jesus saying the Torah is no longer applicable, though He did occasionally give a deeper meaning to the Torah (thereby fulfilling the Jeremiah 31:31 prophecy of a "new covenant"). In Mark 3:4 & Luke 6:9, Jesus asked the contemporary Jews if it was lawful to do good by healing someone on the Sabbath, & apparently no Jew could offer a legitimate reply. I'll pose the same question to any AJJ reading this blog. The primary purpose of the Sabbath commandment was to preserve the historical fact that God created the world "very good" in 6 days, then sanctified the 7th day in an act of faith that nothing else was needed to keep it in that condition. Alas, our ancestors acted irresponsibly. Making paste to heal someone, or nowadays driving them in an ambulance, & all the associated infrastructure as an act of faith to accomplish that good work, in no way violates this commandment; in fact, I would argue that it also honors the Shemah commandment to love God, which supersedes all other commandments. I've yet to read a rational (non-arbitrary) definition for the type of "work" not allowed by Jews on sabbaths. If you know of one, feel free to post a comment on this blog ... any day of the week!

AJJA #22) "The resurrection & other miracles don't prove Jesus is God or the Messiah. God sometimes grants the power of miracles to charlatans in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:4)."

And sometimes God works miracles to demonstrate Who is boss! But I agree with the spirit of this AJJA; a Christian's faith should not be based on miracles. Our faith in Jesus, as I'm showing throughout this essay, is based on it being the only rational religion known to mankind, comporting with all that we experience. The teachings of Jesus in the NT harmonize with the dramatic revelations from God in the OT/TNK. Christ's miracles were examples of God interacting with humans. Isn't that exactly what we would expect of God? Everywhere He went, Jesus was doing good things ... like healing the sick, & criticizing irrational hypocrites.

AJJA #23) "Christianity irrationally accepts the Jewish scriptures, while rejecting the testimony of the Jewish nation which is the only basis for accepting the veracity of the Jewish scriptures."

It's possible to preserve a revelation from God while misunderstanding it. On multiple occasions, Israelites/Jews as a nation had abandoned their writings, & become idolatrous (Judges 17:5-6; 2Kings 22:13; 2Chronicles 34:21; Nehemiah 9:26). According to "HaShem thy God, the Holy One of Israel" in Isaiah 43, "[Jewish] teachers have transgressed against Me." If you want to demonstrate that you're teaching on behalf of the true God, you need to be rational, & be able to prove your point logically using Scripture as I'm doing herein. The writings were preserved by a relatively small portion of the nation under God's special care (one example we're given is recorded 1Kings 19:18; see also Jeremiah 44:28).

AJJA #24) "Judaism bases its belief on national revelation, God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person."

I shook my head in disbelief when I first read this one! How could any Jew, even an AJJ, be so ignorant as to use this argument to support any aspect of Judaism? Do they not know that when God appeared to their ancestors & gave them a national revelation at Mt. Sinai, that they begged God not to give it to them directly, but to Moses alone (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27)? Do they not know that God destroyed that entire generation (including Moses & Aaron, all except Joshua & Caleb) because they were disobedient, despite having heard God speak to them (Numbers 14:33-4; 32:13)? Do they not know that God honored their request & gave numerous revelations via individual prophets for centuries thereafter? Do they not know that God used a pagan Assyrian king to conquer the northern tribes of Israel (2Kings 15:29; 17:6,23; 18:11; 1Chronicles 5:26), & a pagan Babylonian king to conquer the southern tribes of Judah because they were so out-of-touch with God (2Kings 25; 2Chronicles 36)? Do they not know how God really felt about them as a nation (Ezekiel 23)?

AJJA #25) "Contemporary Jews heard Jesus teach & saw his actions, but were neither impressed nor persuaded, so why should a modern Jew be?"

This logical fallacy is known as an Argumentum ad Populum, Appeal to Consensus/Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, or simply the Bandwagon fallacy. (It's a favorite of evolutionists!) Even after the Israelites heard God's voice at Mt. Sinai, & had seen God's actions against the Egyptians, the vast majority of them were impressed & persuaded to build & worship a molten calf (Exodus 32:1-8). Descendants of these stupid Israelites rejected HaShem as their King (1Samuel 8:7), & rejected knowledge of HaShem (Hosea 4:6). The Jews have a track record of rejecting HaShem's words & law (Jeremiah 6:19). Extremely bad argument, yet it too was used by the Jewish sage, Ramban, in his famous debate at Barcelona.

AJJA #26) "The NT contains fictitious, unreliable, false, forged, fabricated, contradictory texts, therefore cannot be a revelation from the true God. Most Christians are completely unaware of the sheer butchery that the NT went through before the Roman emperor accepted it and declared it to be true. When you see that the NT writers copied most of what was written in the OT for the natural history of Jesus, clearly there's another major credibility problem."

These are false accusations based on hearsay & speculation. It's amusing to see AJJs utilize poorly preserved myths from other ancient cultures in an effort to substantiate claims that NT writers based Christianity upon them. For example, if you hear an AJJ say that the 14th-century BC Persian deity, Mithras, was born on December 25th, just ask him or her how they know that to be true. Where is the 3,400-year-old document? How do its dates relate to the Julian/Gregorian calendar? When did people begin celebrating birthdays? Then, since the NT writers never mentioned the exact birthday of Jesus, ask that brilliant AJJ how such a coincidence would even be relevant to the NT's veracity.

AJJA #27) "It is not possible to kill a god. The Messiah was not supposed to die!"

Says who?

AJJA #28) "It is a given that Esav hates Ja'akov (Edom versus Israel) and our Sages long ago recognized Edom as Christianity."

Both genealogies of Jesus trace through Jacob, not Esau. Though there are Christians who hate Jews without cause, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35), & any sane human would know that in terms of population percentage, far more Arabs hate Jews than do Christians, plus the bonus point that some Arabs (particularly Palestinians) trace their lineage through Esau (via the region of Edom/Idumea). The unidentified "sages" mentioned in this AJJA apparently overlooked these annoying little details!

AJJA #29) "Judaism rejects the notion of putting anything or anyone between oneself and one's Creator. The relationship should be direct and personal."

It's a good thing Jesus is our Creator (John 1:3), so our relationship is direct & personal (Hebrews 8:1)! By the way, which religion is it that allows only Levites to minister in a physical temple to maintain a barrier between ordinary people when they worship their Creator? Is it Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? I can't seem to remember at the moment...

AJJA #30) "Jesus was never named Immanuel."

The TNK records multiple names of God on appropriate occasions (Elohim, Jehovah/Yahweh, El Shaddai, El Elyon, Adonai, etc.; Exodus 6:3). Throughout history, people have used multiple names including myself. Isaiah 9:6 lists multiple names for the Messiah, none of which is Immanuel; however, despite one of those names being "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), AJJs don't believe their messiah will be divine. That's what's known as having a "stiff neck" in the Bible. When Jesus was with us in bodily form, being God, He was literally Immanuel, "with us" (Matthew 28:20; John 7:33; 13:33).

AJJA #31) "According to Exodus 4:22 & Hosea 11:1, Israel is God's firstborn son; therefore Jesus could not have been God's son, or at least not His firstborn."

This is clearly allegorical, referring to a group of people (men, women, boys, girls), not a biological offspring. A clear demonstration of "firstborn" not always meaning a literal initial child of a woman appears in Psalm 89:27. There King David received a vision of God claiming God made him "firstborn" as if he were God's direct product, which he obviously wasn't. Then in Jeremiah 31:9 HaShem claimed that Ephraim was "My firstborn", again obviously allegorical (note that Ephraim was not even Joseph's biological firstborn according to Genesis 41:50-1). But even if Israel (the single man originally named Jacob) were a biological son of God, it would still not invalidate anything Jesus did, nor prevent Him from being the Son of God. In a general sense, we're all sons of God through Adam (Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 1:10).

(Note to atheists who might see these multiple "firstborn" references as contradictory: remember that they're not in the same context, & that birthrights can be legally transferred. David was later than Ephraim, & Ephraim was later than Israel.)

AJJA #32) "The first worshipers of Jesus did not claim that with their worship they were following a tradition which goes back to Sinai. According to the definition of scripture, worship of Jesus is idolatry."

Apparently this AJJ is not familiar with Jeremiah 31:31-2. Actually, the NT records Jesus claiming to go back even earlier: "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58; see also John 1:1-3, which pushes the origin of Jesus back as far as it can possibly go!). But this AJJ is correct in that Christians do not (should not) claim to merely follow a tradition: "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matthew 15:6) & "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9).

AJJA #33) "The Christian cannot point to any verses in scripture that tell you repentance does not bring about the expiation of sin."

Try Numbers 14:39-41 on for size! The recalcitrant Israelites waited one day too long, & pushed God too far. They mourned & they pleaded, & they even presumed to do that which God had originally wanted them to do, but they failed. God rejected their repentance, & their sin was not forgiven them. (See also Psalm 95:6-11.) Can an AJJ point to any verses in Scripture that tell you how many times God will allow you to repeat the sin/repent/sin/repent cycle before you die? This AJJA #33 is similar to AJJA #6, but I want to expound on it outside of Isaiah 53.

Christians have been shouting "Repent!" since John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2; too many other verses to list here). We need to constantly repent because we're constantly sinning every day, occasionally in big ways, but almost constantly in small ways because our minds are easily diverted from God. We strive to stay in God's will, but realize that we'll need a "safety net" on Judgment Day. Israelites typified this act dramatically each year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29-34). It was only for the sins committed during the previous year, not for future sins. Immediately after offering the sacrifices on that day, the first sin again condemns the person.

The context of Ezekiel 18:21-2 is not simply repentance, but the contingent "and" keeping of all God's statutes. If they're not kept perfectly, the person once again becomes unrighteous & therefore damned. It's a vicious cycle that includes sins we're ignorant of, for which we can't repent. Just because we're not doing something wrong, doesn't mean we're doing something right. This bears repeating: Just because we're not doing something wrong, doesn't mean we're doing something right. Any instance of self-centeredness we overlook (e.g., in moments when we're not loving God with all our mind, soul, & ability per Deuteronomy 6:5), will condemn us. Only a general atonement that we claim by faith can guarantee our eternal salvation after we die.

Some AJJs refer to 2Samuel 12:13 as an example of HaShem forgiving sin upon repentance; however, note that Nathan informed King David that he would not die. If the context were that this one repentance guaranteed his salvation, David did eventually die, so obviously God was referring to him not being killed in immediate judgment over this one particular sin.

Other AJJs point to 1Kings 8:46-50, where King Solomon prayed for HaShem to forgive people if they repent; but again, it was conditional upon them returning with all their mind & soul. One slip, & you're back to square one in need of atonement. Can you maintain a clean slate on your own merit up to the point of death? What will you be thinking of during the moment prior to a drunk driver running a red light, or when a nearby Muslim starts chanting to Allah while pressing a detonator? What will you be thinking about the last time you go to bed? Did you remember to repent of every sin you committed since your last repentance, including the moments of your life when you were not focusing on God with all your mind, soul, & ability? Does your mind ever drift from God as you drift into slumberland?

Can an AJJ point to any verses in Scripture that tell you God will forgive your trespasses you don't repent about after repenting for the ones you do know about? The bottom line on this issue is that Judaism offers hope, but Christianity offers a guarantee.

AJJA #34) "For whom would the Christian Messiah be providing atonement, in a world which sees the blood offerings of Moses being offered in the Jerusalem temple as they were in days of old?"

This question refers to the temple referenced in Section II, AJJA #2, Event A. Those blood offerings would be achieving the same purpose they did back in the other 2 temples & Wilderness Tabernacle: they'd be commemorating Christ's sacrifice. Since Jesus only suffered/died once, He will not need to give a repeat performance; however, for those who don't understand the concept, Jews will still be teaching it the old-fashioned way. Turning the table on AJJs, if their ordinary-human messiah ends all sin, why will blood offerings be needed in the temple foreseen by Ezekiel?

AJJA #35) "Christianity stands upon Paul's word that Jesus appeared to him. Why should anyone believe him?"

No, Christianity doesn't stand solely upon Paul's personal testimony. A better understanding of what Jesus accomplished can be obtained from Paul's writings, & they comport with the other NT writers who were firsthand eyewitnesses before Jesus' death/resurrection (the only possible exception is James, which is a whole separate discussion unrelated to the issue of whether Jesus was the Messiah; Paul & James differed over our role in obtaining salvation).

AJJA #36) "If his rising from the dead was so crucial to demonstrate who he was, why did this take place in secret and not in the presence of his 'thousands' of devotees?"

This fallacy goes by the names Complex Question, Loaded Question, & Plurium Interogationum. Before asking why it took place in secret, the AJJ should ask if it took place in secret. It didn't. Everyone knew where He was buried including the Roman soldiers the Jews asked to be stationed there; everyone else voluntarily chose (for whatever reason) not to camp there. They probably would've been dispersed by the Romans anyway. (By the way, on what basis would this AJJ know "His rising" took place "in secret"?)

AJJA #37) "Why did his followers consist of a handful of people, almost all of whom were poorly educated?"

Whether Jesus had a legion of educated followers or only mentally retarded groupies, it would not be a rational argument for or against the fulfillment of prophecy through His life, or the harmony of His teachings with those of God in the TNK. When you argue against the person instead of against the person's position, it's a logical fallacy named Ad Hominem; but in this case, the AJJ is arguing against a particular class of people associated with the Person against whom they're arguing! That's quite a desperate, convoluted position!

For the record, most people living at that time were poorly educated, but lack of formal education does not equate with ignorance (as witnessed by presumably educated AJJs who can't defend their position without resorting to logical fallacies & nonsensical misinterpretations of Scripture). Paul, whose writings comprise about 1/3 of the NT content (not counting the epistle to the Hebrews, its authorship being uncertain), was trained by a famous rabban, Gamaliel (Acts 5:34; 22:3), the grandson of Hillel the Elder. Luke, who was a physician (Colossians 4:14) & knowledgeable historian, wrote the longest of the 4 gospels plus the letter named Acts (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter, & Jude knew the TNK literature fairly well in order to quote it as frequently as they did. That's impressive if indeed they were "poorly educated" as this AJJA inferred.

(By the way, if Jesus was not divine, where did He receive His training that has confounded Jewish scholars for 2,000 years? Why was no contemporary Jewish scholar held responsible for training Him?)

AJJA #38) "Christians have committed atrocities (e.g., the Crusades & the Inquisition), therefore cannot be representing the true God."

If no AJJ had ever committed any sin against God, this argument might be valid; but even if Christians have collectively committed worse sins than any other group, relativism is not a rational argument against an absolute religion promoting a 1-on-1 relationship between people & their Creator (Numbers 14:26-39; Ezekiel 33:12-13). If AJJA #38 were true, it would prove that Jews cannot be representing the true God because they've committed atrocities against God (Ezekiel 23, esp. vv. 35, 38-9).

AJJA #39) "Why do Christians eat pig when the Torah forbids it (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8)?"

Every Jew who reveres the Torah & eats any animal product testifies to the fact that God has at times made changes to the original plan. For example, all animals were originally created to eat plants (Genesis 1:29-30), but God changed this in response to the severely altered conditions following the global flood (Genesis 9:3), then restricted this for Israelites to illustrate things declared to be holy distinct from unholy things (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). Peter & Paul, under the authority of Jesus (being one with God), taught us that all animals were still available for people to eat (Acts 10:9-16; 11:5-10; 1Corinthians 10:25-7). We also know that one day God will restore conditions to the way they originally were, ending carnivorism (Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25; Hosea 2:18). So we see in the Bible another ABCBA chiasmus (the other ones are beyond the scope of this essay). It's true that God declared swine to be unclean; however, God cares more about the spiritual things coming from our hearts than the physical things going into our mouths (Isaiah 29:13).

AJJA #40) "Jesus commanded his disciples to preach to the Jews only and not to the Gentiles (Matthew 10), yet his disciples disobeyed him and did just the opposite. He clearly thought of himself as the Messiah of the Jews and of no one else."

False premise. On the particular occasion described in Mat 10, He told them to not go to the Gentiles, but noted that their preaching would be making a testimony to Gentiles; at the end of Mat before His ascension, He told them to make disciples of all Gentiles (28:19).

Conclusion from Section IV: Since AJJs cannot account for these multi-faceted issues in a logically consistent manner, I have proved (in the formal philosophical sense) that AJJs are wrong, & my Christian position withstands the test.

Deepest dagger thrust: There is no rational argument against Christianity.

*******
Epilogue
*******

I hope that this essay will help AJJss understand what they believe & why they believe it. Those beliefs should be based on an accurate understanding of Christianity, not on fallacious strawmen. I'm fully aware that every argument I articulated above is subject to the same Proverbs 18:17 scrutiny by someone wiser than me, & I welcome any Jew or Gentile who can explain where I'm wrong or illogical. I spent 8 weeks drafting, researching, revising this essay, & could easily have spent the next 8 years improving it as I continue learning.

My faith in God is not based upon the testimony of a nation or a subdivision of that nation or a single person, but upon the message of God transmitted through those people despite problems caused by those people. That message is the only explanation that comports with all that I experience.

Some people claim truth is where you find it, & what works for one person might not for the other. Christianity, as taught by Jesus, presents a dichotomy:

"He that is not with Me is against Me; & he that gathereth not with Me scattereth (abroad)."--Matthew 12:30 & Luke 11:23

From the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we know that things tend toward disorder; they scatter. This process does not produce poems, books, technological wonders, or any other products of an intelligent source. Any form of Judaism that is against Jesus, is guilty of the same unintelligent scattering.

(And please don't attempt to use Mark 9:40 to refute my previous point by saying that anyone who "is not against [Christians] is on our part." The context of that verse references another Christian who wasn't traveling with the disciples of Jesus at the time.)

It's unfortunate that many Christians use false arguments against Judaism because they misunderstand it, but equally sad to see AJJs do the same. And just because someone professes Judaism or Christianity, it doesn't mean they are correct or incorrect, & will be saved or not saved in the final Judgment. Each person can only evaluate his/her own relationship with God. We should each strive to learn about God as much as we can in this life. It's okay to be ignorant or misinformed on theology; it's not okay to be against learning about God.

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him."--Matthew 12:32, Luke 12:10

G.M. Grena

Sar-Shalom's Piece Process

2011-10-01T16:03:00.000-07:00

"In order for the Christian to know that his belief system is correct, he must also determine that the Jewish nation is bearing false witness. For if the Jewish nation is telling the truth, then even if Jesus performed all the miracles which the Christian scriptures claim for him, he would still be a fraud. If indeed God revealed himself at Sinai as an absolute unity, then anyone who advocates worship of a trinity is advocating idolatry. No miracle, no matter how spectacular, can serve as justification to worship an idol."--Rabbi Yisroel C. Blumenthal ("You Are My Witnesses: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries"; published by the Bucks County Community Kollel; pp. 10-1)

"[T]he Gospel records many instances where Jesus claimed to be G-d (John 10:30, 14:9, 16:15). If so, from the Jewish point of view, he was guilty of idolatry, one of the worst possible sins."--Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan ("Jesus and the Bible" in "The Real Messiah: A Jewish Response to Missionaries"; published by Jews for Judaism, copyright by the National Conference of Synagogue Youth & the Orthodox Union; p. 35)

After posting my previous article exposing an erroneous translation of Isaiah 9, I learned of a relatively new online edition of The Great Isaiah Scroll, which allows users to zoom in to a much higher resolution than the other one I had linked to. Copyright credit goes to The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, powered by Google.

Since I keep my blog images to widths under 400 pixels (for consistent page formatting), I chopped up the word-pieces below from verse 5/6 (line 24, column 8 of the original scroll) while maintaining their original resolution.

Here's the anti-Jesus Jewish arrangement (used by heretical rabbis over the years, who have hypocritically taught that Jesus of Nazareth was an idolatrous blasphemer, not the "One-With-the-Father" Messiah):

UQRA (7121) "and call"
PLA (6382) "wonderful"
YUO$ (3289) "adviser"
AL (410) "God"
GBUR (1368) "mighty"
ABY (1) "father"
OD (5703) "eternal"
SMU (8034) "his name"
SR (8269) "prince"
ESLUM (7965) "the peace"

And here's the correct arrangement (used by honest scholars, Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians, the great prophet Isaiah, & everyone else who doesn't worship a false god, blaspheme the one true God's holy Name, & bear false witness against their neighbor's Hebrew translation):

UQRA (7121) "and call"
SMU (8034) "his name"
PLA (6382) "wonderful"
YUO$ (3289) "adviser"
AL (410) "God"
GBUR (1368) "mighty"
ABY (1) "father"
OD (5703) "eternal"
SR (8269) "prince"
ESLUM (7965) "the peace"

And here's 1 more quotation from "The Artscroll English Tanach: The Jewish Bible with Insights from Classic Rabbinic Thought" (appearing here without the publisher's permission):

"I know your rebelliousness and your stiff neck; behold! while I am still alive with you today, you have been rebels against HASHEM--and surely after my death."--Moses, Deuteronomy 31:27

Surely.

G.M. Grena

Hezekiah vs. Sar-Shalom

2011-09-24T22:39:00.000-07:00

Coming soon to a LMLK blog near you ... an extremely long essay explaining why Jewish arguments against Jesus being One with God as the Son of God are irrational.

I don't expect many people to read it due to its length (it'll be the longest blog I've ever published), & due to my lack of academic credentials. Although the draft is done, it may not be ready for publication for another few weeks due to all the cross-checks I still need to do. During the course of that work, I'm finding amazing, unexpected things that must be addressed. Today's discovery is so jaw-dropping, I cannot resist sharing it as a preview/teaser for the main essay.

The essay will consist of 3 main sections, followed by a minor 4th section, which is as long as the 3 main sections combined:

Section I: On whether God is One & only One in every sense & context
Section II: On whether the Messiah can appear twice
Section III: On the identification of the 3 actors in Isaiah 53

While proofreading it, it struck me as odd that none of the anti-Jesus literature mentioned Isaiah 9:5/6 (dubbed verse 5 in the Jewish numbering system, 6 in the Christian). Several years ago I purchased an English/Hebrew TNK from the Hebron Gift Shop, & was so impressed with its physical quality as a book, that I offered copies for resale on the LMLK Dotcom store (which I stopped doing). As part of my follow-up research, I recently ordered a copy of the Artscroll Tanach, which was promoted by anti-Jesus Jews as an excellent translation free from Christian bias found in English Old Testaments. It arrived today.

To contrast these 2 translations, it will not suffice to merely describe them. Who would believe my report? To whom would the arm of HaShem be revealed? Fortunately, the 1997 Koren publication contains no specific copyright statements; not so with the March 2011 Artscroll edition.

I decided it would be imperative to commit this crime, & deliberately violate the Artscroll publisher's copyright so that those of you reading this blog may benefit from an example of the foolish extremes otherwise-brilliant scholars will go to in order to justify their irrational religion.

"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"--1Corinthians 1:20

To ensure that the critical texts get picked up by Internet search engines, it says:

"No part of this volume may be reproduced IN ANY FORM--PHOTOCOPY, ELECTRONIC, DIGITAL MEDIA, OR OTHERWISE--even for personal, study group, or classroom use without written permission from the copyright holder, Mesorah Publications Ltd. except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in magazines or newspapers. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THIS WORK INVOLVED EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND COSTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED"

What are the odds that Mesorah would grant permission to a Christian seeking to demonstrate how faulty & heretical their publication is? Since this blog is neither a magazine nor newspaper, I suppose I'm officially a criminal on the run now. Not only am I violating an international copyright law, I'm clearly violating one of the "Big 10" commandments of God:

"Thou shalt not steal."--Exodus 20:15

(Actually, Jews will accuse me of violating another one, because I worked on this blog during the Sabbath, but that's an accusation I'll dispute & elaborate on in my long forthcoming essay.)

A key element for spotting irrational statements is arbitrariness. When someone has no logical basis for his/her belief, they resort to an arbitrary assertion. For example, if you believe that the Messiah will be an ordinary human, then when you translate a messianic prophecy such as Isaiah 9 that equates The Everlasting God with The Prince of Peace, you must arbitrarily ignore the original grammar, & arbitrarily arrange the words in the order that supports your erroneous interpretation.

Koren's version does not resort to such an extreme measure; it merely skips the translation & substitutes a transliteration, which is meaningless gibberish to most English readers:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called Pele-yo-ez-el-gibbor-avi-'ad-sar-shalom..."

I don't know of any Biblical characters named Pele-yo-ez-el-gibbor-avi-'ad-sar-shalom, but if a future Jew's parents decide to name their son Pele-yo-ez-el-gibbor-avi-'ad-sar-shalom, he will certainly have some pressure on him! Kidding aside, Koren's version is correct in the sense that it recognizes all those Hebrew words as the name of the child.

Artscroll's version resorts to gross scholarly negligence, committing not just a secular sin of arbitrary mistranslation, but a violation of 2 of the higher "Big 10" commandments by committing idolatry (worshiping a false god) & blasphemy (degrading God's Name):

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."--Exodus 20:3

"Thou shalt not take the name of HaShem thy God in vain; for HaShem will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."--Exodus 20:7

And page x [10] of the Preface sets up another theological crime against God:

"THE FIRST GOAL OF A TRANSLATION MUST BE ACCURACY, SCRIPTURAL HEBREW is laden with nuance and meaning. ... The scholars involved in this task were consumed with a sense of mission--that they were dealing with the sacred and eternal word of God, not mere 'literature'; that their task was not to rewrite the text, but to convey its meaning faithfully."

Also the page advertising this edition I bought, describes it as being produced "in collaboration with an international team of scholars".

By stating their credentials (primarily edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, with contributing editors Rabbi Yaakov Blinder, Rabbi Avie Gold, & Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, plus other editorial acknowledgements spanning 2 & a half pages), they're also violating another of the "Big 10" by bearing false witness that their translation is accurate & reliable, while that of their neighbor (Koren & all Christian scholars) is not:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."--Exodus 20:16

Why is it unreliable? How has it violated the aforementioned holy commandments?

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace]..."

That's not what it says! Beginning immediately after the "shoulder" phrase:

UYQRA (7121) "they will call" or "and he called" (UQRA = "and call" in DSS)
SMU (8034) "his name"
PLA (6382) "wonderful"
YUO$ (3289) "adviser"
AL (410) "God"
GBUR (1368) "mighty"
ABY (1) "father"
OD (5703) "eternal"
SR (8269 "prince"
SLUM (7965) "peace" (ESLUM = "the peace" in DSS)

No matter which phrase you choose for the first word, the only way you can dissociate "Peace Prince" from "Eternal Father" is through an arbitrary break in the list of names for which there is no grammatical warrant. Why would Isaiah use so many names for God in this particular instance if he intended to say that the name of the person is only the last name listed? (Note also that the end of the paragraph names HaShem as "Master of Legions" instead of reiterating Wondrous Adviser or Mighty God or Eternal Father.)

For similar arrangements of "call/called his name X" in prophetic contexts, see Isaiah 7:14; 8:3; Hosea 1:4; 1:9 (that's the same grammatical sequence as in non-prophetic contexts too, such as Genesis 4:26).

If the intention were really the way it's presented by Artscroll, it would've been arranged "called X his/her name Y" (as in Genesis 3:20; 16:15; 21:3; 22:14; 32:30; 35:15; 41:51; Exodus 35:30):

UYQRA (7121) "and he called"
PLA (6382) "wonderful"
YUO$ (3289) "adviser"
AL (410) "God"
GBUR (1368) "mighty"
ABY (1) "father"
OD (5703) "eternal"
SMU (8034) "his name"
SR (8269 "prince"
SLUM (7965) "peace"

This construction occurs nowhere in the Hebrew TNK!

But even if the Artscroll translation is correct, who is this "Prince of Peace"? Is it the Jewish messiah? No, according to the footnote at the bottom of the page, it's none other than LMLK VIP King Hezekiah, whose name means "HaShem Strengthens"!

"This wondrous salvation took place in the days of the child of Ahaz, the righteous King Hezekiah, whom God--the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father--called 'Prince of Peace' (Rashi)."

The highly acclaimed medieval Jewish sage, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki) believed that King Hezekiah, during whose reign the Israelite capital of Samaria was destroyed by Assyrians, during whose reign most of the Judean cities in the Shephelah region were destroyed by Assyrians, during whose reign Jerusalem was besieged by Assyrians, who being the "righteous king" he was, stripped the Temple of some gold & silver to appease the Assyrians, was the Prince of Peace, Sar-Shalom, apparently because when Hezekiah was a child several years before he began to reign, there was a brief peace in Judah.

Notice what the rest of the paragraph records about Sar-Shalom:

"...upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity."

Even if Rashi was referring to the so-called Pax Assyriaca, did that qualify as "boundless peace"? No, it was bounded only by the territory conquered by Assyrians.

Did it last from "now to eternity"? No, it lasted less than a century.

Is Hezekiah referred to anywhere else in the TNK as Sar-Shalom? No!

Is the Messiah described as a prince (SR) anywhere else in the TNK? Yes! Daniel 8:25.

Is the Messiah associated with peace anywhere else in the TNK? Yes! According to the anti-Jesus Jews in my forthcoming essay, they cite Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3.

Artscroll's translation violates Hebrew grammar, & does not comport with other Hebrew Scripture. It is not the product of scholarship, but of fools who don't believe The Prince of Peace is One with The Eternal Father: our Mighty God.

In case any of the elite Artscroll rabbis ever read this blog, here's a special message just for them:

"You have acted foolishly! You did not keep the commandment of HASHEM, your God, that He commanded you..."--1Samuel 13:13

"You would be considered in Israel as one of the despicable men!"--2Samuel 13:13

"Remember this: The foe reviled HASHEM, and the degenerate people blasphemed Your Name."--Psalms 74:18

"For My people are stupid, they have not recognized Me."--Jeremiah 4:22

The 4 preceding quotations came courtesy of "The Artscroll English Tanach: The Jewish Bible with Insights from Classic Rabbinic Thought", available for only $15.99 (special 20% Web discount). Get your copy today, & tell them a Christian sent you.

Now all the Artscroll lawyer-boys are after me ... but for as long as I can, I'm running free!

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."--John 8:36

G.M. Grena

Finkelstein's Pharathon

2011-08-14T20:14:00.000-07:00

The current issue of PEQ (vol. 143, #2, July 2011) arrived this past week. Although some articles in recent issues have interested me to one degree or another, & I've been wanting to blog about them, this one is exceptional due to several articles related to royalty.

Philip Davies leads off with an "Editorial: Mysterious Books from Jordan" regarding the allegedly Christian lead codices (plates, most of which are bound in codex form). In a previous blog post ("Hello Helios"), I discussed one of the images resembling Rhodian coins with artwork based on earlier numismatic images of King Alexander the Great. This PEQ contains 4 black-&-white images of the plates, 3 of which were widely publicized on the web, but another that I hadn't seen before. It bears a very modern-looking portrait of a bearded man, which Davies likens to "20th-century depictions of an Aryan Jesus." If it is ancient (which it's not), it would surpass the Turin Shroud in terms of realism & accuracy. Of course there's a simple explanation for these anomalies: the Shroud was not a medieval work of art, & this plate is a modern work of art (generously described as "hardly ancient" by Davies). Davies seems impressed by the metallurgical reports that support the antiquity/authenticity of the plates, but acknowledges "that there are some modern items here." (Davies emphasized the S-word in PEQ.)

The "Notes and News" section leads off with the now-old news of Anson Rainey's death back in February. Oddly, his TAU page does not mention it, & still lists his E-mail address. (Did the TAU faculty even know he was a professor emeritus?) The PEQ obituary resembles all the others I've read, which appropriately laud his remarkable academic accomplishments including this important reminder:

"His position on the Bible was somewhat traditionalist. Thus, Anson endorsed Lemaire's reading of bytdwd, 'House of David', on the Mesha stele, believing that both the Mesha and the Dan inscriptions related to the events recorded in the Bible with events in 853-851 BC, which included the battle in which Ahab, king of Israel, died fighting the army of the king of Damascus while his ally, Jehoshaphat, escaped unharmed, and the subsequent invasion of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kgs 3. He believed that the Biblical testimony to both events is reliable historically and chronologically." (Note that I'm pleased the editor used "BC" instead of "BCE" & capitalized "Biblically".)

Horton Harris, in "The Location of Ziklag: A Review of the Candidate Sites, Based on Biblical, Topographical, and Archaeological Evidence" briefly discusses an important LMLK site, Erani, though he doesn't actually discuss LMLKs. His section "4. Tell 'Areini as the Site of Gath" recounts the initial identification of it with Philistine Gath by (LMLK VIP) Albright, who referred to it as "Tell el-Mensiyeh". I was not aware of this name, so I added it to the list of alternate names on the LMLK Geography & Corpus pages. The other sites mentioned by Harris are Tell Khuweilfeh, Tell Shari'ah, Khirbet Zuheilikah, Tell Hesi, Tell Nejileh. The first 3 apply if Ziklag is located to the north, whereas the latter 2 plus Erani if it's in the south. It's interesting how Ziklag has a problem similar to the LMLK Socoh/Ziph dilemmas (no one can prove whether the seal inscriptions refer to the northern, southern, or neither location). And no, I'm not going to reveal which site(s) Harris believes to be the best candidate for Ziklag; it's complex, but interesting.

Messenger of fear in sight
Dark deception kills the light...

The main attraction in PEQ 143 belongs to Israel Finkelstein with "Tell el-Ful Revisited: The Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (with a New Identification)" (pp. 106-18). The text spans 10-&-a-half pages with a half-page of notes & a nearly 2-page bibliography.

After an abstract & introduction, he presents the original interpretation of the excavation results based mostly on the work of Albright & the Lapps. Then he notes the conventional identification of el-Ful with Gibeah, beginning with Robinson in 1856 to Schniedewind in 2006, though noting that Miller & Arnold suggested Jaba.

Finkelstein then spends a page listing the problems related to the nature of the site & its excavation, primarily that it is atypical: a naturally high hill with shallow, unclear stratigraphy. He concludes this section in typical minimalist fashion, stating that "one cannot avoid mentioning the strong theological inclination of both Albright and P. Lapp, which dictated their interpretation of the finds." Like as if anyone can opine on the identification of a Biblical site sans theological inclination.

Of course by shining a spotlight on someone else's theological inclination, Finkelstein unwittingly broadcasts his own. Jumping ahead to his final section, two points he uses to argue against Ful being Gibeah makes this glaringly obvious:

"Assuming that the biblical narrative about a Saulide territorial entity in the highlands preserves a germ of history..."

"Even if the episode of Gibeah in Judges 20 preserves an early memory, it is quite clear that it was edited in the 6th century BCE, if not later."

Perceptive readers can see that Finkelstein's theological inclination dictates his belief that the Bible does not contain even a germ of history about King Saul, & does contain fiction built around a town named Gibeah that may or may not have existed prior to the Babylonian exile. By theologically "assuming" God didn't preserve this history, Finkelstein has edited it to suit his own theology. But I digress...

Backing up to the 5th section forming his core content for a "new history" (the very thing he projects onto the ancient writers!!!) for Tell el-Ful, he analyzes archeological data ascribed to each chronological phase: Iron I, Iron IIC, & Hellenistic, followed by a tabular summary:

Period A (11th-10th centuries BCE) = "Poor settlement"

Period B (early 7th to 597/587 BCE) = "Unfortified village, Assyrian 1st tower"

Period C (6th century BCE) = "Babylonian(?) phase of 1st tower"

Period D (latter 3rd - early 2nd BCE) = "Unfortified village, Seleucid(?) 2nd tower"

Out from ruins once possessed
Fallen city, living death...

Unlike other archeologists who have interpreted the early Iron Age remains of fortresses, Finkelstein refers to them as a mere "mirage ... since 90 percent of a building cannot evaporate without leaving any trace, we must conclude that there never was a large Iron I fortress at Tell el-Ful. Saul's headquarters is gone."

Over the past couple of months, an old house 2 blocks away from mine in Redondo Beach was entirely demolished because it was in such dilapidated condition. Bulldozers completely removed all traces of it in a day, & a new house has been built on the spot. This happens every day all over the world, thus disproving Finkelstein's argument. In ancient times, the exact same thing could easily have happened (except for the bulldozers of course). In fact, when it did, Finkelstein frequently makes the same argument, that because there are no remains of a place or a population, or an inscription of a person, they didn't exist. This philosophy, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", has embarrassed scholars repeatedly, but some can't seem to learn the lesson because of their "strong theological inclination" that the Bible bears a hallmark of fiction rather than a revelation from God.

His basis for his Period B beginning in the early 7th century is based on something a little more substantial (from p. 111):

"Fourteen LMLK seal impressions were found at Tell el-Ful; those which can be identified belong to types dated by Lipschits et al. (2010) to the first half of the 7th century BCE (Lipschits et al. 2011). ... Yet, the early types of the LMLK seal impressions and private impressions on LMLK jar handles, which date to the late 8th century (Lipschits et al. 2010) have not been found thus far, and the quantity of what may be regarded as Iron IIB pottery is limited."

His 2010 publication reference is Tel Aviv 37, which I reviewed extensively in my Bible & Interpretation article last year (note that Finkelstein is unwittingly basing this portion of his argument on data & ideas I published back in 2004). The 2011 reference is Tel Aviv 38, "Judahite stamped and incised jar handles: A tool for studying the history of late monarchic Judah", which I was not aware of till now, so I'll have to pursue a copy. Here's a link to my Gibeah statistics to better understand the basis of his statement; only 4 identifiable stamps have been published; 7 remain unpublished.

Finkelstein suggests that Assyrians built the tower as 1 of several administrative forts including Ramat Rahel. To his credit, he bases this on an Assyrian-style revetment at el-Ful, but he still has no explanation for the Judean jars being there (including Circles & Rosettes spanning the period he believes it was used by the Assyrians) as I pointed out in my rebuttal to Lipschits et al.

Despite the long list of esteemed scholars who have supported it, after describing the identification of Gibeah with el-Ful as "highly questionable, probably impossible", Finkelstein gives his own "admittedly speculative" speculation based on the 1Maccabees 9:50-2 list of Seleucid fortifications, & using a process of elimination to arrive at Pharathon, dismisses its identification with Farkha & Khirbet el-Fire by other scholars since those "sites are all outside the boundaries of Judea", as well as Khirbet Ein Fara northeast of Jerusalem because "the finds at the site do not support this proposal." Hence, he equates Pharathon in 1Mac with the Valley of Pheretae/Paran in Josephus (War 4, 9, 4) & Perath in Jeremiah 13:4, & Parah in Joshua 18:23.

Earlier, Finkelstein listed the absence of Gibeah in Joshua 18:21-8 as evidence for it not being el-Ful; as for the possibility that "Gibeath" in verse 28 might be Gibeah, in a footnote he joins some other scholars who read it as "Gibeath Kiriath[-jearim]" (1 place) instead of "Gibeath, Kiriath" (2 places).

So instead of identifying the naturally high hill of el-Full with Gibeah, a name that means "hill" in Hebrew; he identifies it with Parah, which means "young cow" in Hebrew. (Right now I'm wondering what the Hebrew word for "bull" is ... probably a cognate of the Arabic name for the site, which means "mound of beans"...)

By the way, how could the writer of 1Mac know more about the archeological content at el-Ful, & hence, be a more reliable source of its occupation & name than the writer of Joshua? Didn't both of those writers possess the evil thing that should not be: "strong theological inclinations"?

G.M. Grena

Newsflash: Another Redondo Collection!

2011-08-07T18:32:00.000-07:00

It's no big secret that I own an important collection of LMLK jar handles, & that I live in Redondo Beach, California.

When I began constructing the LMLK Research Website almost a decade ago, I decided to list mine in the Corpus page as simply a "private collection in Redondo Beach" rather than "The Grena collection". I thought it was a little confusing that Vaughn listed Steve Adler twice in his 1999 corpus, once by himself with 12 handles, & 17 others jointly (?) with William Stern; see also 2 seemingly redundant listings for L. Alexander Wolfe (which I took the liberty of combining into a single quantity).

Way back then, I anticipated somebody else in my family possibly acquiring some, in which case it would be easier to distinguish them by location. The chances of that happening were extremely remote, but far more likely than the possibility of somebody else in the relatively small town of Redondo acquiring any sort of collection worth dubbing "Redondo Collection".

Lo & behold 1951 Artesia Blvd, Redondo Beach:

G.M. Grena

Newsflash: Another "House of David" Inscription Found!

2011-07-24T14:43:00.000-07:00

Back in 2001 I was able to see the Tel Dan Stela (bearing the inscription "BYT DVD") in person at the Bowers Museum, located in Orange County, CA. It was there on loan from the Israel Museum along with some Dead Sea Scrolls to complement the main exhibition featuring paintings of David Roberts.

[Note: As the manager of my own archeological website, I can't resist mentioning the glaring error in The Israel Museum's stele page, where they render its translation according to the Arad "House of God" ostracon! As to this "matter", it is not "well"!]

Little did I know that just up the road in the city of Orange (4033 W Chapman Ave), another "House of DVD" inscription was on permanent display:

Apparently they have several copies, or possibly fragments, which are available for exhibition loans (rentals) or direct purchase (sales). I'll have to investigate...

G.M. Grena

20 Seconds with Ann Coulter

2011-07-02T18:47:00.000-07:00

Outspoken political commentator & popular author, Ann Coulter made a relatively rare public appearance last Thursday evening at the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda to sell some books (current price online is about $20; ticket price for this event including the book was $32). Local radio station KABC broadcasted from the Library live during the John Phillips talk-show from 6-10 PM (including a webcast).

I enjoy reading her weekly columns published on her website, but have never read any of her books since I rarely read any books for pleasure (unless they contain photos of broken jar-handles). Her latest publication piqued my interest though, when I heard that it highlights otherwise-intelligent people who hold contradictory beliefs (bringing to mind theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, & Judeo-Christian archeologists who believe in both God & "prehistoric" strata).

I arrived shortly before 5 PM, anticipating the usual freeway congestion. (Our roads are named "freeway", but like politically liberal people who claim to care about children while advocating abortion, the real meaning is "free-to-be-delayed-by-hours-along-the-way.") I didn't think I'd be able to get a parking space in the relatively small lot, but was surprised to see only about half the lot full. Likewise, only about a dozen people were lined up at the door.

This typifies the reason for America's decline, with the large number of people claiming to care about conservative values actually doing little to show support for them. Nowadays conservatism apparently means "Let's not exert any effort or cause any trouble." This especially indicts Orange County, which allegedly has a large conservative base. The place should've been packed. As I learned later, only about 750 attended. In fact I bought my ticket several days after the event had been announced, because as soon as it was announced, I assumed it would be sold out, so I didn't even bother checking till I heard that tickets were still available!

Why do I like Ms. Coulter so much? Is it because she's physically beautiful? No, there are plenty of beautiful women I can't stand. It's because she courageously defends her beliefs with logic, upholds them by her actions, & not only shows no fear when faced by the aforementioned people who hold contradictory beliefs, she actually enjoys the confrontation! As she said in response to a conservative attendee who complained about receiving hate-mail: "Hate-mail? That's a kick in the pants! That wakes me up in the morning!"

Oh, & though it should go without saying for any rational person, I enjoy hearing her give credit where it's due. When asked by another attendee, "Who was the most influential person in what made Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter?" she replied:

"Well, Jesus."

I established this blog to discuss royal/king things, so her answer makes this article qualified (Jesus being our supreme King), but just to be true to my rule, one of the radio hosts mentioned a former president (whom Ms. Coulter has written extensively about & against) as "king of brothels".

My main reason for attending was, if given the opportunity, to express to her in person how much it means to me for someone of her public stature to be stalwart against Evolutionism & atheists. That's something sorely lacking in pop culture, & should not be taken for granted, especially when so many conservative politicians stumble embarrassingly over questions about Evolution.

In a promotional interview earlier in the week, she said she'd be personalizing the autographs while greeting attendees during the breaks in the radio broadcast. So I gave some thought to what I would have her write, possibly something like "On behalf of the King" or "To the LMLK guy" or "To the author of Evolution Science", but I decided to just keep the personalization simple, & if I had the chance to speak to her, just express some specific heartfelt gratitude.

Since I was among the first dozen or so in line, I was able to choose a strategic seat in the very-long front row where it seemed obvious she'd be spending the most time. (The room was very wide, with the radio equipment on the side where we entered.) Not too long afterward, I noticed that as other people came in, they were carrying copies of "Demonic". I discovered that the staff had begun exchanging them for ticket stubs, so I left on my seat another book I had brought (to pass the time from 5-7 wisely), & went out to get one.

Upon returning to my seat, I noticed that these copies already bore a signature on the title page. At first I thought that maybe it was printed, but upon comparison with the people sitting next to me, it was indeed an original autograph. Alas, my hopes of meeting her seemed dashed, but as the room continued to fill, I was glad that so many people were attending that it was obvious Ms. Coulter would not have time to meet each of us & personalize the signatures.

Since I'm not a speed-reader, I read only the back cover & flap, then the index, which is extremely extensive. I like that! (Anyone who has either of my 2 books will know that.) I immediately zoomed in on one particular entry. In chapter 3, "Contradictions: You Can Lead a Mob to Water, but You Can't Make It Think", she lists 17 contradictory characteristics that define liberals including someone who:

"advocates unfettered scientific research and debate--but then, with no evidence, simply declares discussions about evolution and global warming closed"

The radio broadcast began at 6 PM, & we were informed that Ms. Coulter was attending a special reception (probably for the Nixon Foundation's donors), & would be out at 7. We were also told that she would be personalizing the books during the commercial breaks, & they distributed 3x5" index cards for us to write whatever we wanted her to sign. Woo hoo! Ms. Coulter entered promptly at 7 PM to an enthusiastic standing ovation. I had wondered how tall she was (she's usually seated during TV appearances), & had this question answered as she walked past me (about 5'8"-5'9"; with ~3" heels, she was about as tall as me at 5'11").

I was not able to find any photos on the Internet from the event except for the 3 I'm using here from John's KABC page. This next one represents the view I had fairly well (in some ways my view was much better than I can describe in public .... simply priceless):

As with most talk-shows, there were six several-minute breaks each hour. The ads for the event said she'd only be on from 7-9, but she ended up staying till 10. That afforded about 4,000 seconds for meeting the crowd (6x4x3x60). Since each signature lasted about 5-30 seconds, probably only about half the crowd took advantage of the opportunity to meet her. Go figure.

Because I was in the first row nearest her, I was about the 4th or 5th in line the first time she stepped to the small table adjacent to the radio show's platform. This had the advantage of her not being in too much of a rush, & in the most open/charming mood possible. That became more difficult for her as the evening progressed for 2 reasons:

1) The 4 elderly docents responsible for ushering the crowd & handling the books, were more concerned about being nice & proper than with accommodating Ms. Coulter. Another of the many qualities I adore about Ms. Coulter is her ability to make the most of her time, & her desire to meet everyone there. Unfortunately, some of the docents spent too much time explaining to people how to hold their index cards, thereby creating a "freeway traffic" jam that occasionally caused Ms. Coulter's table to be empty. She was ready to sign the next book, so instead of waiting for the docent to place it on the table, she proceeded to skirt the oblivious docent down the line till she encountered an open book, & just signed it. Every second mattered, a concept that undoubtedly baffled the docents.

2) Most of the people wanted to have their photo taken with Ms. Coulter, but they or the person accompanying them were not adept at using their camera. In one sense, this was funny; but in another, it ticked me off because they didn't have the courtesy of giving up after a few seconds, & getting out of the way so the line could keep moving. A docent should've been responsible for managing this situation, but instead the one who was there simply got in the way, serving no useful purpose. He abandoned his position midway through the evening.

Yet despite these annoying hindrances, Ms. Coulter greeted each person just as cheerfully as when you see her being introduced during her TV appearances. Big smile, & bubbly-but-humble "Thank you!" when complimented.

Here's what I recall about my brief-but-thrilling encounter:

[eye contact]

Me: I want to thank you so much for speaking against Evolutionism & atheists; it means so much to me.

Ann: Oh, you're welcome! Isn't it amazing? They never have an answer, do they?

[she looks down & begins signing]

Me: And thank you for visiting us tonight, especially in California, we are so not worthy of your presence...

[she finishes writing & looks up at me]

Ann: Oh yes you are! Thank you for having me here!

[on to the next fan]

G.M. Grena

Too Flawed to Be True

2011-06-12T15:51:00.000-07:00

Today I published my 3rd Science article on LMLK dotcom. All 3 were originally penned for The Bible & Interpretation, but all 3 were rejected by the editor(s) for one reason or another (note that my original draft of this new one did not contain the Evolutionism epilogue).

This one rebuts a pair of articles by a pair of scholars originally written nearly a decade ago. Their publication was delayed, then my study of them was delayed, then my rebuttal was delayed. For someone who makes no money off of this, that should be what one would expect...

G.M. Grena

Pots Taking Flight

2011-06-03T17:37:00.000-07:00

I wrote an article here on Saturday, June 9, 2007 titled "Buried Treasure & Treasured Bronze", which included Spurgeon's treatment of 1Chronicles 4:23. I've received this annual message from Heartlight.org each year on June 3rd since 2007. This is the first year I noticed & focused on Spurgeon's reference to a strange passage in Psalm 68:13:

"We, too, may be engaged in the most menial part of the Lord's work, but it is a great privilege to do anything for 'the king'; and therefore we will abide in our calling, hoping that, 'although we have lien among the pots, yet shall [we] be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.'"

It seemed odd that I had not noticed this before, especially with it mentioning dove wings. Modern Bibles have a significantly different version though (the KJV's "pots" simply followed 16th-century versions based on Coverdale's seminal work):

NKJV: "Though you lie down among the sheepfolds/saddlebags..."

NLV: "When you lie down among the sheep..."

Rotherham: "Though ye rest between the folds..."

Beck: "Some of you lingered among the sheepfolds..."

TEV: "(Why did some of you stay among the sheep pens on the day of battle?)"

Knox: "...and you, all the while, resting quiet among the sheep-folds!"

TNIV: "Even while you sleep among the sheep pens..."

CEV: "And for those who stayed back to guard the sheep..."

Douay: "If you sleep among the midst of lots..."

Fenton: "Though you have lain on the dung..."

Young: "Though ye do lie between two boundaries..."

Lamsa: "Though you sleep among thorns..."

NIV: "Even while you sleep among the campfires..."

NWT: "Although you men kept lying between the camp ash heaps..."

About 2-dozen other versions I consulted render it "sheepfolds" like the NKJV (based on the 1885 RV). The ETR, Moffatt, & TLB omit it completely! The NAB includes a candid margin note:

"The Hebrew text of these verses is very obscure."

It turns out that this plural Hebrew word (SPTYM 8240) appears only twice, here & in Ezekiel 40:43 describing the place where sacrifices were prepared:

NKJV: "Inside were hooks, a handbreadth wide, fastened all around; & the flesh of the sacrifices was on the tables."

KJV: "And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering."

Furthermore, the word translated as "sheep" over a hundred other times in the OT ($AN 6629) in no way resembles this one (notice that all 3 root letters are different).

Pots are very different objects from hooks, & both of those are very different from sheepfolds (& the other educated guesses by scholarly translators ranging from ashes to thorns to fire to dung). Strong's concordance candidly declares this word to be "meaning doubtful" (not that the word SPTYM means "doubtful", but that nobody knows for sure what it meant). This is why I argue against people who promote the nonsensical Biblical Inerrancy doctrine (though I argue for the ultimate authority of God's Message, found primarily in the Bible).

Strong's translation for 8240's root verb (SPT 8239) seems a little more certain meaning "to set, ordain, establish, or bring". It's very interesting that this word appears 5 times in just 4 verses, but with 2 direct associations to pottery:

"And Elisha came again to Gilgal; and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him; and he said unto his servant, 'Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets.'"--2Kings 4:38

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death."--Psalms 22:15

"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us."--Isaiah 26:12

"And utter a parable unto the rebellious house, and say unto them, 'Thus saith the Lord GOD: "Set on a pot, set it on, and also pour water into it..."'"--Ezekiel 24:3

Instead of translating SPTYM as the aforementioned diverse objects, I'm wondering why it's not simply something like "establishments". Here are my paraphrased versions:

"Within [the stone tables] were establishments [probably recessed areas/ledges where objects could be placed], a handbreadth wide, prepared all around; & the flesh of the sacrifices was on the tables."

"Though you reside among the establishments [i.e., things connected to the ground like buildings that remain stationary on Earth], yet you will be like the wings of a dove covered with silver, & her feathers with yellow gold [i.e., things connected to aircraft destined for Heaven]."

So now we can clearly see this verse as being unfolded by Paul in the NT along with so many other OT types/shadows fulfilled by Christ:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy [like clay pots], such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."--1Corinthians 15:47-9

"But God--who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us--even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."--Ephesians 2:4-6

G.M. Grena

BARony

2011-05-08T10:39:00.000-07:00

BARony = BAR Irony. In the current issue (May/June 2011, vol. 37, #3) Hershel Shanks, the editor, appropriately accuses a popular demonic TV show of "unethical & irresponsible reporting." (Like as if it's a shocking revelation that liberal journalists lack objective standards.) He asked the show's demonic producers for an unpublished transcript of an Egyptian jeweler who allegedly forged artifacts for Oded Golan (p. 6 in his First Person editorial entitled "The Lion & the Flea", currently available online).

He at least received a reply from the demonic producers denying his request.

Ironically, on p. 12 of the same issue, the following request/denial appeared under the title "No Deal!":

"I would be pleased to make a generous donation after you publish my letter of November 30, 2010.
Richard C. Gern
St. Germain, Wisconsin"

"Sorry. You cannot buy your way into our pages.--Ed."

So a couple of weeks ago I wrote to BAR, requesting Gern's letter (i.e., his "unpublished transcript"), offering to publish it for free online. After all, I understand the problem of not being able to publish every letter a magazine dept. receives in response to its content.

Although I hold out hope that I might eventually receive a courtesy reply at least acknowledging my request even if it is formally denied, I could no longer resist the urge to counter the editor's claim that people cannot buy their way into BAR, if for no other reason simply to inform potential advertisers who might want to boost BAR's budget.

I call as my first of three witnesses the same issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Opposite the obituary of esteemed scholar (& LMLK VIP), Anson Rainey on p. 16 appears a half-page color ad for a lawn mower. My 2nd witness is a full-page color ad for a cell phone (p. 18). My 3rd witness is another full-page color ad for shoes (p. 21).

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."--Deuteronomy 19:15

For those not acquainted with the publishing industry, these types of non-Biblical, non-archeological advertisers regularly buy their way into every single issue of BAR. I know this firsthand, because in 2003 I bought my way into BAR, placing ads containing Biblical & archaeological content (p. 14 of vol. 29, #6; p. 62 of vol. 30, #1; you can see both plus a 3rd, unpublished one at LMLK dotcom).

So I'd like to now extend the offer to Richard Gern publicly, or if anybody knows him, I'd be glad to publish his letter for the benefit of those who are interested in what he wanted to say in BAR. It must've been important to him to have offered to pay for it to be published, & it must've been disturbing enough for BAR's editor to reject the donation. That makes me curious.

I suspect that Gern's proposed donation was substantially beneath the minimum level for small ads in BAR.

G.M. Grena

Hezekiah Quarter in Hebron

2011-04-16T17:37:00.000-07:00

The Spring 2011 (Adar 5771) issue of the Hebron Now & Forever newsletter contains the following teaser under the heading Hezekiah Quarter:

"The general plan, which commenced years ago, is to build 32 residential housing units. This plan is currently being promoted at the Ministry of Housing, and includes the construction plans from start to finish; this means we can begin searching for a contractor whenever the present political constraints are lifted."

The entire newsletter is currently available online in PDF format at this link.

Not likely it would ever happen, but that would be cool to be able to say I live in the Hezekiah Quarter of Hebron!

G.M. Grena

Hello Helios

2011-04-05T22:20:00.000-07:00

Todd Bolen brought a sensational article by Nick Pryer to my attention:

"Is this the first ever portrait of Jesus?..."

"The image is eerily familiar: a bearded young man with flowing curly hair. After lying for nearly 2,000 years hidden in a cave in the Holy Land, the fine detail is difficult to determine. But in a certain light it is not difficult to interpret the marks around the figure’s brow as a crown of thorns. The extraordinary picture of one of the recently discovered hoard of up to 70 lead codices – booklets – found in a cave in the hills overlooking the Sea of Galilee is one reason Bible historians are clamouring to get their hands on the ancient artefacts. If genuine, this could be the first-ever portrait of Jesus Christ, possibly even created in the lifetime of those who knew him."

Here's a crop of the image:

The first thing I thought of when I saw this picture, was the common image of Helios on coins of Rhodes I've been studying for several years in preparation for my LMLK vol. 2 book since it's related to LMLK 2-winged icons. Here are some samples that you can compare for yourself:

Those are rays of light, not a crown of thorns! Helios did not die for our sins!

Robert Deutsch posted a completely independent message on ANE-2 earlier today thoroughly deflating this fraudulent artifact, which he appropriately described as a "chimera".

UPDATE 4-16-2011:
This week I learned that 3 days before I posted the above photos, William J. Hamblin had already posted similar photos on his blog. Personally I think the first of my photos is closer to the one used on the lead plate, but the big-picture pont is that several people detected this forgery independently. And I should clarify that even though Robert Deutsch related the lead-plate image to that of Alexander the Great's coins, these Helios coins used those earlier images of Alexander to represent their false god, Helios. So now you know why he's been named "the Great"--he's been associated with false gods & the real One!

G.M. Grena

Muhammad the False Prophet, Jesus the True King

2011-04-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

[Alternate spellings for search engines: Koran, Kuran, Qoran, Quran, Qur'an, Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammad, Muhammed, Moslem, Muslim, Surah, Sura.]

"Then High above all be Allah, the True King. And be not in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation is completed to you, and say: 'My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.'"--Surah 20:114

Back in September of 2009, I posted a comment about coinage on BiblePlaces.com demonstrating the inaccurate/unreliable nature of the alleged divine revelation in the Quran. Recently I've been listening to a series of lectures by the late Christian philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen (available at Covenant Media Foundation), one of which dealt with irrational belief systems such as Islam. He gave several examples similar to what you'll find on websites such as Islam Watch & CARM, all of which are actually refutable in one way or another since they're subject to interpretation/translation.

One example is that Suras 19:28 & 66:12 obviously confuse Mary the mother of Jesus with Mirian (same name in Hebrew) the sister of Aaron (brother of Moses), daughter of Imran (Amran). However, it could possibly be that Allah was figuratively equating the OT Miriam & NT Mary the same way Jesus declared that John the Baptist had fulfilled the Malachi 4:5 prophecy that Elijah would return (Matthew 11:14 & 17:12). Note that even the Baptist himself didn't realize he was fulfilling the role of Elijah in John 1:21. None of these are true logical contradictions because of their complex, multi-faceted contexts.

But the Koran's own challenge is truly irrational:

"Or [disbelievers] say, '[Muhammad] forged it.' Say: 'Bring you then ten forged Surahs like unto it, & call whomsoever you can, other than Allah, if you speak the truth!'"--Surah 11:13

In other words, "Prove I'm a liar by demonstrating you yourself are an equally good or better liar." That's what I'd expect from a violent, self-serving liar like Muhammad. Notice that it doesn't say prove your point using logic (Isaiah 1:18), or prove your point by presenting an internally consistent revelation from God (Acts 17:2-3). This is a clue that Muhammad never studied Aristotle!

A favorite rescuing device Muslims use to defend their irrational religion is, "If one passage seems to contradict another, the later one supersedes the earlier one."

"Whatever a verse do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?"--Surah 2:106

Read, "Look at me, I'm a god, I can make a rock so big I can't lift it, & then actually lift it!"

"And when We change a verse in place of another, & Allah knows the best of what He sends down, [disbelievers] say: 'You are a forger!' Nay, but most of them know not."--Surah 16:101

That certainly makes it difficult to disprove any verse, or to demonstrate any contradictions! Read, "I'm a god, the great & powerful Oz-Allah! I know how to contradict myself & get away with it because I'm so much smarter than you, silly disbelievers!"

But as I was going through my Quran to check on some of the problems mentioned by Dr. Bahnsen, I discovered what I believe to be an irrefutable proof that Muhammad was a false prophet representing a false god named Allah. And although I only did a cursory search of the Internet, I did not see this one presented elsewhere (feel free to comment on this blog pointing to other people who have published this proof). Since I've debunked evolutionists on so many other occasions at so many venues (as have far more intelligent & knowledgeable people than me), I thought it would be fun to also formally debunk Islam herewith (especially after noticing "the True King" claim in 20:114)!

"Do [people who disobey Muhammad] not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions."--Surah 4:82

[Note to LMLK fans: An easy way to remember this verse if you ever converse with a Muslim, is the chronological order of royal-jar classifications with LMLKs being 484, then Rosettes 483, then this 4:82.]

This translation is from my 1994 Arabic/English edition by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (both from Islamic University, Saudi Arabia). Other translators use "Much discrepancy", "much incongruity", & "many a discrepancy". The words in Arabic convey an emphasized plural, but I'm not literate in Arabic, so if someone with the appropriate academic credentials would like to argue that it's actually singular, be my guest in the Comments section.

Remember that 4:82 was supposedly spoken by the almighty creator of the universe. Now if I were a god, I would challenge all comers to show a single contradiction in my revelation. Because let's face it, if my prophet's 6,000+ verses contained 1 contradiction, I'd be embarrassed for having created a universe subject to The Law of Non-contradiction.

Besides, how many are "much"? 600? 60? 6? Muslims may think they can escape this problem, because if one critic demonstrates there are 7 contradictions, the Muslim can say, "Oh, what Allah really meant was that it would have to contain 8 contradictions to be false", & so on if a challenger shows it has 61 or any actual number. In reality, the Koran does contain numerous problems, but Surah 4:82 represents nonsensical babble if it can't be tied to a specific quantity greater than 1 (at least 2).

But my argument below is irrefutable because it won't matter what number a Muslim picks! Pick 2 or 2-trillion for all I care! The only thing Surah 4:82 prohibits you from choosing is 0 or 1 ... & "one" is the only correct quantity for satisfying the claim of how many contradictions a false revelation "would surely" contain if it had any!

Muhammad may have been eloquent & knowledgeable, but he was not a philosopher, or apparently Allah was not acquainted with the laws of logic in this universe. You see, it only takes a single contradiction to invalidate any proposition, not "much contradictions" (plural)! Why? Because from a single teeny-weeny contradiction, you can claim anything!

Allah & Muhammad are trapped, & there are no subsequent surahs to save them!

For example, let's pick any obviously false claim "C" that any rational person would agree to: "Hitler loved Jews." (If you don't like this example, feel free to assert any claim you're confident any rational person would agree is false, such as 1+2=5 or Earth is flat, etc.)

Now let's allow a single little contradiction. (For those of you who have a difficult time thinking abstractly, this may be painful, but bear in mind that this is only a test to demonstrate my earlier point.)

A) Muhammad was a prophet.

and

B) Muhammad was not a prophet.

(Again, I could've made any assertion "A", then performed a copy/paste operation & inserted a "not" after "was" in the 2nd one.)

Non-contradiction can be stated algebraically as, "It's impossible to hold to A and not-A simultaneously in the same context." In my example above, "A and B" is untrue (a contradiction) because "B" is "not-A" (assuming "Muhammad" & "prophet" mean the exact same thing in both statements, neither a different person nor a different kind of prophet).

Now after allowing that single itsy-bitsy contradiction to actually be true, we're going to return to the real world & use simple addition (a legal law of math) to form a Boolean disjunctive, "A or C". We're allowed to do that because as long as one variable is true & the other false, the overall statement will always be true. In this case we know what "A" is (using "B"), so we'll be able to rationally test "C" to determine its validity (imagine a devout Muslim making the following statement):

"Either Muhammad was a prophet or Hitler loved Jews."

Given our single contradiction "B" that Muhammad was not a prophet (imagine a Christian pointing this out to the Muslim who agreed to the contradiction), we are logically obligated to agree that Hitler loved Jews (C). But the Muslim doesn't like that conclusion, so we test "C" using "B" (imagine a devout Christian making this statement):

"Either Muhammad was not a prophet or Hitler loved Jews."

Again, the way we test the claim's validity is by using our agreed-upon contradiction (A) that Muhammad was a prophet (imagine the Muslim reminding us of this stipulation), therefore Hitler loved Jews (C).

This form of argument is named a Disjunctive Syllogism. Here's a quick review:

A is true by stipulation.
B is true by stipulation.
(A and B are not actually true because B is not-A.)
A or C is true.
B or C is true.
Therefore C is true (despite the fact that we know C is false).

Everything is perfectly logical there except that we illegally allowed "A and B" to be true. In reality we cannot legally state "A or C is true" and "B or C is true" unless we already know that "B" is not "not-A" (i.e., that "A" is true on its own merit & "B" is true on its own merit, both conditions existing simultaneously in the same context).

We both know C isn't true, but that's where the entire discussion breaks down because conversation becomes meaningless when a single contradiction is allowed. If any of the above confused you, use this less-controversial real-world example:

A) Red apples are red.
B) Green (i.e., non-red) apples are not red.

Either red apples are red, or Hitler loved Jews.
Either green apples are not red, or Hitler loved Jews.

Analyze this syllogism by saying, "Since red apples are red, & green apples are not red, therefore Hitler did not love Jews."

Likewise, "Since Muhammad was a prophet, & Muhammad was not a prophet, therefore Hitler loved Jews."

Putting aside whether Muhammad was or wasn't a prophet, we can see that a single contradiction invalidates any argument. Any rational person would have to wonder why Muhammad's deity would idiotically brag that a false revelation "would surely" have to contain "much contradictions" or "many a discrepancy" rather than a single one. Oh, I know, it's B-cause Muhammad was an arrogant A-hole!

Let's reduce it to absurdity: If someone invented a false revelation full of multiple contradictions, Allah would be obligated to say, "Well okay, so that verse is a real contradiction, but that doesn't disprove the revelation since there have to be more contradictions."

Uh, no Mr. Allah, there would only need to be one. You can come out from behind that curtain now, we're not in a Kansas-movie anymore.

But it gets even worse for the devout-but-deceitful Muslim... Actually, a false revelation would not have to contain any contradictions, & it could still be false!

For example, it could be purely arbitrary. Here's a fake revelation I just dreamed up: "There's a god named is ZSMH. ZSMH expects people to do something. People who don't do something will be punished by ZSMH; people who obey will be rewarded by ZSMH." This is an utterly false revelation, & yet it contains zero contradictions. It cannot be tested or falsified because it's so vague & ambiguous (note that the famous FSM satire "embrace[s] contradictions").

Surah 4:82 is thoroughly falsified because it only allows for 2 or more contradictions & requires them, yet I demonstrated that a false revelation requires only 1 or 0 contradictions. (Of course it might contain more, as the Qur'an obviously does, which is why Muhammad included the silly "abrogation" clauses, probably in an attempt to cover his guilty conscience.)

By the way, Aristotle's thoughts were published & circulated centuries before Muhammad was born; & Arabs began using the concept of "zero" way before Muhammad faked the Qur'an, so there's no excuse for him not to have known any of this.

Another false creed is Atheism: "I do not believe God exists because nobody has demonstrated to me that God exists." Again, no contradictions present, but the trick here is that they avoid defining "demonstrate", or define it in a safe way that their opponents can't satisfy. A ludicrous example would be, "I'll believe your god exists if this glass of water changes into wine right now."

The way to handle arbitrariness & ambiguity is with a specific, complex supposition such as Christianity, which is internally consistent, with falsifiable claims, supported by complementary evidence experienced in our world. It's the only religion that actually meets these requirements. What atheists wish God would do is irrelevant; they're living in God's world, not vice versa. Most atheists refuse to grasp/acknowledge this concept. That's their problem, not God's.

Before concluding, I'd like to emphasize that I don't hate Muslims, atheists, or evolutionists (I used to be one before I became a "free thinker"!), nor do I intentionally belittle them for not knowing they're wrong. I belittle their beliefs, & hope they'll pause long enough while attempting to refute me for their mind to open to the possibility that they're wrong, & re-evaluate the basis of their beliefs. It's in that moment of contemplation that the Holy Spirit of the Christian God might perform open-"heart" surgery on them. If they reject the truth, & cannot correct any error in my reasoning, they earn the titles of "fool", "liar", & other colloquial synonyms authorized in the Holy Bible by God.

If my method is unclear or offensive, please consider Dr. Bahnsen's presentation of the Transcendental Proof of the Christian God's existence. This line of reasoning has been published in a variety of ways by a bunch of scholars & apologists before him & after he died in 1995, but I think he explained it best, so here are links to the first & last clips of a 5-hour video series he taught back in the summer of 1991:

Here's a link to what is known as the Principle of Explosion on Wikipedia, & how to prove that "1=2" by a Duke University professor.

As for Muhammad, the true test of prophets can only be performed on their predictions (Deuteronomy 18:22). In the Old Testament, all prophets made short-term & long-term predictions for obvious reasons. Anyone can make a prediction, & as time goes by without it being fulfilled, the false prophet can simply say they have to wait longer.

The problem is that time will eventually run out. With the above demonstration of Allah's ignorance of the importance of a single contradiction, the game's over for Muhammad, & the crown comes off Allah.

"And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, 'Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints.'"--Revelation 15:3

G.M. Grena

Hebron Cave Roof Caves In

2011-01-30T10:01:00.000-08:00

As reported today (Shevat 25, 5771, 1/30/2011) by David Wilder:

"I know it may seem difficult to fathom, but there are certain elements of life in Hebron that have nothing to do with politics. At least, they shouldn't. ...

"During the latest dig [at Tel Hebron], in the late 1990s, archeologist Emmanuel Eisenberg uncovered 2,700 year old 'lemelech' ('to the King') seals, with the word Hebron, in ancient Hebrew, inscribed on them. ...

"Such a site, anywhere else in the world, would be classified as a national treasure, and related to appropriately. In other words, the government would invest funds to beautify the area and insure its well-being, while encouraging tens and hundreds of thousands of people to visit each year. ...

"But what do people see when they arrive at Machpela? Climbing the stairs and entering this massive 2,000 year old structure, visitors find themselves standing under a canvas awning in the building's mains courtyard. Not a roof, rather a tarpaulin. This covering, a poor attempt to protect visitors and worshipers from the elements, hasn't been cleaned in years. A filthy, water-creased tent-like structure adorns the second holiest place to the Jewish people in all the world.

"In one word, this can be described as disgusting. An additional word is disgraceful. Is this the [way] to commemorate our nation's founders: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah? ...

"A few weeks ago, when finally on Shabbat, thank G-d, rain began to fall, water dripped down from the canvas covering onto a Torah scroll. The Torah reading was stopped and the scroll immediately moved. Last night, as a result of heavy winds and rain, the roof finally caved in, falling to the ground, leaving a gaping hole, and a great view of the sky above. And rain falling on worshipers' heads.

"Isn't it time to stop playing politics with our national treasures and bring an end to such humiliation?! This solution is not to replace the old canvas with a new one. The time has finally come to take the giant step and authorize a real roof atop Ma’arat HaMachpela."

Amen.
G.M. Grena

Ancient Contribution Jars

2010-12-30T15:30:00.000-08:00

[Foreword: The title of this blog should be, "How I spent my year-end vacation week when I had ten-million other things to do." But it's been fun, & there are still 3 whole days left to take care of all the other stuff. ("Blessed be the LORD, who daily loadeth us..."--Psalm 68:19) This work will undoubtedly (I hope) comprise a new page in LMLK vol. 2, so someday it will have been worthwhile. Note also that at this time, Maeir has a related article in press, which I will probably review separately next year. I have no intention of changing the content below, since it documents the original version of the Plus-mark map on the LMLK Research site.]

In JAOS 130.1, Aren Maeir made the most comprehensive presentation of incised-handle cooking pots (IHCPs) to date. Though a variety of symbols appear on Israelite jars, pre- and post-fired, by far the most numerous are of an "X" or "+" shape, identical in construction with the last letter of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, Tau (variously transliterated as Tav, Taw, or Tawv, which evolved into the familiar Tau in the Greek language, equivalent with our English "T" or "t"). Some archeological reports refer to it as a "cross".

Maeir focuses on the pre-fired cooking-pot Taus, and provides Albright's 1932 publication as an early reference, but the landmark 1902 work by Bliss and Macalister provided examples from the Shephelah as well, describing them as "nail marks". Here is a photo of a rare, intact, but unprovenanced IHCP from the antiquities market (presently unknown location):

Maeir also illustrates the first known map showing 10 sites in Israel where they have been found. When announcing his JAOS article on his Gath blog, Maeir mentioned a new specimen found this year at Gath/Safi (where he directs excavations), which adds to the Bliss/Macalister handles found at Tell es-Safi and Tell Zakariya.

I thought it was odd to see Gibeon and Tell en-Nasbeh absent from his map, considering that a tremendous quantity of other marked jar handles had been excavated there, so I searched the excavation reports, and indeed found specimens not just there, but at several other sites doubling the 10 listed by Maeir. Since my time and resources are limited, I decided to make a new map for the LMLK Research website where it can be updated as new discoveries are reported (the one shown here is intentionally lo-res to simply preserve the general appearance of my original version).

Numerous other handles throughout Israel contain Plus-mark incisions made after the jar had been fired, so I thought it would be helpful to show them on the same map, and distinguish them (AFPM = after-firing Plus mark) from the pre-fired ones on Judean cooking pots. Nor do they always appear on handles, but sometimes on the jar's body, or the underside of a dish, or on a tool; but I decided to restrict my presentation to those appearing on visible regions of jars, since those were obviously intended to convey important meaning.

While studying the Gibeah publications, I noticed an AFPM on the same handle as a Rosette stamp (type III.A.12). In my LMLK vol. 1 book (Grena 2004 pp. 99-100), I defined these as "Plus marks", citing several specimens. On the Rosette handle, the mark is located a few inches away from the stamp, but on each of the LMLK handles, it overlaps the stamp. There's a possibility that these facts bear some significance, but there are still too few to speculate with confidence.

During my research this past week, I was shocked to see how many of the so-called "thumbprint" handles have been excavated at various sites. Yosef Garfinkel shared some photos of the prodigious assortment excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa, & personally, I believe they were impressed with a device (as part of a cultic bureaucratic ritual involving a wand or scepter such as the well-known type that bear pomegranates), not with fingers, but I've never examined any of them in person, so I'll defer to Hoo-Goo Kang at The Hebrew University (of Jerusalem) who will be publishing a landmark article on these handles.

I struggled with developing a typology by which to formally classify all these marks:

A (after/post fired)
B (before/pre fired)

B (body)
H (handle)
R (rim)
U (underside)

S (sharp-gouge blade)
W (wide-gouge chisel)

B (bowl)
C (cup)
D (dish)
J (juglet or jar w/ 1 handle)
P (pot, cooking)
S (storage jar w/ >1 handle)
T (tool or implement)

# (checkerboard)
^ (Gimel or Gamma)
| (stroke)
+ (plus)
8 (double-axe or hourglass)
k (3-branch Kaf)
O (thumbprint or round device)
w (Shin)

But due to lack of details in the published reports, & lack of time on my part, I decided to just lump them into the 2 aforementioned groups (the specific ones Maeir studied [IHCPs], & all the other jars & handles bearing post-fired incisions [AFPMs]). Besides, some of the incisions are so strange & inconsistent that they would defy any standardized classification.

Maeir made a keen observation that when the IHCPs are found on intact vessels, they almost always appear on only 1 of the 2 handles; the notable exception being one where the jar also bore an incised name. Had this specimen appeared on the antiquities market instead of being from a scientific excavation, it would've raised suspicions, so we should all be grateful for the timely work archeologists do in the field. I did not see any additional specimens of this unusual configuration in any of the other ones I found.

The JAOS article's bibliography lists 182 publications (!) because Maeir doesn't simply list the handles, but delves into their meaning, & the various interpretations made by scholars over the past century. My own bibliography below provides additional sources for handles found at other sites. Note that I did not visit any libraries for this research; the info I gleaned came from snippets of publications I obtained specifically for my LMLK research. So even though I expanded Maeir's findings, please don't interpret my results as being conclusive or exhaustive. There are many more to be found, & not just at the 4 high-probability sites shown on my map (Ekron, Hazor, Kedesh, & Megiddo).

To give you a feel for how these artifacts have been reported in the archeological publications, I'd like to quote from some of them as I document the places & quantities shown on the new map:

Azekah & Gath via Bliss 1902: I only have their plate 56.54 (unknown quantity found at Zakariya & Safi), & 56.57 & 56.61 (unknown quantity found only at Zakariya), not their text (if there was any).

Beit Mirsim via Albright 1932: "Cooking pots of EI II found in our site often have a cross (tau) incised on one of the handles. This incised tau is found in approximately one-fourth of the cooking pots, either entire or in sherds, and perhaps was the factory mark of a town which manufactured them.[p. 81] ... In fig. 15 are collected specimens of incised potters' marks and potters' stamps. The former consist of a pentagram, a double-axe, an archaic teth (or a wheel), and a tau. The first three are all rare; the fourth is extremely common on the handles of cooking pots. The other stamps are in part well-known from the mounds of the Shephelah. It may be possible some day to apportion these potters' marks among the various places attached to the potters' guilds. ... One wonders whether there may not have been two rival groups of potters' guilds, one employing variations on the rosette theme, the other variations on the tau and samek themes.[p. 88]"

Maeir 2010: "Although the IHCP is quite common in the archaeological assemblages from late Iron Age Judah, Albright's claim that these markings appear on approximately one-quarter of the cooking pots is exaggerated, based on the number of published examples of marked and unmarked sundry late Iron Age cooking pots from various Judahite sites (note, e.g., Shoham [2000: 110], who publishes 163 such cooking pot handles among the hundreds of cooking pots from Shiloh’s excavation in the City of David).[p. 46]" (Note: Some of my present quantities shown on my corpus are bare minimums since I have not studied all the published reports, particularly for Jerusalem where the actual total may already be way into the hundreds, as Maeir alludes.)

Beth Shemesh via Grant 1929, p. 206: "No. 3 Mar. 12. Jar Handle. With mark; dark gray, scratched after firing; surf. x. E." The crude AFPM drawing is on p. 213, labeled as City Debris. AASOR 38 references "AS IV, Pl. LXIV:27.", which I do not have a copy of, but I'm assuming it's an IHCP since that was the discussion context of AASOR 38. (Grant also reports a "cross scratched on [bowl] base" on pp. 131, 135.)

Beth Zur via Sellers 1968 p. 67: "The tau handle example illustrated, Fig. 19:9 (Stratum III, Reg. No. II.3.14 500, Pl. 32a:11, reddish brown, few grits, fairly coarse levigation, brittle), is from a mixed context, but one example was found in Stratum III and all marked handles belonged to the rilled rim type. Since comparable tau handles were found at Tell Beit Mirsim and 'Ain Shems, this could have been the factory mark of the town where they were manufactured, as Albright suggested in 1931. The factory was probably in southern Palestine, perhaps at one of these three sites." See also Pl. 32a.11 (500), 32a.12 (736).

Chephirah via Vriezen 1975, which is in German: "Auf zwei Henkeln, einem von einem Krug und einem von einem Kochtopf, ist eine Topfermarke in den noch feuchten Ton eingeritzt worden; auBerdem wurden auf zwei Scherben eingeritzte Linien gefunden.[pp. 143 & 146]" My rough translation is, "On 2 handles, one of a jug, & one of a cooking-pot, a potter's mark was scratched in the still-wet clay; also 2 incised-line fragments were found." Tafel 15D shows a single IHCP handle, so this is the only one I'm listing on my map & corpus. I'll seek clarification from Dr. Vriezen on the other specimens. If there is a pre-fired plus on a large storage-jar handle, it would be unique as far as I know.

Ein Gev via Mazar et al. 1964 shows 2 distinct, non-overlapping plus marks on the side of a 2-handled jar with painted bands in Fig. 7:8 (Pl. 9F not so clearly), "Jar, pink clay, white and grey, large and small grits, two potters marks, Reg. No. 76/1, No. 8 Locus 11, Stratum III."

Ekron via Gittlen 1985, which is a limited-edition (150 copies) typeset pre-publication signed by the VIP excavators, Seymour Gitin & Trude Dothan. As such, it contains no pottery illustrations, but 2 interesting entries: "MC No. 22, Bucket No. IIISE.29.5, Locus 29001, 7/10/84, Obj. No. 190, potter's marked handle [pp. 214 & 225]. MC No. 91, Bucket No. IIISE.16.64, Locus 16010, 7/30/84, Obj. No. 237, handle with potter's mark. [pp. 208 & 222]" Naveh 1958 Plate 23.C (cf. p. 98) shows some pre- & post-fired incised handles, but no IHCPs or AFPMs per se. One resembles a plus due to the handle's formation, intersected by a pre-fired incision, but it doesn't appear to be a "+" incision. Maybe the other pre-fired Chephirah handle is like this too.

Gibeah via Sinclair 1960: "Do these 'marks' on the handles of the jars have any particular significance? I. Mendelsohn says that 'the various forms of rosette, pentagram, wheel, cross and the letter tau cannot be regarded as ownership marks . . . , but these potter's marks are trade marks, each design belonging to a particular guild of potters.' However, the rosette design which, on the basis of the Gibeah evidence is contemporary with the third class of royal stamps, appears to 'have had royal significance in Judah at this time, as it undoubtedly had possessed in Hittite Asia Minor about 1300 B.C.' and 'it originally seems to have symbolized the Hittite belief that the great king was the incarnation of the sun-god.'[p. 33; he's quoting Mendelsohn & Albright from BASOR 80 p. 21]" Plate 16:B.3,5 are IHCPs; 16:B.9 is the aforementioned AFPM Rosette handle. Lapp 1981 shows "Period 3 Cooking Pots from Silo 36" in Plate 41.1-10, though I could only identify full IHCP Plus marks in 1-3, 5, 8-9. #4 is a small fragment showing only part of a single stroke; #6 & #7 aren't clear enough to discern, though #7 appears to contain a thumbprint depression, possibly along with a Plus mark, so that one definitely deserves further scrutiny, as it could be another rare, unique exception to the rule.

Gibeon via Pritchard 1963: AFPMs on the handle of 1-handled jug (Fig. 26.19; "Field No. P1576, Jug, imitation base-ring ware; buff ware; rim damaged"), & on a 1-handled dipper juglet below the handle where it joins the jar's body (Fig. 41.26; "Plan No. 17, Field No. P3070, Buff ware with cream slip; potter's mark on shoulder. (Class B.1.a. = Piriform Juglet B. Vestigial Ring Base, 1. Marked Shoulder, a. Single Handle"). Though Pritchard 1964 doesn't describe the firing, Fig. 47: 8, 9 clearly show the IHCP style: "Iron Age Houses in Area 17. The pottery from both loci [118 & 121] was uniformly Iron II. Cooking pots (Fig. 47: 8, 9) are of the deep type and have a potter's mark incised on the handle; both probably had a second handle. However, Fig. 47: 14 is definitely a type with one handle [pp. 50-1]. Pottery and Stone Jar from Houses in Area 17, Fig. 47.8, Field No. P1011, Loc. 118, Portion of rim, neck and body of cooking pot; dark brown ware, gray core, white and crystalline grits. Fig. 47.9, Field No. P1015, Loc. 118, Portion of rim, neck and body of cooking pot; reddish-brown ware, light gray core, with white and crystalline grits." And yours truly, Grena 2004, illustrated the extremely rare AFPM on a G2T handle (Fig. 57, described on pp. 99-100; note that I was not given permission to publish its photo online until after I had begun working on my book).

Hazor via Stern 1978 footnote 20: "Hazor II, Pl. LXXVI:1-6; Hazor III-IV, Pls. CLXXXVII:14-18; CLXXXIX:27; CCXXIV:16-9; CCCLXI:3-4, 8-15" See my Mevorakh notes for context. Since I don't have those volumes here, someone else will have to check on their relevance.

Ira IHCPs via Maeir, 2 AFPM via Aharoni 1958 Pl. 16, which also shows 3 smaller handles, but they are too fragmentary & fuzzy to classify. Two of them might be redundant to the ones referenced by Maeir (via Freud 1999 figs. 6.66:7; 6.74:14).

Jerusalem IHCPs via Maeir (I'm adding 2 from the unpublished excavations mentioned in his footnote #2), along with 5 AFPMs from Nadelman 1989 photos 184-8, which are handle fragments, & 1 more from a 2-handled storage jar in pl. 5:1. Also Wilson 1871 for the first Plus mark ever published, which included this remark by Chester, "Another vase-handle, found in the same place, and apparently of the same ware, bears as a potter's mark a cross within a semicircular mark. This cross, it is needless to remark, has no relation to the sign of salvation.[p. 474]" (Note that the same AFPM drawing appears on pp. 152 & 474 of the London edition, & pp. 118 & 369 of the New York edition.) And the 2nd ever (I think) AFPM published by Clermont-Ganneau 1899, "A great number of thick amphora handles, some of them with various marks engraved upon them, both before and after baking, and several bottoms of terra-cotta vases, some bearing cruciform marks. [p. 292 fig. B]" Note that figs. C, D, & E on p. 293 are the bottom of a cup, a tile fragment, & a flat-bottom vase fragment (none of which are being counted as an AFPM).

Kedesh via Stern 1978 footnote 20: "Qudeis, p. 111, Fig. 11:2-3, 5-9; Pl. 3:8-12" See my Mevorakh notes for context. Since I don't have that publication here, someone else will have to check on their relevance.

Lachish IHCPs via Maeir (via Zimhoni 2004), along with AFPMs on 1 of a 4-handled jar fragment (fig. 26.10:3), 1 of a 2-handled jar fragment (fig. 26.9:9), & 2 handle fragments from Aharoni 1975 (Pls. 35:6, 35:8, 45:8, 46:13; cf. p. 17; note that the 4 plates are redundant drawings of the same 2 handles), the famous H4L handle from Ussishkin 1983 (fig. 28:2; pl. 43:1), & an undescribed but clear AFPM on the side of the jar used to illustrate Type 487 by Tufnell 1953 (pl. 95:487).

Megiddo via Stern 1978 footnote 20: "Megiddo I, Pls. 41-42" See my Mevorakh notes for context. Since I don't have that publication here, someone else will have to check on their relevance. (No, these redundant remarks are not a copy/paste error; I'm just being scientific!)

Mesad Hashavyahu via Fantalkin 2001: "On the lower portion of a Samian amphora handle, here Type SA 2, near the place where it is joined to the body, a (+) mark was incised when the vessel's clay was leather hard (Figs. 33:3*; 42:10).[p. 112]"

Mevorakh via Stern 1978: "Potters' marks were quite common on jar handles of stratum VII. They appear to be of two types: incisions in the form of a cross (Pl. 36:5-8) or simply thumb prints (Pl. 36:1-4). Similar potters' marks on jar handles or on the surface of jars and even on clay stoppers are often found in strata from the whole of the Iron age. Here again, for some reason, they are more numerous in the northern sites, where they appear in a great number of variations [footnote 20] (and see above the discussion of incised [Shin] marks on cooking pots).[pp. 51-2]" I've already mentioned the importance of footnote 20 in the descriptions above for Hazor, Kedesh, & Megiddo, but it also referenced Qasile, which I had a copy of; it proved to be fruitful in that instance, so that's why I'm optimistic about the other 3 sites! For Mevorakh, 2 AFPMs appear on handle fragments (Fig. 16:13-4; Pl. 36:5-6), but there may be 2 others; one on a handle (Fig. 16:12, Pl. 36:7), & another on the upper joint between the handle & body (Pl. 36:8).

Nasbeh via McCown 1947: "Marks scratched on pottery, which appear in great variety especially on handles, must have served as signs of ownership. Their forms are partially illustrated in the accompanying figure (no. 64). It has seemed to various archaeologists that they should have some chronological value, but at TN, in any case, no evidence appears which would serve to apportion any to definite chronological periods.[pp. 252-3]" At least 4 IHCPs appear in fig. 64:1-4, possibly 2 others in 5-6, though each of those seems to include an additional stroke immediately adjacent ("+/" & "X|") so I'm not counting those since these are not-entirely reliable drawings. I can't cross-reference those to pl. 48:1017 & 48:1028 in Wampler 1947 ("Handles also were frequently marked, finger impressions and crosses being most common.[p. 31]"), so in lieu of counting 5-6, I'm adding these 2 into the Nasbeh total since they're definitely IHCPs. Here are the lengthy descriptions of each: "Plate 48:1017, AC15X, x17. Med hard; med orange, core med red brown; only an occ. very fine scintillating particle; wet-smoothed; incised cross on handle; out. slightly smoke blackened. D. ca. 195 mm. Rim and handle: X-1; I-6. Rim X-1. Plate 48:1028, R. 440, AF19, I, x18. Med hard; lt brown orange, core med brown; an occ. very fine white grit; wet-smoothed; smoke blackened; handle bears crudely incised cross. D. ca. 200 mm. Rim and handle: I-1.[p. 160]" Again, note that each description says they bear an incised cross, but none are shown on the pot drawings.

Qasile via Maisler 1950-51 (p. 203; Fig. 12F), & Ortiz 2006 (p. 605; Fig. 9:4), each showing an AFPM on 1 handle of a 2-handled storage jar.

Rabud via Kochavi 1974: "The Israelite Period, Trench B, Stratum B2, Fig. 8:4) Jug handle with potter's mark, Reg. No. 48/1, Locus 103, Reddish-brown clay, grey core, well fired, white small grits. Fig. 8:5) Jug handle with potter's mark, Reg. No. 26/1, Locus 107, Brown clay, well fired, white small grits.[pp. 16-7]"

Ramat Rahel via Maeir, along with 2 AFPMs in Aharoni 1964: one on a Byzantine storage-jar body below the handle (fig. 24:7), & another on a Byzantine handle fragment (fig. 8:13).

Timnah via Maeir; no additions by me.

Tumuli via Amiran 1958, which shows AFPMs on 2 handle fragments from Tumulus #5 (Fig. 14:10 & 14:12), & an IHCP handle fragment from #6 (Fig. 15:19; Pl. 40F): "Potter's marks on the handles of cooking pots--such as in Pl. 40F; Fig. 15:19--have been described by Albright as characteristic of level A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim."

So there you have it, as it stands for now pending further research.

Maeir's main point is that these particular marks on these particular jars at this particular time (the mid-late Judean monarchy) denoted Teruma, or Heave Offering in "...a vessel type whose use was restricted to carrying cooked foods as an offering...[p. 50]" (though he cautiously adds that the Teruma "can also have a non-cultic character as well, such as for taxation.[p. 48, reiterated in footnote 24]"

Stern's 1978 comment, however, about the incisions being more numerous in the northern sites stands in complete contrast to the impression given to casual readers by Maeir, who primarily focused on IHCPs, which are indeed a Judean phenomenon (Maeir remarks briefly on QDS ["holy"] inscriptions on p. 52, describing them as rare & few). Nonetheless, you have to wonder if the Plus mark had the same heave-offering significance on all jars. After all, Levites were stationed throughout Israel (Joshua 21), not just in Jerusalem, not even just in Judah, to receive offerings (Numbers 18). Furthermore, we already know that Hezekiah didn't reign over the northern tribes, yet significant quantities of LMLK handles have been found at several sites way north of Judah.

So I would like to be among the first to agree with Maeir. For several years I've leaned against the consensus opinions that LMLKs represented either short-term military supplies during a few years prior to the Assyrian attack on Judah, or that they represented a government taxation over a longer period at the beginning of Hezekiah's reign, diminishing during Manasseh's co-regency. In both cases, the referenced "king" is interpreted as a human governor, or the human government.

Now I prefer to believe that these IHCP jars indicated a more specific offering (primarily cooked/delivered to the place of worship), while LMLKs with reference to God as the divine King of kings (as I've stated elsewhere ad nauseam; e.g., Grena 2004 pp. 347-86) stored the main tithes mostly of uncooked commodities that accumulated throughout the year. Of course, we may never find evidence of markings on animals; some perishable system must have been employed. The AFPMs might have been used less stringently for special occasions (vows or holy/consecrated/dedicated things). So this scheme seems to fit Maeir's title text:

"They brought in the contribution (TRUME=IHCPs?), & the tithe (MOSR=LMLKs?), & the holy things (QDSYM=AFPMs?) faithfully..."--2Chronicles 31:12

Maeir also mentions several vessels from Kuntillet 'Ajrud with 1- or 2-letter inscriptions (pp. 52-3) that have been interpreted as abbreviations for sacrifice ("QR" for QRBN) & tithe ("Y" for the Hebrew number 10). In footnote 32, he offers an interpretation of a third abbreviation as "high quality" (following Z. Zevit) with "A" for the first Hebrew letter or number 1, or an Aramaic measurement (following G. Driver), ARDB. However, another important offering mentioned in 2Chronicles 31:5 is the firstfruits (RASYT), & if the letter Yod could indicate "tenth", then maybe the letter Alef could indicate "first[fruit]".

On pp. 53-4, Maeir explains the IHCPs as "cultural artifacts", external data supporting the belief that Priestly & Holiness Code texts in the Old Testament may have pre-exilic, Iron Age origins (a belief that runs counter to many critical, mainstream scholars who see this portion of the Bible as an imaginative, post-exilic composition, instead of being based on information written by Moses). I agree emphatically, & up to this point I would have liked to have been the author of Maeir's article so that I could take credit for the painstaking research he did, & for all his keen insight elsewhere.

In footnote 35, however, Maeir emphasizes that "well-dated archaeological and extrabiblical historical correlates are to be preferred to internal biblical literary considerations. Attempts to date texts that derive from secure archaeological contexts, such as the Ketef Hinnom amulets, based on biblical criteria fly in the face of sound reasoning. ... [E]pigraphic materials from secure and well-dated archaeological contexts are the paramount foundation for dating epigraphic materials in general; similarly, firmly dated archaeological materials are nulli secundus for the dating of biblical materials."

I certainly would not have made such a statement about "sound reasoning". Like a ship drifting helplessly on a sea of data, it is absurd to ignore the Bible when interpreting artifacts or history. Without the Judeo-Christian Bible's presentation of the Creation & Flood, you have no chronological anchor.

Maeir overlooks the numerous assumptions undergirding his phrases "well-dated" & "firmly dated" used repetitively. Sound reasoning must be entirely consistent, & such is not the case with conventional chronology, which views the universe appearing from nothing billions of years ago, to life on Earth appearing spontaneously, unguided, then slowly evolving randomly over more billions of years, leading to apelike animals, then humans wandering aimlessly for millions of years, & then suddenly beginning to record historical events only several thousand years ago. Such beliefs are illogical, "fly[ing] in the face" of demonstrable scientific laws.

Sound reasoning begins with a belief in the creation of the universe recorded in Genesis 1:1, which was initially a "very good" world (1:31), was corrupted by the first humans (Gen. 3) only several thousand years ago (Gen. 5 & 11), who were restored spiritually by a Savior (as foretold in Isaiah 53:5, & fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ in John 19:34). Sound reasoning is impossible apart from a belief that the same God who made the eons upholds all things, as recorded in Hebrews 1:2-3. To deny this revelation is to be either dishonest or unscientific, neither of which is sound reasoning. No other religion (atheistic evolutionism nor theistic evolutionism) or worldview philosophy can withstand rational scrutiny as can the message preserved in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

So we can believe with confidence that during Hezekiah's reign, the Israelites brought in the contribution, & the tithe, & the holy things faithfully (i.e., according to God's instructions given to, & recorded by, Moses), even though we don't have any way of knowing yet if those particular containers were marked (or possibly during a new system instituted after the events described in 2Chronicles 31, the first year of his reign); however, the aforementioned marks certainly complement the text.

As the late, well-respected archeologist Avraham Biran said once in a radio interview (with Helga Abraham in 1993; TBTS #408), "...I never doubted the story in the Bible, & we do not need archeological investigation or archeological research to confirm what is written in the Bible. It so happens you have a historical record in the Bible. Now you have a historical record in archeology. I put the 2 together. ... [Archeology] complements the story of the Biblical account."

G.M. Grena

************
Bibliography
************

Aharoni, Y. 1958. The Negeb of Judah. Israel Exploration Journal vol. 8 #1.

Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Rahel: Seasons 1961 and 1962. Rome: Universita degli Studi di Roma.

Aharoni, Yohanan. 1975. Investigations at Lachish, The sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers Inc.

Albright, W. F. 1932. The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, I. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12.

Amiran, Ruth. 1958. The Tumuli West of Jerusalem: Survey and Excavations, 1953. Israel Exploration Journal vol. 8 #4.

Bliss, Frederick Jones and R. A. Stewart Macalister. 1902. Excavations in Palestine During the Years 1898-1900. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. 1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873-1874, Vol. I. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Fantalkin, Alexander. March 2001. Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University vol. 28 #1.

Freud, L. 1999. Pottery: 2. The Iron Age. In Tel ?Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. Beit-Arieh. Pp. 189–289. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Gittlen, Barry M. 1985. Tel Miqne-Ekron, Report of the 1984 Excavations, field III SE. Jerusalem: Tel Miqne-Ekron Project Office.

Grant, Elihu. 1929. Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. Haverford: Biblical and Kindred Studies.

Grena, G.M. 2004. LMLK--A Mystery Belonging to the King vol. 1. Redondo Beach: 4000 Years of Writing History.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1974. Khirbet Rabud = Debir. Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University vol. 1 #1.

Lapp, Nancy L. 1981. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 in The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. 45. Cambridge: The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Maeir, Aren M. 2010. "And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully" (2 Chron. 31:12): On the Meaning and Function of the Late Iron Age Judahite "Incised Handle Cooking Pots." JAOS 130/1: 43-62.

Maisler, B. 1950-51. The Excavations at Tell Qasile, Preliminary Report (part 3). Israel Exploration Journal vol. 1 #4.

Mazar, B., A. Biran, M. Dothan, I. Dunayevsky. 1964. 'Ein Gev: Excavations in 1961. Israel Exploration Journal vol. 14 #1-2.

McCown, Chester Charlton. 1947. Tell En-Nasbeh I, Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkeley & New Haven: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, and The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Nadelman, Y. 1989. Hebrew Inscriptions, Seal Impressions, and Markings of the Iron Age II. In Excavations on the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, ed E. Mazar and B. Mazar. Pp. 123–24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Naveh, J. 1958. Khirbat al-Muqanna'--Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal vol. 8 #2.

Ortiz, Steven M. 2006. Does the "Low Chronology" Work? In “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Pp. 587–611. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Pritchard, James B. 1963. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia: The University Museum, The University of Pennsylvania.

Pritchard, James B. 1964. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia: The University Museum, The University of Pennsylvania.

Sellers, Ovid R., Robert W. Funk, John L. McKenzie, Paul and Nancy Lapp. 1968. The 1957 Excavation at Beth-Zur in The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vol. XXXVIII. Cambridge: The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Shoham, Y. 2000. Incised Handles. In Inscriptions: Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 6, ed. D. Ariel. Pp. 109–36. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Sinclair, Lawrence A. 1960. An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Ful) in The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research vols. XXXIV-XXXV for 1954-1956. New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Stern, Ephraim. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976) Part One: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period in Qedem 9. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Tufnell, Olga. 1953. Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir) The Iron Age. London: University Press

Ussishkin, David. 1983. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University vol. 10 #2.

Vriezen, Karel J. H. 1975. Hirbet Kefire - eine Oberflachenuntersuchung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins band 91, heft 1.

Wampler, Joseph Carson. 1947. Tell En-Nasbeh II, The Pottery. Berkeley & New Haven: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, and The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Wilson, Capt., Capt. Warren, and Greville J. Chester. 1871. The Recovery of Jerusalem. London: Richard Bentley

Zimhoni, O. 2004. The Pottery of Levels III and II. In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Pp. 1789–1906. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Book Rules

2010-12-26T14:05:00.000-08:00

Today while thumbing through some books in my LMLK library, a note on an old checkout card made me giggle, so I thought I'd share it here. It's in a 1906 copy of "Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer" by R.A. Stewart Macalister, formerly in General Theological Library, formerly located in Boston, now in Portland:

Book Rules

Old books are loaned for 3 weeks, new books for 2 weeks. Three-week books may be renewed for 3 weeks, two-week books for 1 week, upon application in person or by postal card.

Two days allowed on books sent to a distance.

Assessment for delay, two cents a day each book.

Books returned by mail must have THICK and secure wrappings.

Times have changed a little, but not much as it turns out. Here's the current version on their website:

Borrowing By Mail
Members of the former General Theological Library may borrow up to four books per request by mail. Although the Library pays postage to the borrower, contributions to offset the Library's postage costs are welcome. The borrower pays for the return postage. The regular loan period is five weeks. Books for which there is no waiting list may be renewed upon request by telephone or mail. Some reference books are kept in the Library for reference use and hence are not available for loan.

Procedures for Mailing Books
A return mailing label is provided with each book sent out. Borrowers can mail a book back in the same mailer in which it was received if the package was not damaged, and they are entitled to use LIBRARY RATE, which is cheaper than BOOK RATE.

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Library Rate, but there is!

G.M. Grena

LiLo & Lance

2010-10-03T20:29:00.000-07:00

Dear Ms. Lohan,

You seem to be digging a hole to bury yourself in, with your use of drugs (illegal & legal), plus reckless driving. About a week ago, you ended up in jail again, & people all over the place continue making fun of you for being a typical dumb, beautiful young woman. Look at these result counts from Google.com:

"lindsay lohan" jokes OR humor: 3,050,000

"lindsay lohan" dumb: 1,320,000

"lindsay lohan" dumb beautiful: 289,000

You should be ashamed of yourself, but let's look on the bright side: at least you're not a scholar, scientist, or academician. There are thousands of those who are equally irresponsible in their own way. Most of your flings only hurt you. On rare occasions, like when you're driving, you greatly endanger others, but even then, it would only be a few people involved. However, when the aforementioned class of people say or do something stupid, they can hurt others intellectually. That's because less-educated/less-informed people tend to rely on what those "smart" people teach them. And they often end up being just as stupid. Garbage in, garbage out.

Last month I exposed the logical fallacies of Dr. Robert Cargill, a highly educated & well-respected man among his peers, who not only doesn't believe there ever was a global flood on Earth, but felt compelled earlier this year to attempt to prove it. His failure reminded me of your recent drug-test failure! I thought, "Surely he can't believe he's going to get away with those flimsy arguments; surely she can't believe she can do drugs & pass her drug test."

This month, in a roundabout way while researching the ancient site of Gezer, I saw another example of someone-who-should-know-better doing something flagrantly stupid.

H. Darrell Lance, currently Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Interpretation at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, has authored several prominent articles on a subject I study, LMLK jar-handle stamps. In Biblical Archaeologist vol. 30 #2 (May 1967) he wrote:

"Now from the biblical and archaeological evidence we know that Gezer was part of the kingdom of Israel and later part of the Assyrian Empire. What then are these handles doing at Gezer? There is at least a partial explanation. We know that in the latter part of the 7th century which saw the collapse of Assyrian power, King Josiah of Judah took control of much of what had been the northern kingdom of Israel, including Gezer and its surrounding territory."

[Note: The final reference to Gezer in the Bible occurs in 1Kings 9:17 during the reign of Solomon, a couple of centuries prior to Josiah's reign. Gezer was a city assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21:21 & 1Chronicles 6:67), so it's no big surprise to find copious quantities of LMLK handles there, if, as I believe, they were tithe-containers.]

Lance's best-known contribution was "Royal Stamps & the Kingdom of Josiah" in The Harvard Theological Review vol. 64 #2-3 (April-July 1971). Here are some excerpts:

"[T]he script of the class 3 [LMLK] stamps, although basically a conservative lapidary, shows at more than one point a development beyond the Siloam script. The late-seventh-century date traditionally ascribed to these forms is fully justified. ... With the hardness of heart peculiar to archaeologists, we may say that we are most fortunate that [Lachish] Level III was violently destroyed. ... Anyone who wishes to date Level III to 701 B.C. must push the entire lmlk series before that date, an alternative which is clearly unacceptable. ... Clearly, then, the presence of the lmlk stamps at Gezer cannot be explained if they are dated in the early seventh century. ... [A.D. TUSHINGHAM's] interpretation of the meaning of the stamps as proclaiming the reunited monarchy is not possible, it seems to me, in view of the total absence of the impressions from the north."

Less than a decade later, he was proven wrong on several counts, first by renewed excavations at Lachish. He was correct in believing both types of icons (all 3 of Diringer's classes) dated to the same period; he was simply wrong on the period (Josiah's instead of Hezekiah's). What he eloquently argued as being "clearly unacceptable" in 1971, has now been accepted by all mainstream scholars in this field (including Lance himself in the prestigious 1992 Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 6 under "Stamps, Royal Jar Handle")!

Furthermore, it is easy to explain all classes of LMLK seals at Gezer in light of King Hezekiah's worship reformation, coupled with Sennacherib's failure to conquer Jerusalem, thereby allowing Judeans to resettle Shephelah sites like Gezer.

Last but not least, as of today more than 12 handles have been found at 4 sites in northern Israel (with more on the way that haven't been published yet). A reunited monarchy, for at least a brief period of time in a limited way (worship), is possible!

Don't get me wrong, Ms. Lohan; I don't fault Dr. Lance for any of these premature speculations, but you'd think that as years went by, he would've become less rigid in his opinion, & more thorough in his research. Not so! Last week I found an MP3 of a "Christian Faith and the LGBT Experience" lecture he delivered earlier this year (2010-3-14) demonstrating the contrary. Several flaws in logic leaped out at me. He relied on a book by Daniel A. Helminiak, but I'm holding him responsible for his lecture, speaking as an authority figure to people seeking (as Dennis Prager would say) "clarity".

According to the promotional abstract for his lecture, "Dr. Lance skillfully provided an overview of homosexuality, setting the context; then proceeded to debunk the 'clobber text' [sic] from the Old and New Testaments. Dr. Lance reviewed the forty or so years of scholarship with these text [sic]; thus providing those gathered with a clear understanding of the use and abuse of the Bible to limit the voice and leadership of LGBT person [sic] in society and faith community."

Clear understanding? We'll see about that. It's disturbing to find so many grammatical problems on an educational institution's website in a single paragraph, but not nearly as disturbing as the lecture itself! The MP3 spans 85:28, but the first 8 minutes contain the introduction, & the last 12 include the closing plus background noise (someone forgot to turn the recording off). His lecture lasted about 57 minutes, with another 9 minutes of Q&A. My quotations below will show the approximate point in minutes:seconds relative to the MP3's beginning.

During the introduction, John Wilkinson, the pastor of
3rd Presbyterian Church, said that the needs of the Church & our community are different now than they were decades ago. So right away you can see that the lecture's context is how we should interpret the Bible to accommodate ourselves, rather than to learn about God & God's ways.

Perspective makes a big difference.

For you, Ms. Lohan, an analogy would be, "What can these drugs & parties do for me?" rather than "What can I do to use my popular influence to help people, lead them to a better relationship with God, & make society better overall?" Our judicial system is probably going to point you in that direction with community service, but it can never force you to want to (as Laura Schlessinger would say) "do the right thing."

True change-for-the-better must come from within, & Jesus Christ is the only way to a permanent solution. All other routes will be short-term, & ultimately fail. But a rational defense of that declaration may be a bit much for you to absorb at this point, so let's move on to Lance's lecture since sexuality is a subject you have extensive experience with.

[11:55] "What does the Bible say about Homosexuality? Well, a strong case can be made for the argument that it says nothing at all. ... Because the concept of sexual orientation as a distinctive part of a person's inner identity, is a modern discovery. There is no word in Greek or Hebrew that meant what we mean by the word 'homosexuality'. [It] was invented in the late 19th century..."

I'm going to accept his point that we know of no Hebrew or Greek equivalents in ancient literature for "homosexuality", & also bypass his later discussion of the words "malakoi" & "arsenokoitai" in Paul's New Testament epistles. I can safely do that because Lance's main argument rests on logical fallacies.

First he demonstrates one known as a strawman argument. His subject concerns what the Bible says about Homosexuality, & instead of focusing exclusively on the act between 2 persons of the same gender, he parses the meaning to a modern psychological definition, so he can figuratively tear down this weak "man of straw" with ease.

[12:40] "The ideas of Heterosexual & Homosexual didn't exist before then, much less in Biblical times. In ancient times the distinction was not between Homosexual & Heterosexual, but between those who penetrate (the male), & who is penetrated (usually, but not always, the female)."

Then he explained 4 aspects of sexuality that operate independently:

Sexual Identity: What am I, a male or a female?

Sexual Roles: As a male or female, what do I do?

Sexual Orientation: To whom am I physically attracted, a male or a female?

Sexual Behavior: With whom do I copulate, a male or a female?

[19:45] "The best medical science says [Orientation] is determined very early, & is something over which we have no control. ... It's not a choice, it's not a preference, any more than being right- or left-handed is a choice."

I understand his point that we are born with innate orientations, but anybody with 2 functional hands can choose to use either one despite their orientation or natural disposition. This is known as self-control, a concept foreign to many wealthy, good-looking, spoiled brats who were not properly disciplined by their parents during their developmental years.

Bad parenting notwithstanding, you, Ms. Lohan, are still fully accountable to the judge in your case. If you did not have self-control, you would never have been able to obtain a driver's license. Likewise, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/TransWhatever people are fully accountable to God for their behavior irrespective of their biological orientation, just as Heterosexual people are. It's known as "choosing to act wisely". God gave us the right to live, but not the right to an obstacle-free life.

Adam & Eve had no biological obstacles & lived in a place full of pleasure, but they listened to bad advice, did something stupid, & forfeited their VIP status. Now we, their direct descendants, have genetic mutations & live in a dangerous world. Kind of like what would happen if you were no longer beautiful & wealthy; you'd have a tough time getting into exclusive clubs that cater to the beautiful & wealthy. The people you think are friends would no longer want to share their booze & cocaine with you. I know it's hard for you to imagine, but that's analogous to the world most of us are living in compared to the one Adam & Eve originally had.

[23:10] "Now the point of all of this is that the Bible never speaks to the issue of sexual orientation, only to sexual behavior."

Is it obligated to? Does it matter whether a murderer enjoys killing his/her victim? Does it matter whether the murderer hates the victim? Well, in our modern judicial system, it may affect the sentence, but it should not dictate the verdict.

Did the judge in your case, Ms. Lohan, care about whether you felt you needed the alcohol or cocaine? It didn't matter, did it? So let's see what the Bible records as God's opinion of homosexual behavior:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."--Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."--Leviticus 20:13

In case you're on drugs again as you're reading this, I'll clarify the translation: Males shall not lie on a bed [i.e., for the purpose of copulating] as they do with women. God detests it!

Now obviously one doesn't have to "lie on a bed" to have sex, but that was the general phrase to convey the general meaning of the commandment to reasonably intelligent men, who were then responsible to communicate it to everyone in their community. Likewise, people will not be able to argue that they did not violate 18:22/20:13 if they commit the act in a bathroom or kitchen or in a standing or seated position, something other than lying on a bed! And it makes no difference whether they were physically attracted to the person or not!

Analogy: Stabbing someone doesn't necessarily kill them; they die from a loss of blood several seconds or minutes later. But you would not be able to argue in a modern court (& certainly not in God's court) that you didn't actually murder somebody if you indeed stabbed them. It's sufficient to say, "Thou shalt not murder" one time, & it's a done deal. Rational people know what that commandment means.

Leviticus 18:22/20:13 records God's perspective, not mine, not yours, not some 19th-century psychologist's! Dr. Lance trivializes God's perspective, which probably springs from an erroneous belief that 18:22/20:13 was a commandment written by men for men, instead of being the word of God spoken to & recorded by Moses, so that all of God's people might learn God's ways.

[23:10] "The Bible never speaks to the issue of sexual orientation, only to sexual behavior, in other words, what they observed in the culture of their time. ... So a fair response to the question, 'What does the Bible say about Homosexuality?' would be, 'It says nothing.' So it's better, thus, to ask 'What does the Bible say about same-sex behavior?' And it does talk about that."

I highlighted his remark about what the Israelites observed. My version would be: The Bible speaks to the issue of sexual behavior because God's law teaches us God's commandments, irrespective of our biological/psychological orientation. In short, IT DOESN'T MATTER what your orientation is! This is God's world; it doesn't revolve around you!

Doesn't this make sense? How would a judge be able to rule on what a defendant's emotions were at the time of the alleged crime? Imagine what that would be like...

Thou shalt not murder, unless she like totally bothers you.

Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless it would be way cool to brag about at a party.

Thou shalt not steal, unless it makes you feel so hot ... you are the bomb!

Thou shalt not speak deceitfully, unless you're all like, honing your acting skills or whatever.

That sort of legal system would produce more chaos than justice, right? If you have problems comprehending such an outcome, Ms. Lohan, simply imagine the victim being somebody you deeply care about, including yourself ... or maybe your stupid friends who provide you with drugs. You wouldn't want to see them become the victims of injustice, would you?

Speaking of chaos, Dr. Lance gave a strange explanation of a well-known incident recorded in Genesis 19:

[31:05] "So Sodom & Gomorrah is about violent aggression by, what we would call, heterosexual males against the guests of Lot. ... The story has no bearing on the modern discussion of a loving, mutual relationship between 2 people of the same sex who are homosexually oriented."

How could he possibly know what their sexual orientation was?!?! This is the same man who on one hand argues that the Bible "says nothing" about sexual orientation, then the first time he references a specific Bible text, he defends his position by acting as though he knows the sexual orientation of the people! That's another logical fallacy known as begging the question. In other words, his remark begs us to question how he could possibly know that, since he hasn't offered any proof.

If the residents of Sodom & Gomorrah engaged in sins God considered exceptionally great (Genesis 18:20 & 19:13), including but not limited to homosexual behavior, it has significant bearing on whether modern people should engage in similar acts, or be proud of it, or pass laws to accommodate it. Whether those people have a loving, mutual relationship, or a carefree one-night-stand is irrelevant.

Next he looks at Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, which he relegates to a mere cultural purity code rather than a commandment of God. How could he do that? Simple: he ignored the context because he presumed the Bible was written by men who didn't know the 4 aspects of sexuality. Here's the opening & closing of chapter 18 that he omitted from his lecture:

"Ye shall do my judgments, and keep my ordinances, to walk therein; I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am the LORD."--Leviticus 18:4-5

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you, & the land is defiled; therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, & the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled); that the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein; I am the LORD your God."--Leviticus 18:24-30

Even if you don't believe those words came from God, they're in the Bible, & the purpose of the lecture was to examine the Bible's perspective on the subject. If those verses seemed rather long & repetitious, contrast them with this terse statement by Dr. Lance:

[24:20] "[Same-sex behavior] is not a burning issue as far as the Bible is concerned."

What a shame! I can't imagine a better qualification for being "a burning issue" than prompting God to rain fire & brimstone from Heaven upon those cities! But as incredible as his remark seems, he embarrasses himself even further:

[39:05] "It's never mentioned in the Gospels."

There were probably people in the audience who've never studied the Bible in depth, & Dr. Lance actually stood before them in a position of authority, & either lied to them deliberately, or unwittingly misled them (I don't know if he's "attracted" to deceitfulness, or if it's just his "behavior"). True, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality explicitly, but you're obligated to use your brain & rationally infer His position from statements He made about heterosexuality:

"Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female..."--Matthew 19:4

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."--Mark 10:6

Both verses record the same conversation about Genesis 1:27, with the context being Divorce granted by Moses:

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes ... then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife..."--Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Notice how unambiguous this passage is on marriage involving one man & one woman at a time. There is not the slightest hint of it involving 2 men or 2 women, because it follows God's earlier commandment against homosexual behavior in Leviticus, & the even-earlier commandment in Genesis 1:28 for us to "[b]e fruitful, & multiply", which is impossible to fulfill through homosexual behavior. Jesus emphasizes God's opinion by referencing Genesis 2:24 & elaborating on it:

"'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his [one] wife; & they two shall be one flesh.' So then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."--Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:6-9

And if that's not enough, Jesus mentions Sodom 6 times (on at least 2 occasions) in the Gospels. The context emphasizes that those citizens are going to be in big trouble on Judgment Day, though not necessarily the biggest trouble: people who reject Jesus.

If Jesus were indifferent toward sexual behavior, He had ample opportunity to say, "Oh, it doesn't matter if a man divorces his wife, or if a man marries a man, or a woman marries a donkey. It's not a burning issue. Just be nice, pretend you're a Christian & do whatever you want. You're all just a bunch of evolved apelike animals anyway!"

Isn't it amazing how Dr. Lance can know that the men of Sodom were heterosexuals, but ignore Jesus explicitly defending heterosexuality as God-ordained behavior, & using Sodomites as an example of people in serious trouble with God?

I'd expect that kind of lecture from a drugged-up actress, but not from a professor emeritus.

Homosexuality is absolutely bad. No exceptions. It's impossible to justify doing what God detests. But I can't conclude this letter to you, Ms. Lohan, leaving the impression that homosexuals (in behavior or orientation) are bad, sinful people, while heterosexuals are good, sinless people. We're all sinners, & all deserve eternal punishment for a multitude of offenses against God. If you get nothing else out of this message, please know that the Bible records God being against things like homosexuality & adultery, but forgiving repentant homosexuals & adulterers.

Christianity is about mercy & grace: not getting something we do deserve (eternal damnation), & getting something we don't deserve (eternal life). Those are gifts from Jesus Christ to us in exchange for our voluntary faithfulness to Him. God wants that really bad, because it's the one thing that God can't create.

You have a golden opportunity to use your fame, acting talent, & popularity for better or for worse. There will never be another Lindsay Dee Lohan (biologically & spiritually). The next time one of your false friends invites you to a party, please think on these things. I'm not going to advise you to avoid parties; actually, I'm going to encourage you to go, have a great time, & set a standard for people to admire by thinking on these things from the Bible, talking about them, & acting on them.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. ... Wisdom crieth aloud; she uttereth her voice in the streets: ... '[W]hoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be secure from fear of evil.'"--Proverbs 1:7,20,33

"For the LORD shall rise up ... and bring to pass His act, His strange act. Now therefore be ye not mockers..."--Isaiah 28:21-22

G.M. Grena

2 Bargains in 2 Weeks

2010-09-25T20:42:00.000-07:00

Several years ago, I obtained a copy of John Malcolm Russell's book,
"The Final Sack of Nineveh"; it had been referenced by someone writing about an Assyrian relief possibly depicting King Hezekiah standing "like a bird in a cage" in an otherwise-vacated Jerusalem. I don't recall what I paid for it, but it was probably ~$30 (because like most people, I simply can't buy everything I'd like to have). Current prices run from about $50-$100.

Along the way, I discovered that Russell had written 2 other books of interest to my own research, largely due to his firsthand excavation work at
"Sennacherib's 'Palace without Rival' at Nineveh"; in fact, that's the title of one of them (which I still don't have, but will eventually). Again, it runs from about $50-$100, as does the one I obtained last week, "Writing on the Wall".

In this one, Russell analyzes the differences in royal Assyrian palaces, specifically the location & types of inscriptions of these Assyrian kings:

Assurnasirpal II
Shalmaneser III
Adad-Nirari III
Tiglath-Pileser III
Sargon II
Sennacherib
Esarhaddon
Assurbanipal

Table 10.1 lists specimens found on Thresholds, Wall-Relief Text Registers, Colossi, Wall-Relief Epigraphs, & Slab Backs. He found a general evolution from the first 3 to the last 2. The only one Sennacherib's palace does not have are the Wall-Relief Text Registers. I was not aware that any of the wall reliefs had writing on the backs, so those were interesting to see. Russell provides excellent photos of the inscriptions, photos of the excavation sites, & transliterations+transcriptions. Russell's efforts result in an admirable, not-too-overly-technical book that I recommend highly.

Listed at $64.50, Eisenbrauns offers it for only $58.05, but a batch of them was recently listed by Powell's Bookstores, Chicago for a meager $9 (+$4 shipping in the USA)! More are still available, so get one while you can if Assyrian palace-inscriptions interest you. It arrived shrink-wrapped, in pristine condition. That, my friends, is a genuine bargain, rarely seen.

But it's not a rare book. Nor is "Gezer I", edited by William G. Dever, H. Darrell Lance, & G. Ernest Wright, still available from Eisenbrauns at the bargain price of $18 (plus shipping). What is truly rare though, is to find a copy of this important work for only $20 ... signed by all 3 primary authors!!! And all 13 large fold-out Plans & Sections are still in excellent condition too.

I'm planning to get the other Gezer excavation books to see if I can find any clues pertaining to the unpublished H2D & M2D hypothetically "late" handles found there, that were checked into the IAA inventory back in 1974 along with the published H4L at the conclusion of that excavation phase. I'm guessing that they were found in a disturbed context, but I'd like to be sure. The notes I obtained from the IAA provide some other minor clues that I did not have time to dig into while writing my recent BibleInterp article.

I was disappointed to discover the geographical glitch noted by Todd Bolen in a comment to the article, but it turns out to work in my favor (not Lipschits et al.'s) since it's one more indicator of Judah's economy recovering & resettling (albeit to a limited extent) in the devastated Shephelah.

Another minor typo I discovered is my parenthetical description of the type-classes:

IIb (2-winged icon, divided bottom-register inscription)
IIa (2-winged icon, undivided inscriptions)

It should've been:

IIb (2-winged icon, divided inscriptions)
IIa (2-winged icon, undivided bottom-register inscription)

D'oh! Still not nearly as embarrassing as Robert Cargill's fallacious Flood article (& BibleInterp itself for publishing it unchecked). My own rebuttal remains safe on top of the Rock. The One Who gladly gave His good life for my bad one...

G.M. Grena

Cargill SmackDown

2010-09-11T21:29:00.000-07:00

My biggest disappointment with my first book ("LMLK vol. 1"; Lv1) remains the numerous stupid typos I made. What a shock when they were first pointed out to me! My second disappointment, which I knew would be a bummer as soon as I decided to write the book, was that it was 100% guaranteed to eventually be outdated or superseded on certain things, & it definitely has been.

Despite this, I wrote my 2nd book ("Evolution Science") expecting it would only be valid for a year, & the odds of it containing numerous typos vastly exceeded that of Lv1. To my complete amazement, several years have elapsed, & not a single piece of content has been outdated or superseded, & I did not even notice any typos until this past month as I was preparing to layeth the smacketh down on Robert Cargill.

On p. 268 I misquoted a Genesis verse:

"8:5 Waters continued to subside until the chief mountains were visible (10th month, 10th day)."

The actual text is:

"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

I can see how I made the mistake, quickly viewing both appearances of "10th month", & missing the "first day" part.

I'm one of those people who has to think logically & determine a reason for everything. It's not enough to simply correct a typo; I have to learn why I made it, & do my best to prevent it from happening again.

I suppose that's why it bothers me when I see other people making the same poor interpretations of the Holy Bible, & I feel obligated to make an effort to help them understand the faults in their own position. Life ain't worth livin', if you ain't standing on THE ROCK.

If there's a mote in my eye, I hope someone else will be kind enough to remove it for me, even if I smack them around a little in the process.

Word of caution: Please be prepared to explain to me that the mote is in my eye, & the scientific reason why it needs to be removed!

If you want me to believe there was no worldwide flood...

Don't just appeal to authority!

Don't just appeal to common belief!

Don't just appeal to ridicule!

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! Dig up some evidence, & then ... JUST ... BRING ... IT ... ON!!!

G.M. Grena

Offering Jars--Fact or Fiction?

2010-08-08T20:02:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I checked my Amazon page for LMLK vol. 1, & noticed an intriguing recommendation in the auto-generated "Books on Related Topics" section:

"The Jar of David" by Katherine Sanborn

Published by Xulon Press in 2009, it's a 60-page children's story told by an 8-year-old boy named David living in Hebron during Solomon's reign. His uncle & friend's father are both potters, & we follow David on an adventure as his family travels to Jerusalem during the annual Festival of Booths.

I don't remember now which I discovered first, this book or the Potters of Hebron video (the subject of my previous blog entry), but it's like the stars were aligned or something! What an amazing coincidence!

The back-cover teaser floored me when I read it:

"Broken jar handle?" I asked, "How did you know it was a handle?"

Uncle answered, "There were impressions. These impressions were the kind they make on jars made especially for the Great Temple."

That's from Chapter 5, p. 38, as David's father recalls an unusual event he & "Uncle Dan" witnessed. Two robbers bumped into them, fleeing from a crime scene, causing them to drop a jar of loot--a very special offering jar from Solomon's Temple. The main plot focuses on David doing some interesting detective work, involving a princess visiting from a foreign land (1Kings 4:34), who lost a special gold ring.

Other outstanding snippets I enjoyed:

"I reached into the oven and pulled out the still warm jars, placing them on the shelf. ... Each had specific writing on the handles. I asked Joseph if he knew what it said. He rubbed his fingers on the inscription and exclaimed, ..." (p. 26)

"Do you still have the handle pieces?" (p. 39)

"We pushed more dirt aside to reveal a handle...with the same impression." (p. 44)

"Nervously, he took the broken jar handle pieces from his pocket, the ones he saved for so long." (p. 49)

"My father allowed me to carry one of the offering jars of grain." (p. 55)

The first 19 pages, where David introduces us to his family & friends, are available to read on the Google books website. Here's an alphabetical list:

Auntie Lydia
Ben (David's friend)
Beth (David's sister, age 3; Rebecca's twin)
Dad/Jonathan (David's father)
David (storyteller, age 8)
Jacob (Joseph's friend)
Joseph (David's older brother, age 12)
Mom/Miriam (David's mother)
Penny (David's pet goat)
Rebecca (David's sister, age 3; Beth's twin)
Ruben (Ben's father, a potter)
Ruthie (David's younger sister, age 6)
Uncle Dan (potter)

On pp. 52-3, Dan helps David make a 2-handled jar:

"Now..." Uncle bent down to get some more fresh clay, "The handles!" ... Together, we pushed them onto the sides of the jar. "One more thing, before we set it into the oven," he continued, "You want to make an impression, don't you?"

***

The back cover provides a brief bio of Mrs. Sanborn. You can imagine what a pleasant surprise it was for me to learn that she teaches a Sunday School class at a church only a few miles from where I live (Crenshaw Baptist Church)! I arranged to meet her today, & attend the morning service as her guest.

For me, this was the equivalent of David's adventure--getting to learn about the process that led to the book! In fact I even got to meet the boy whom she based the character of David on, her grandson (David is a pseudonym)!

As it turns out, she wasn't familiar with LMLK seals, which wasn't much of a shock since she didn't mention them explicitly in the book. And the jar photo on the cover is not a Type 484, but one provided by the publisher. I wonder if they smashed one just for this project?!?!

The idea for the book began several years ago when she lamented over the lack of decent Christian fiction books available for children. She decided to base the story around one of the annual Hebrew festivals, & learned about the seal impressions while reading books on ceramics, that mentioned Jewish artifacts.

One of the theories I emphasized in my book was that the seals marked 10% of the storage jars as part of a tithe-accounting system, but during Hezekiah's reign, not Solomon's. So I had to ask her how she happened to take the information from the ceramics book, & connect the jars to offerings brought to the Temple. She replied simply, "It's fiction!"

Chalk up another amazing coincidence!

But that wasn't the only one. During the worship service, led by Senior Pastor Kevin Leathers, when we came to the song just before the offering, Mrs. Sanborn leaned over & whispered with a surprised voice, "The song is The Potter's Hand! How about that!"

I'm running out of chalk!

G.M. Grena

Potters of Hebron

2010-07-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

About a week ago I discovered a film, originally produced back in 1976, now marketed by The Phoenix Learning Group, Inc.. They sell 2 versions of it, a short one (30 minutes), & a full-length one (advertised on their website & on the box as 53 minutes, but actually 43:10). Their website links to a 1:50 preview clip on YouTube. Here's their synopsis:

"A visual portrait of a Mediterranean pottery workshop, nestled in the Hebron Hills southeast of Jerusalem. Potters of Hebron focuses on the craft processes within the workshop where potters fashion the earthenware water jars, called zirs, that have been used since antiquity. Step by step we are led through the process until the craftsmen’s work is complete. The documentation of these contemporary and yet traditional craft techniques not only serves as a record of man’s artistic achievement, but also as evidence of a rapidly disappearing pre-industrial technology. Produced and directed by Robert Haber. Grade Levels: 7 to Adult"

This amazed me on several levels:

1) Of all the places in the world where they could've filmed a primitive pottery operation, they chose Hebron!

2) Of all the vessels they could've chosen for a demo, they showed the various stages of a zir, similar in overall shape to LMLK jars!

3) Although they skipped some steps in the process, they showed the pulling of handles, which look nearly identical to LMLK handles!

I particularly enjoyed the way they described the zir-process verbally, showed line-drawings of the cross-section of the various construction-stages, then showed the potter actually doing it! I will be tailoring these drawings for a chapter in my LMLK vol. 2 book, but for now I thought it would be fun to quote some narration snippets, & show a few screenshots for reference (since my book is still years away from publication).

Zir Making--A Ceramic Tradition

"The geographical situation & mild climate of the Hebron hills produce vegetables & fruits of a high standard. For centuries, grapes from this area have been prized throughout the Middle East. ... Out of the 8 pottery workshops in the valley, all the potters, with one exception, are members of a single clan (or 'hamula'), & have the same last name: Al-Fakhouri, which means 'potter'."

Note: Throughout the film, the narrator refers to the workers by their name, but in my abbreviated transcription below, I'm editing them into generic nouns & pronouns [in brackets] since I'm not sure how to spell them.

"Two types of clay are collected locally, & brought to the workshops: a red clay ('samaka'), which is high in iron, & a white clay ('kalaba'), which has a low mineral content. Each clay has its own unique properties, but when mixed together, these 2 clays make a good, even-textured material, suitable for the particular needs of these potters. 20 baskets of red clay, & 15 baskets of white clay, are thrown into the mixing tank."

"Two hours after the clay has soaked, it's become soft enough for [the potter] to mix the clay with his feet. At the same time, he feels for stones & other foreign debris, which must be removed. While churning the mixture with his feet, a scum forms on the surface. By the sense of touch alone, [he] is able to clear these impurities from the tank. [He] mixes the water vigorously so that the water is totally saturated with fine particles of clay. Grit & gravel, too heavy to mix with water, remain at the bottom."

"The clay-saturated water is then bucketed from the mixing tank into the settling tank, where the clay particles begin to settle out. When most of the mixture has been transferred into the settling tank, a passage is opened, which lets water back into the mixing tank, where the entire process is repeated. [He] can complete this process in about 2 hours. While he pauses for lunch, the mixing tank will be cleaned & refilled, so that he can repeat the process in the afternoon. It takes 7 days to fill the settling tank with fine-particled clay."

Note: One can't help but see the similarity between the process taking place in these tanks, & the remarkable pools excavated by Shimon Gibson at Kibbutz Tzuba (where he also discovered a cave he associates with John the Baptist).

"When the settling tank has been filled, approximately 50 baskets of sifted sand are added. The sand comes from Gaza on the Mediterranean coast. It serves 3 purposes:"

"First, it acts as filler to give body to the clay."

"Second, it inhibits excess shrinkage upon drying."

"And third, it serves to make the ware porous, which allows slow evaporation through the vessel wall, & keeps the contents cool."

Note: The synopsis described zirs as water bottles, but actually, it wouldn't make sense to build a porous vessel for storing water, though it would make sense if they're intended to store grains & vegetables. There's evidence that some LMLK jars were constructed to prevent such evaporation, while others did not.

"The sand is also spread on the floor of a 3rd tank, the drying tank. It acts as a separator between the wet clay, & the bottom of the tank, & allows easy removal of the clay after it's dried."

"When all the sand has been added, [they] bucket the mixture into the drying tank. During the hot summer season, it takes about 5 days for the water to evaporate, leaving a malleable clay. It's then brought inside the workshop."

"Before the clay can be used for making pots, it has to be prepared for a process called "wedging". The clay is first piled in a heap on the floor of the pottery. [He] spreads sand around the base of the pile so the clay can be easily removed after working. The purpose of wedging is to make a homogenous clay body, which is uniform in texture throughout. Midway through the process, 9-10 pounds of salt are added. The salt dissolves in the moist clay, so that after a pot has been fashioned, & as it dries, the salt is carried by the evaporating water to the surfaces. In the firing, this salt forms a fine, non-vitreous white layer. The final wedging, which prepares the clay for throwing, is done by machine. It's the only mechanical device employed in this pottery. This final wedging assures the homogeneity of each piece of clay, & removes any trapped air, which could cause the pot to explode during firing."

"The zir is made in 3 stages over a 5-day period."

"On the first day, a basic form of the zir is constructed, bottom up. The process takes about 3 minutes."

"After waiting one complete day for drying, the vessel is turned over, & placed on a support. The walls of the zir are now strong enough to allow further construction. This unique construction method is believed to be effective, & to take maximum advantage of the structural limitations of the clay. A ring of clay is separated from the thick base, now the top. It's turned over, & opened out into a flat plate, which is put on the side. The remainder of the clay is pulled up, & the walls are shaped. Next, the plate is inverted, & joined onto the top. It's again left to dry."

"On the 5th day, a piece of clay is shaped that will become the neck. By now, the walls of the pot are strong enough to take the weight of the neck. By a method known as "hatting", a roughly thrown bowl is inverted over the mouth of the pot, & carefully formed into the neck. After completion, handles are added to either side of the vessel."

Note: This was interesting to see that instead of merely fashioning the handle from a lump of clay, the potter cuts it from the top of a lump fashioned on the wheel:

Then he cuts it, straightens it, then "pulls" it:

From this long strip, he pinches off small sections for each handle, which he forms, then places in a neatly arranged pile:

An assistant attaches the handle to the jar, in the exact same manner seen on LMLK handles (by fingerprints):

"After slowly drying for a week inside the workshop, the completed zirs are brought outside. They're then stacked in the sun with other unfired pottery. The following day, they'll be loaded into the kiln."

"When zirs are being fired, they're the first vessels to be stacked into the kiln. They're carefully placed bottom-up with smaller wares stacked in between."

Firing begins in the morning, & lasts 6-7 hours. The film concludes on a low note:

"But the encroaching world of technology, & the attraction of young people away from such a rural environment, are leading to the decline of this deeply rooted industry. This film is a record of the creative tradition. But sadly, the signs are, that the making of hand-pottery in Hebron is a dying craft."

translations by Celine Dwek & Vartoug Basmadjia
sound by Avi Cohen
music by courtesy of Folkways & Baren Reiter
graphics by Moira Mackenzie
commentary by Frank Gillard
camera by Ilan Rosenberg
assistant camera by Mickey Benyiameny
edited by Roger Guertin
produced & directed by Robert Haber
copyright by Robert Haber, 1976

encroaching-technology blog by G.M. Grena

Fake LMLK Book!

2010-05-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

I've been building up a huge backlog of material to add to the LMLK Research site, as well as material to blog about, not the least of which involves 2 books published this year with my photos of LMLK handles, one is even on the book's cover. A third book by a European scholar with my seal drawings is expected to be published later this year.

While vol. 2 of my LMLK series remains years away, last night I happened to browse Amazon.com for "LMLK", just because it's a thrill to see my own book pop up in the listing, yet lo & behold, another LMLK book popped up!

"LMLK seal: Jerusalem, In situ, Sennacherib, Stamp seal, List of artifacts significant to the Bible, Phoenician alphabet"

Publisher: Alphascript Publishing (January 12, 2010)

Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor)

WTF? (Who's That Frederic?)

I've never heard of these people! "In Situ"? What kind of sub-title is that? And why did they use a modern stamp seal with a wooden handle for the cover image?

As the initial shock lessened, 3 quick clicks on the names of the editors reveals that they've been quite busy, apparently writing 39,792 such books!

It became clear when I zoomed in on a little bubble on the cover that nobody actually "wrote" or "edited" this book, but rather a software robot harvested text from Wikipedia articles:

"High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!"

Wow! You mean for only $49 + shipping I can receive an 80-page paperback printout of a web page that can be downloaded for free in less than 8 seconds? What a bargain!

G.M. Grena

Another Bond to the King

2010-04-11T10:48:00.000-07:00

There are no details on when this particular specimen was discovered; it could be from a previous excavation, or from the new clean-up effort. In any event, it's one of the best H2U stamps I've ever seen:

Coincidentally, a couple of weeks ago I became an honorary citizen of Hebron (via a small financial donation). I had planned to blog about it, but have been busy, plus the certificate they sent to me had my name misspelled.

The accompanying letters stated (among other things):

"Hebron, in Hebrew, is derived from the word meaning 'to bond,' and we are surely bonded together. However, we are also collectively linked in a chain, connecting us to generations past, while at the same time, preparing the future for generations to come. ... More than any other place, Hebron embodies the Jewish roots of the Land and State of Israel. We must all reinforce our religious, historical and personal connection to Hebron, lest we undermine the very foundations of our existence in any part of Eretz Yisrael."

G.M. Grena

Sun Of Righteousness

2010-03-29T21:19:00.000-07:00

Today's "Days of Praise" article from ICR was originally published on Aug 18, 1998 by its founder, Dr. Henry Morris. Here's a direct link to it on their website, but I'd like to cite interesting portions of it here:

[Malachi 4:2] is the very last of the numerous Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. ... The Sun of righteousness clearly refers to the coming Savior, for He will come "with healing in His wings." The sun does not have wings, of course, so many commentators think this word refers to the rays of the sun, with their life-sustaining energy. However, the Hebrew word means "wings," and nothing else. It is as though the sun is rising rapidly on great wings, dispelling the world’s darkness with its light, dispensing healing to its sin-sick soul. The Sun of righteousness, of course, can be none other than God Himself...

The 2-winged icon on LMLK seals easily resolves this dispute since it has both wings AND rays!

G.M. Grena

Mr. 484

2010-03-19T09:52:00.000-07:00

On this day in history (actually as of yesterday, March 18th, 2010), my post office box number is "484", my social security number contains "484", & now my eBay feedback rating is (temporarily) "484"!

G.M. Grena

Royal Riddle

2010-03-10T22:08:00.000-08:00

I can't resist posting this "inside joke" for those of you who know about the big, king-related event in my life this week:

"well some thirty one well
it has a kind of question that recently by concerning the
on Friday he fears that Al sabah said
Susan contributions to candidates running for the house of lords
we've had enough to eat with plenty left over
the lord is thy people and is required is not over
it has a kind of an agenda the rules of the house of lords think you have
the holy father and the contributions and heights
and the consecrated things
and I I I mean that was the officer in charge
and his brothers in the US senate"

There are no typos in that paragraph! If you can guess the riddle, you're really knowledgeable about state-of-the-art web services!

G.M. Grena

Dennis Prager in Redondo Beach, 2010

2010-01-30T08:01:00.000-08:00

I've listened to snippets of Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio program whenever I've had the rare occasion to be in my car during his time slot over the past couple of decades. It's been a few years since I've heard him, but it doesn't bother me that I can't listen more frequently because he's the type of guy I mostly agree with. I find myself saying, "Yeah ... yes ... right ... I feel the same way ...", etc. My admiration of him almost bores me!

This week I had the pleasure of finally getting to attend one of his public lectures at a nearby Jewish Community Center, Chabad of the Beach Cities. And when I say "nearby", I mean walking distance, which was a real treat because of the mild weather we've had for a few days.

For anyone who hasn't heard him before, this is a great 5:13 introductory speech by him on YouTube discussing the 3 pillars of American values (E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, & Liberty).

And for anyone who happens to discover this blog for the first time through this review, my normal theme is matters focusing on the King of kings, but in Mr. Prager's lecture, he only mentioned kings in a brief, negative context; nonetheless, it's king-related, so here goes...

The event began at 6pm for people who paid $125 to enjoy dinner with Dennis. I would've liked to have done this, but I think I would've been somewhat out-of-place for a variety of reasons, so I opted simply for the $25 lecture ticket, which began at 7:30pm.

When I arrived at 7:15pm, they were still having dinner (he was visible from the sidewalk as I was entering), & the event didn't formally begin till about 7:45. As we were waiting, a very nice lady distributed flyers encouraging attendees (about 300 people by my rough visual estimation) to sign a petition to get The Citizen Legislature Act added to a future ballot. She did a real cute little dance, so I thought the least I could do was link to the website here, where California voters can download the petition.

We were informed by a rabbi that we'd be treated to a brief musical concert by a "world renowned" violinist named "Andre" (later I found his name online, which is actually Endre Balogh). He played 4 songs solo, opening & closing with works by Bach. In between, he played the Irish anthem, "Londonderry Air", & a Spanish tango. Ironically, I haven't heard such a beautiful set of solo music since I attended a concert by another "Andre", the even-more renowned guitar-maestro, Andres Segovia in Pittsburgh PA back in the early 1980s (he was in his 90s at the time). Balogh's rendition of the Bach tunes sounded like an entire orchestra ... simply breathtaking. Unfortunately, I could not find any videos of him online. In my mind, he will reign as the king of violinists!

Dennis began shortly after 8pm, with a lecture entitled "America: What would our founding fathers say today?" The rabbi introduced him with a funny remark, saying that he originally had notes about Dennis on the lectern, but now all he had was this (he held up a bumper sticker with a photo of our current president, & the words: "YOU LIE!").

I had not planned on taking copious notes, but I did jot down a few of the main points on the back of my petition flyer, & issues I'd like to preserve for posterity.

Ideals vs. Practices. Dennis analyzed the argument about whether it mattered what America's founders would think. Is it bad if someone states that "all men are created equal", while simultaneously owning another man as a slave? No. Why not? Because we're all hypocrites at times. We all have ideals but fall short in actual practice.

Example: Good parents teach their children not to lie, but every parent has told a lie at some point in his/her life. What's important is that the founders formed a nation ... the first nation ... that would eventually abolish slavery. Why? Because their beliefs were rooted in the Bible, & they knew that true liberty can only come from God, our creator. Note that Leviticus 25:10 is on our Liberty Bell. So much for separation of church & state!

He dismissed the notion that the founders thought slaves were only 3/5ths human, because the real reason their vote was diminished to a value of 3/5 was to prevent the southern states from having an unfair majority in an election.

He explained that people who consider the original intent of the Constitution to be Republicans, & those who view the Constitution as a living/evolving document to be Liberals. Example: Liberals interpret the "right to privacy" as the "right to commit an abortion". Dennis emphasized the absurdity of this by imagining a murderer saying to a judge, "But I killed him in private, so what's the big deal? Nobody saw it..."

Throughout this review, I'm paraphrasing Dennis, but one sentence I captured in full that made a lasting impression on me was, "I believe values are eternal." That's an extremely powerful statement, part of a coherent philosophy. He asked rhetorically whether "change" really means "progress".

He concluded this introductory section by stating that he does care what our founding fathers would say today, if they could experience America now. Thus, he presented the following 6 speculations.

1) They'd be shocked by how poor our education system has become.

He asked if we had read letters/diaries written by Civil War soldiers, & noted their "elevated language" despite their elementary-level education. Rarely did any get past 8th grade, but their grammar exceeds that of modern high school graduates. The founders would be shaken by the lack of wisdom taught in our schools.

Schools are not supposed to just teach facts, but impart wisdom to children. Example: It's wise to dress well. Clothing matters. People say that God doesn't care what people wear; God only cares about what's inside a person. Not true! God cares how a person acts. Celebrities dress their absolute best when attending the Academy Awards. It's a statement, a behavior, a gesture of respect. People invited to the White House don't dress casual. School is no longer considered important & a place of respect.

On foul language... We have laws abolishing firsthand smoke in public, but not cursing. For liberals, health is a supreme value, not the soul. He interjected a humorous anecdote about a photo he has of himself & some congressman smoking cigars in the Capitol, where it's still permissible to smoke.

Universities used to be founded for the purpose of studying the knowledge of God. They wanted to produce clergymen. Now they want nothing to do with God, as if it's a bad thing.

2) They'd be shocked by the government's intrusion into people's lives.

Europe "loves" the concept of big states with kings. That's not what our founders wanted. Our founders were raised in a world of responsibilities, not rights. The Torah speaks of commandments & obligations, not rights. Europeans don't have the freedom to fail. We should not take our job or our spouse for granted. If failure is acceptable, we lose our motivation to be our best. Why do leftists embrace such character-destroying notions?

Here he recounted a story about attending Brooklyn College in the 1960s, & how proud he was of his fellow students when they ran a leftist off campus, after the same leftist had gained fame at Columbia University for shutting down the campus to protest the Vietnam War.

3) They'd be shocked by the low class of language in our society.

It decays society. It's okay, not hypocritical or falsely righteous to use foul language in private. Proof: There's nothing wrong with urinating in private. Not so in public.

He mentioned humorously that he's a hockey fan, & belongs to a minority club: Jews for Hockey. He's disappointed & uncomfortable when the crowd chants "[X] sucks" to opposing players.

Then he related a very funny story about himself when he was in 8th grade. A lady who had attended school with him, recently contacted him & reminded him that when she sat in the seat in front of him in school, he (as a little boy) told her:

"Lady of Spain, let me adore you,
Pull down your pants, & let me explore you."

He said there was a chair in his principal's office with his name on it!

4) They'd be shocked by our present government's level of taxation.

"And the harder you work, the more they take!"

The founders intended only excise taxes & tariffs. What's worse is that those who pay nothing, still get to vote on how much taxpayers should pay. This is outrageous! Nowhere else in America would any club allow a non-payer (non-member) vote on how much real members should have to pay.

"How to make an unhappy, bitter nation: Give people things for free."

Parents should teach their children to earn things. In the Torah, "parent" & "teacher" are homonymous with "Torah".

5) They'd be shocked by how secular the nation has become.

America was founded to have a secular government & religious society.

People misrepresent 18th-century Deism. They think Jefferson believed in some generic creator disinterested in the creation. I regret that I was not able to capture Mr. Prager's exact words here, but he was basically describing a modern theistic evolutionist, whereas Jefferson was "preoccupied with the Bible". Yes, he performed a copy/paste job on the New Testament because he didn't believe Jesus was divine or could work miracles; but he believed in the God of the Bible & Old Testament. (Earlier in the lecture, Dennis informed us how much he likes the word "Old" in "Old Testament", & likes it more each year!)

George Washington instituted taking an oath on a Bible ("So help me God"), & the 4 rare presidential exceptions have been out of respect for the Bible. The Bible was the central text of American life.

Only a tiny fraction of atrocities & genocides have resulted from religious ideologies as opposed to secular ones (Mao, Stalin, Hitler); yet schools teach the Crusades & Inquisition as if the converse were true. Proof: Compare "Convert or die" to "Die".

6) They'd be proud of America's global leadership in charity.

Haitian disaster relief, fighting Nazism, etc.

He summarized his presentation by saying, "My friend is Clarity." Are there such things as American values? Is America a group of people, a territory, or an idea? It's an idea. Small government; big individuals.

***

It was an hour long speech, followed by a half-hour of questions from 9 attendees. The most memorable one was by a gentleman who challenged the dichotomy Dennis had mentioned, regarding our source of liberty being from God or government, no other possibility. The man suggested his own heart as a source of his liberty. Dennis flatly rejected this possibility as logical "anarchy". Each person cannot invent his/her own standard & expect a harmonious society. A "transcendent source" is mandatory.

One other question prompted an interesting statement from Mr. Prager, that there are not only too many laws in our country (which inspire too many lawsuits), but there are also "too many laws even in my religion!"

G.M. Grena

Top Posts:
Checkmate 1,035
Chephirah--The Biblical Village Roars Again 213
Royal Banquine 181
ASOR 2007 (p. 6) 173

Dr. Evil vs. Dr. Wright

2009-12-16T19:06:00.000-08:00

Sorry, I couldn't find an actual clip of this on YouTube.com from the popular & hilarious Austin Powers film, but had some fun searching for it:

Dr. Evil: "Scott, I want you to meet Daddy's nemesis, Austin Powers."

Scott: "Why are you feeding him? Why don't you just kill him?"

Dr. Evil: "In due time."

Scott: "But what if he escapes? Why don't you just shoot him? What are you waiting for?"

Dr. Evil: "I have a better idea. I'm going to put him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate & exotic death."

Scott: "Why don't you just shoot him now? Here, I'll get a gun. We'll just shoot him. Bang! Dead. Done."

Dr. Evil: "One more peep out of you and you're grounded!"

Here's a 1:49 sample of their interactions (a montage of "Zip It" & "Scotty Don't" scenes):

"How about you don't ladies & gentlemen Scotty don't" kills me every time!

Ironic as it seems, the why-don't-you-just-shoot-him scene contains several very-real parallels from the world we live in, especially involving the US government & Christianity. Today Dr. Evil is played by liberal politicians, while his pragmatic son, Scott, is played by liberal journalists & scientists. Instead of simply killing us, our enemies just want to have fun belittling us & brainshackling us (usually by preaching an overly elaborate message about millions of years of imaginary time). Fortunately it's always relatively easy to escape from their exotic (spiritual) death traps.

Earlier this week at the Creation Museum, Dr. Frank Wright, the current president of the NRB, delivered a sobering speech on our government's encroachment upon our liberty. I'd encourage everyone to spend the 40 worthwhile minutes it lasts, watching it via Ken Ham's blog for full context. Here I'd like to comment on some highlights [video reference times in brackets].

[1:30] "I believe we're living in the greatest expansion of government power in the history of our republic."

He then cites a few earlier expansions:

1) after the Civil War (which was about whether the federal government has power over the states)

2) after the Great Depression (social/work programs to meet economic need via Roosevelt's "New Deal")

3) in the 1960s (involving Medicare & Medicaid via Johnson's "Great Society")

Bringing us to the present:

[3:30] "Through health-care reform, the federal government is trying to take over 1/5th of our national economy. ... They will then have forced national policy on questions like abortion, euthanasia, all kinds of allocation of scarce resources."

[4:55] "If unchecked, this growth of government power could well lead to tyranny."

To put the matter in a Biblical context, he visits Genesis 41, a story that had ironically been suggested to him by a chief counsel (a Democrat) from the Senate Finance Committee staff as a good justification for government expansion. Specifically, 41:33-36, where Joseph recommends collecting 20% of the harvest for the government during the 7 good years, then making it available for the people during the 7 bad years. (Great plan of "hope" & "change we can believe in", right?) Wright points out that the pharaoh was already taxing his Egyptian citizens. Verse 56 records Joseph selling the surplus back to the Egyptians!

[9:30] "It's a little bit like having someone steal your car, then offering to sell it back to you..."

He skips over the dramatic interlude of Joseph reuniting with his family, & focuses on 47:14, where Joseph essentially obtains all the Egyptians' money in exchange for food. But since that didn't solve the Egyptians' problem, verse 17 records Joseph obtaining all their livestock too. Subsequently verse 20 records him obtaining all their land, & finally the Egyptians themselves as slaves in verse 21. But in verse 22 he indicts the priests, drawing an obvious analogy to modern clergy:

[14:15] "Look how easily the religious leaders can be co-opted in a massive government takeover."

Having made that point, Dr. Wright zoomed in on verse 25, where the Egyptians are essentially content with this loss of liberty just to stay alive.

[17:20] "Our propensity, like them, is to live by sight, not by faith. They looked around & saw no way of getting food, no way of surviving apart from putting themselves into servitude, or into bondage. Is there no other way than that? Where in this text is the passage that speaks of them crying out to God, & asking Him to deliver them & bring rain to end the famine? Where is their looking to the true source of all things, the Lord of Heaven, instead of an earthly king?"

He then indicts Americans for their ready willingness to exchange freedom for security, particularly since 9-11-2001.

[18:40] "I believe we too, as a nation, are standing at the threshold of a benevolent bondage of a government that's growing unconstrained, asserting its authority into every area of human endeavor & existence; a government that does not see itself under God's authority. And as for the people of God, far more for us is lost in this transaction than just our personal freedom. For us as the people of God, if we enter into a benevolent bondage like the Egyptians did with our government, at a time of great financial & economic crisis, & maybe other crises that may be coming -- for us, we don't lose just our freedom, we lose the veracity of our witness before a watching world. Because if you say you trust in the Most High God, & sell yourself into a form of benevolent bondage, your witness to that proposition is damaged."

Then he compares this philosophy with quotations from 2 people who played key roles in America's foundation, Benjamin Franklin & Samuel Adams:

[21:10] "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[21:35] "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down & lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, & may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

With this indictment upon most Americans in general today, he asked a deeper, personal question:

[22:45] "Who will you have as your king? The cry of the Revolutionary War was: 'We will have no king but King Jesus.' But the story of the bondage in Egypt asks the same question essentially, Who will be your king? ... And so this question of who will be your king is first & foremost, not a political question, not an economic question, not a question of civil government, it's a spiritual question, because the real question is, To whom are you in bondage?"

After discussing personal spiritual conflicts that we all experience, he moved the topic back to today's government.

[25:45] "We are moving to a day when we will be told, 'You can believe anything you want about your religion, & you can practice anything you want with your religion, but you can't tell anybody else what you believe, & you must practice it out of the sight of others.'"

He compared this scenario to Jews being herded into Warsaw ghettos, & also discussed Hate Crimes legislation. The problem with this is that the term "bodily injury" was not defined, & will likely be interpreted in a future court case as "mental anguish" by someone who hears the Gospel preached. But he ends on an optimistic note:

[34:55] "We have the greatest opportunity, probably in the history of our country, to have a clear witness contrasted with the opponents to the Gospel."

[38:45] "We still live in a constitutional republic where the people of God can exercise their freedoms for the good of the entire nation, & ultimately for the good of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Amen. (I hope I don't get grounded for saying that!)

G.M. Grena

Top Posts:
Checkmate (919 views)
Chephirah--The Biblical Village Roars Again (213 views)
Royal Banquine (181 views)
ASOR 2007 p. 6 (160 views)

Fresh Fish, Cajun Style

2009-10-06T20:19:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I received an E-mail advertising the upcoming annual BAS conference, & was surprised to see that the list of speakers included her royal-jar highness, Jane Cahill. A week or so went by, & I was reminded of it when I went grocery shopping:

But I've been too busy to blog. Then yesterday another trip to the store:

And another E-mail from BAS, so I decided tonight I should do this because the price may eventually go down 1 cent or up 2 cents, & then I might never have a reason to blog again!

Here's a list of all the LMLK friends &/or VIPs I'd enjoy listening to if I were attending this year's conferences in New Orleans:

Anson Rainey, Tel Aviv University
Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language?

Aren Maeir, Bar Ilan University
Fleshing out the Bible at Philistine Gath: The Interface of Bible and Archaeology

Avraham Faust, Bar Ilan University
The Assyrian Peace: A Reexamination

Bruce Zuckerman, University of Southern California
Technology and Antiquity: The Latest on Recovering Ancient Texts and Artifacts

James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary
Should the Gospel of John be Used in Jesus Research?

Jane Cahill, Tell el-Hammah Archaeological Project
*Q&A Panelist*

Yosef Garfinkel, Hebrew University
*Plenary Session Speaker*
Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David

By the way, Prof. Garfinkel will have some interesting photos of jar handles with special impressions that in many ways parallel the LMLK phenomenon. For those of you planning to attend, your royal homework assignment is to visit this serendipitous entry at the Recipe Girl's blog. Prof. Garfinkel's excavation is so important that it now merits TWO (2) entire sessions at the upcoming ASOR conference:

A3 Khirbet Qeiyafa I: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David

Theme: Focuses on the fieldwork conducted at Khirbet Qeiyafa in 2009.

Yosef Garfinkel (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Presiding

* Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor (Israel Antiquities Authority), "The 2009 Excavation Season at Khirbet Qeiyafa" (25 min.)

* Paul D. Bauman (WorleyParsons), Yosef Garfinkel, Brad Hansen (WorleyParsons), Jennifer MacDonald (WorleyParsons), and Kimberly Hume (WorleyParsons), "Geophysical and Aerial Photographic Investigations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Israel" (25 min.)

* Michael G. Hasel (Southern Adventist University), "Area A: The Fortified Building at Khirbet Qeiyafa" (25 min.)

* Saar Ganor, "Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Two-Gate City from the Early 10th Century B.C." (25 min.)

A8 Khirbet Qeiyafa II: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David

Theme:. Focuses on the general results of the Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations.

Michael G. Hasel, Presiding

* David L. Adams (Concordia Seminary), "Between Socoh and Azekah: The Biblical Identity of Khirbet Qeiyafa" (20 min.)

* Hoo-Goo Kang (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Yosef Garfinkel, "The Pottery Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Early Iron Age IIA" (20 min.)

* David Ben-Shlomo (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), "Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery from Khirbet Qeiyafa" (20 min.)

* Haggai Misgav (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), "The Ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafa: Paleographical and Historical Implications" (20 min.)

* Respondent: William G. Dever (The University of Arizona, Emeritus) (20 min.)

Other lectures of interest by LMLK friends &/or VIPs (listed in the order they appear in the program brochure):

Randall W. Younker (Andrews University) and Constance Gane (Andrews University), "2008-9 Excavations at Tall Jalul, Jordan (Madaba Plains Project)" (20 min.)

Oded Borowski (Emory University) and Glenda Friend (University of New Mexico at Gallup), "Lahav Research Project: Phase IV Excavation at Tell Halif (Israel)" (20 min.)

Lynn Swartz Dodd (University of Southern California), "Monuments of Resistance: Gurgum and the Assyrian Conquest" (20 min.)

Steven Collins (Trinity Southwest University), "Tall el-Hammam Season Four: Data, Interpretations, and Insights from the 2009 Excavations" (24 min.)

Avraham Faust (Bar-Ilan University), "The Tel Eton Excavations (2008-2009)" (24 min.)

Aren M. Maeir (Bar-Ilan University) "The 2009 Season of Excavations at Tell Es-Safi/Gath" (22 min.)

Shlomo Bunimovitz (Tel Aviv University) "Revisiting the Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Canaan" (22 min.)

Jeffrey R. Zorn (Cornell University), "Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron I Philistine Maryannu" (22 min.)

Jeff Chadwick (Brigham Young University, Jerusalem Center), "The Earthquake of Amos and the Establishment of Judean Gath in the Eighth Century B.C.E." (22 min.)

Anson F. Rainey (Tel Aviv University), "Looking for Ziklag" (20 min.)

Jeffrey P. Hudon (Andrews University), "The LMLK Storage Jars and the Reign of Uzziah: Towards a Mid-Eighth Century B.C.E. Terminus a Quo for the Royal Jars of the Kingdom of Judah" (20 min.)

Hayah Katz (The Open University of Israel), "The Royal Estates in the Kingdom of Judah in View of the Archaeological Finds" (20 min.)

John S. Holladay (University of Toronto), "Assyria’s Loss, Israel and Damascus’ Gain: Assyrians and the Early South Arabian Camel Caravan Trade" (25 min.)

Song of the week: "Queens" by Cirque du Soleil (click the song title to visit Amazon; YouTube video below may eventually become unavailable).

G.M. Grena

Top Posts:
Checkmate (684 views)
Chephirah--The Biblical Village Roars Again (211 views)
Royal Banquine (180 views)
ASOR 2007 (p. 6) (153 views)

Fishy Photos

2009-06-27T16:17:00.000-07:00

This photo won't mean anything to most of the people who happen to view it, but if you're into LMLKology, you'll get a kick out of it!

If you don't get the esoteric meaning, the royal context of this next photo is a bit easier to figure out! It shows what happens when a LMLKologist is free to express himself with a paintbrush:

I'm enjoying these freedoms in celebration of the upcoming July 4th weekend before our current US president hands them over to our enemies on a silver platter.

Song of the week: "Swim" by Madonna (click the song title to visit Amazon; YouTube video below may eventually become unavailable).

G.M. Grena

Top Posts:

Checkmate
312 views

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again
204 views

Royal Banquine
177 views

ASOR 2007 (p. 6)
140 views

America ... Always? Forever?

2008-11-02T20:16:00.000-08:00

"...having done all ... stand."--Ephesians 6:13

It took 2 months for my August donation to appear on their website, so the other one I sent last month after attending Sarah Palin's rally here in California probably won't appear for another month.

No matter what the results are on Tuesday, I'm proud to stand, knowing I've done all that one person can reasonably do ... voting for Hillary in the Primary, making/displaying bumper stickers & buttons, donating a small amount to the campaign, showing up at the rally, discussing the issues with others ... I can't believe how many people think the economy is the most important issue; ask any of the few thousand people who were murdered on 9/11/01 how bummed out they are about the housing market today; ask any of the millions of babies who've been murdered in the womb how they feel about being denied the right to choose being a Democrat when they grow up ... shoot, I even bought a 2nd house just so I can display 2 McCain/Palin yard signs in my windows!

I was bummed out last week seeing an Obama bumper sticker written in Hebrew (I think it was "BRQ ABME"), but I was even sadder to see a vehicle in a Home Depot parking lot today with 2 Obama stickers, & 1 Hebron "Always & Forever" Hebrew bumper sticker. All things considered though, I'm really surprised at how many McCain/Palin signs & bumper stickers are appearing here in the beach cities. I even got a thumb's up from a Snap-On Tools driver this week!

Altogether I sold a landslide 21 bumper stickers & buttons on Zazzle, & would like to thank the following for their courageous support of Gov. Palin:

Andy in Madison, WI
Arthur in North Kingsville, OH
Brandon in Lexington, KY
Crystal in Woodville, FL
Edward in Richmond, VA
John in Bethesda, MD
Kris in Goldenrod, FL
Lucy in Wheat Ridge, CO
Marisa in Highlands Ranch, CO
Matthew in Staten Island
Roberta in San Andreas, CA
Ron in Gilbert, AZ
Sis in Austin, TX
Theresa in Roselle Park, NJ
Thomas in Athens, TN
Virginia in Montrose, CO

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."--1Thessalonians 1:4

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God..."--1Peter 1:2

"...[G]ive diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall..."--2Peter 1:10

Song of the week: "Delivering the Goods" by Judas Priest (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 14-second sample; 197kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 187 views
ASOR 2007 (p. 6), 95 views
Royal Banquine, 82 views

Bitter Beetles

2008-10-19T08:12:00.000-07:00

This week saw the opening of a "rare display of original specimens and documents from two of Britain’s greatest scientists. Find out how Alfred Russel Wallace jointly discovered the theory of natural selection and why Darwin’s pigeons contributed more than finches did to his study of evolution."

The promo for this new temporary exhibit at the Natural History Museum at Tring includes this photo of a nice assortment of beetles:

Wallace is well known for writing an 1858 paper on the concept of Natural Selection prior to, not jointly with, Darwin: "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type".

Due to Wallace's belief in spiritualism, Darwin became far more popular among anti-religion zealots of the late 19th century. Here we have 2 classic examples of people, scientists actually (not Pennsylvanians like me), who tended to cling to religion...

"If I listen long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe that it's all true
Knowin' that you lied straight-face while I cried
And still I look to find a reason to believe"

Song of the week: "Reason to Believe" by The Carpenters (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 28-second sample; 360kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 186 views
Royal Banquine, 81 views
ASOR 2007 (p. 6), 62 views

Succot in Hebron 2008

2008-10-12T17:18:00.000-07:00

Boy, this ad really jumped out at me this week:

This is an abbreviated version just to show the full title. Here's a link to a hi-res PDF version of the flyer.

In particular, notice that there will be a "pottery making" activity. Wow!

They're even providing "inexpensive bullet-proof buses" to shuttle visitors from Jerusalem & Tel Aviv. Under such circumstances, I'm not sure how popular the "horse-driven carriages" will be, but it says they'll be "coordinated with our security forces."

Song of the week: "In God's Country" by U2 (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 29-second sample; 361kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 186 views
Royal Banquine, 81 views
ASOR 2007 (p. 6), 62 views

Sarah Palin Blesses California

2008-10-05T22:30:00.000-07:00

"Thunder!
I was caught, in the middle of a railroad track!
Thunder!
I looked 'round, & I knew there was no turning back!
Thunder!
My mind raced, & I thought, what could I do?
Thunder!
And I knew, there was no help, no help from you!
Thunder!
Sound of the drums, beatin' in my heart, the thunder of guns..."

In most public venues, "Thunderstruck", by the Australian hard-rock band AC/DC, easily drowns out all other sounds. But on Saturday, October 4th in the California city of Carson, over 10,000 screaming American fans of Sarah Palin drowned out the music when the star-of-the-day stepped onto the stage at the tennis stadium at the Home Depot Center! It normally seats 8,000, but on this occasion, over 1,000 more crammed onto the court, & over 1,000 more lined up across the upper walkway to show their support for the most important lady in America today.

In the heart of a gang-infested city that worships the ground Barack Obama walks upon, that's an impressive turnout!

I had the privilege of attending since the venue is only a 15-minute drive east of Redondo Beach. I had picked up a General Admission pass earlier in the week at a Republican campaign office. And no, I'm not a Republican. I "decline to state" any party affiliation, & voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary election simply because it was the best thing I could do to prevent the "ticket of terrorists" from being elected to the presidency.

For me, the issues that most people are discussing about this election are irrelevant. The only thing that matters to me is that Barack Hussein Obama has stated publicly that Arab terrorists have legitimate claims, & that single remark not only disqualifies him for the United States presidency, but in my opinion, qualifies him for being charged with treason at a time when our great nation is at war after having been attacked by Arab terrorists on 9-11-2001. He dug an even deeper hole for himself politically by stating that our troops are essentially just "air-raiding villages & killing civilians". Even if it's true, which it may very well be since it's impossible to conduct a flawless war, it demoralizes our country, & aids & comforts our enemies, & he should be brought to trial for it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."--Constitution Article 3, Section 3

Secondarily, as someone who fears God, & believes we are all members of a single genetic race descended from the same 2 parents created by God, I despise the racist "church" Obama attended for 2 decades. And he demonstrated his true nature by denouncing their racist leader ONLY when it became politically expedient for him to do so a few months ago. (And no, I'm not going to provide any hyperlinks to their sick website.)

Furthermore, his wife is despicable, & doesn't belong in the White House for publicly stating that this is the first time in her life (i.e., when her husband began running for the presidency) that she's been proud to be an American.

Having said that, it was such a pleasure to be surrounded on this occasion by so many like-minded people supporting the "party of patriots". I took the time to transcribe Gov. Palin's speech below, & although my work may have some minor errors in it, I was in the fortunate position of being seated behind the operator of her teleprompter, so I was able to compare a few sections of what she had prepared in advance with what she actually said.

During the past month since she gained international prominence, she's been accused of being an idiot, but it takes guts to give a speech to a crowd of any size, not to mention thousands of people surrounding you, & legions of reporters who are anxiously waiting for you to make a mistake, & still more pundits who will begin criticizing you all over the world seconds after the words leave your mouth. And even if she & Senator McCain are imbeciles as some Democrats claim, I'd rather vote for an imbecile & take a 50/50 chance that they might make the right decisions in office, than vote for Obama who has a racist, unpatriotic character flaw guaranteeing the wrong decisions will be made in office.

I arrived at 10am when the parking lot opened, & since there were no clear signs, & this sporting complex contains several playing fields & a large soccer stadium I've never been to before, I parked in the wrong lot, & wasted 15 minutes discovering it, & getting over to the correct one.

And before I go any further, I have to thank God for making this one day very overcast so that my sensitive skin wouldn't get burned at this outdoor event. When the event began, the sun peeked through the clouds for a few minutes, & again when Sarah initially arrived, but at one point (& she comments on it), there were a few light raindrops & drizzle. There was a heavier rain afterwards as I returned to my car, but I would've been severely burned if it had been any other day of this past month or upcoming week (according to the current forecast). THANK YOU, GOD!

There were already about 1,000 people in line when I got there, & it was very disappointing for some supporters when we were told that no one would be allowed to bring their homemade signs into the facility. I still don't understand the reason for this, so if anyone knows, please feel free to post a comment. There was another similar situation shortly before the event began when most of the fans had been seated, but for security reasons, I'm not going to describe it in detail.

The gates opened promptly at 11:30am, & it took me 15 minutes to get in due to the security checkpoints. I was thrilled to be able to choose a seat on the side of stage that would be at Gov. Palin's right hand about 50-60 feet away. It had 2 additional benefits in that she would be spending most of her time signing autographs closer to this side after her speech (about 20-30 feet away), & more importantly, I was directly behind the aforementioned gentleman who was operating her teleprompter via his laptop PC.

She's terrific at improvising in reaction to the crowd, & it was amazing how many interjections she made along the way. Unfortunately, I don't have a photographic memory, & can't remember every detail, but I'll place in bold a few sections I know for sure were ad-libbed, even though there were probably others. Also, here are some abbreviations for the crowd reactions:

{A}=applause
{B}=booing
{C}=cheering
{L}=laughter
{TO}=thunderous ovation
{...}=section I was not able to hear clearly enough to transcribe

During the nearly 2 hours prior to the event, they were playing mellow rock & modern C&W songs over the P.A. system, most of which I didn't care for. In hindsight, it was interesting that they played a knock-off of the AC/DC classic (that I don't like), "Highway to Hell", by a C&W artist reworked lyrically to "Highway to Heaven". The most well-known song I recall was the Marshall-Tucker Band classic, "Can't You See?", the chorus of which, when isolated from the rest of the song, was very fitting for the main attraction since she's certainly been doin' a number on me:

"Can't you see, can't you see, what that woman, Lord, she been doin' to me?"

But in reality, the song's about a woman that's driving a guy crazy in a bad way, & makes him want to run away. It's a nice song for Obama, Biden, & all their supporters to sing; but most of Obama's supporters are probably into rap. Songs about killing cops, abusing women, doing drugs, & just living up to the expectations taught to our children in the Science classrooms of taxpayer-funded schools across the nation: we're just worthless animals with no ultimate purpose that should seek pleasure at the expense of others. That's the fundamental message of Senator Obama: take money from the successful, mostly responsible people, & redistribute it to the lazy, mostly irresponsible people.

There were 2 major causes for applause as we were waiting for the main event to begin. One was a group of 3 teenage boys, 2 of whom were wearing T-shirts containing a big photo of Obama's important, concerned-looking face, with a big-huge red "X" over it! You can't imagine how wonderful it was to see so many people openly showing their contempt for this terrorist-sympathizer! Another group that received enthusiastic applause, carried a large flag of Israel, with an American flag on one side, & a McCain/Palin banner on the other.

The event began approximately on time at 1:35, with about 25 minutes of speeches from local politicians that nobody really came to see on this day. At 2:00, we were told that the day would be divided into 3 sections, with 2 more coming. 5 minutes later after another recorded song was played, Academy-Award-winning actor Jon Voight was introduced. It was nice to see one Hollywood celebrity on hand out of the hundreds of others, most of whom support Obama, which reminds me of another interesting contrast.

Note that Senator Obama was handed his national fame on a silver platter by celebrity billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, when she held a special event choosing to promote him over Hillary Clinton last year, a move that stunned many people; whereas the beginning of John McCain's campaign was so lackluster, that at one point he couldn't afford to use an airplane (not to mention a private jet like he now travels in), & had to resort to using a bus; nonetheless, he persisted, & won over his party. Quite a contrast.

Also on hand were a few other speakers including the former CEO of eBay, which lasted till about 2:30. Then more mellow music. Secret Service personnel entered around 2:45, scoped the stage, assumed their positions, & around 2:55, the beauteous Sarah arrived with, well, I'll let her introduce herself:

"Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I promise to be short & sweet. I wanna thank you, & I wanna reiterate that I am Shelly Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women [NOW]. Now I'm happy to be here, & I'm here today speaking not on behalf of NOW, but speaking as an individual, as a women's rights activist for 13 years, who has worked for all those years to see this day. Let me share with you where I've been, & why I'm here. I was there in 1977 for IWI, that was the International Women's Year, in Texas. I was there in 1978 when we campaigned hard all over the west for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, working right alongside my dear friend, Maureen Reagan. I was there in 1984 when we worked so hard to get Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket, & then to support her historical place in that election. And I'm here today, proud to support Sarah Palin, a woman, a woman who will fight for women's rights, a woman who will fight for the middle class, a woman who, Lord knows, will shake things up. Now make no mistake, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I don't agree, gotta tell ya, I don't agree with Governor Palin on several issues. Hey, she's gonna work on persuading John McCain on ANWR, well I'm gonna try persuading her on things of my own. But, but, I know Sarah Palin cares about women's rights, she cares about equality, she cares about equal pay, & as vice president, she will fight for it. She, she cares about our children, & she cares about women's lives. She's an athlete, & she knows what Title IX did for girls like her. [Sarah said, "Absolutely! Thank you!"] Change must come to Washington, & Sarah Palin has what it takes to lead that charge. I believe she is courageous; I believe she has integrity; & I know that Sarah Palin is a reformer who will break up the ol-boy network, buck the system, & get Washington back on our side. It is honor, it is an honor to call her 'sister'. America, this is what a feminist looks like: Governor Sarah Palin."

[Sarah during thunderous ovation: "Thank you! Bless you! That was awesome!"]

"Wow, & thank you too, Shelly, for that kind introduction, & thank you so much for your endorsement. And with your help, Shelly, in November, all of us who consider ourselves progressive, yet at the same time we can be conservative, we're gonna shatter the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America."

{A}

"I was looking at Shelly's resume before I came out here and I thought, oh, there's some diversity; I like this, it's good. And because maybe this is the only time that I would get an endorsement like this or an introduction, I've gotta share with you, it was like kind of providential, yesterday what happened to me. I can use this today after that introduction from Shelly: I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, OK, the quote of the day. {C} You'll never believe what the quote was. It was Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State and UN ambassador. {B} And Madeline has as her quote-of-the-day from Starbucks, now she said it; I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

{TO}

"OK, now thank you so much for receiving that well. I didn't know how that was gonna go over. {L} And now, California, let's see what a comment like I just made, how that is turned into whatever it'll be turned into tomorrow in the newspaper. {TO} Thank you!"

"It's so nice to be in this most beautiful state, & in this beautiful cathedral that they call in some parts, a cathedral of soccer, & I know that all you California soccer-moms sure know how to make a hockey-mom feel at home."

{A}

"Whenever I'm in L.A., I think of my dad, because he was born here, & {A} Hey, I've got that connection, that little bit of connection with L.A., & I'll milk it as long as I can! {L} So my dad was born here, & as a boy, he lived in North Hollywood where my grandma, {A} she was a teacher, & my grandpa was a photographer, & my grandpa, his specialty was photographing boxers of that era, & I learned a few pointers about fighting from him, including one that applies to this election, & that there is a time when it's necessary to take the gloves off, & that time is right now."

{TO}

[At this point, she turned to her right, near where I was sitting, & stared right at a heckler, who was surrounded by supporters chanting "U.S.A" to drown her out. The rest of the crowd realized what was going on, & cheered wildly.]

"My son is over in Iraq right now fighting for the freedoms that that person is exercising right now."

{TO}

"So it is so good to be here, & as I say, there's a time to take the gloves off, & as one of our campaign staffers reminded me as I'm walking out, he goes, 'OK now, the heels are on, the gloves come off.'"

{A}

"Our opponents take this state & all of you for granted. But I've got some news for Senators Obama & Biden: for millions of Californians, this is still Reagan country!"

{TO}

"In this final month before election day, we're taking our case for reform & positive change to every voter of every background in every region of America, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, or an Independent, or no party at all, we're asking for your vote, & it's gonna be a hard-fought battle right down to the wire, guys. It's gonna come right down to the wire. With your support, though, we will win!"

{A}

"So, you know, because California is so beautiful, & I love the mix of people who live here, & it's snowin' in Alaska right now, so of course I wanted to be here, but I wanted to be here a few years, a few days earlier than today but I had an appointment in St. Louis, & it just wouldn't wait, {A} so Thursday night I had a little debate with Senator Joe Biden {A}, & I was so proud to get to make the case for the next president of the United States, John McCain!"

{TO}

"As I explained to Senator Biden, John McCain is the only man in this race who will solve our economic crisis, & not exploit it. He's the only man in this race with a plan that will actually help our working families, & cut your taxes, & get our economy back on track."

{A}

"He's the only man in this race who talks about the wars America is fighting, & isn't afraid to use the word 'victory'!"

{A}

"Our opponent, he gives speech after speech about the wars that America is fighting, & it sure would be nice if even just once he'd say he wants America to win."

{A}

"Our opponent voted to cut off funding for the troops. Even after he said, {B} even after he said he would never do such a thing. He said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, 'air-raiding villages, & killing civilians'. {B} That's not what our great men & women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism, & protecting us, & defending our democratic values, {A} They're defending our freedoms of assembly, & of the press, & of women's rights, & of tolerance, & all those things that are democratic values; & they're building schools for Afghan children so that they have hope & opportunity in that country. That's what our troops are doing in Afghanistan!"

{A}

"John McCain wouldn't say that because he's a different kind of man. John McCain believes in our troops & our mission, & as the mother of one of those troops, that's exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief."

{A}

"Senator McCain served our nation in uniform for 22 years, & California, you are to be commended & applauded for being a state with a strong tradition of military service, & today {A} there are many thousands of veterans here, as well as active-duty soldiers, & airmen, & they continue to keep our nation strong & secure, & how 'bout a shout out to them, even here in this audience?"

{TO; "U.S.A." chant}

"Thank you, veterans, & I recognize some of you with your hats on, & I say, 'God bless you', & we take our hat off to you!"

"So California, after today it will be the time for choosing for this country in this election, & here's how I look at the choice that we face: In politics there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, & then there are those like John McCain who use their careers to promote change."

{A}

"This is a moment when principles, & political independence matter a lot more than just a party line. And John McCain is his own man. He doesn't run with that Washington herd. He & I, we don't just talk about change, we're the only candidates in this race with a track record of actually making change happen."

{A}

"As a mayor, & as a governor, I reminded people that government is not the answer, in fact, too often, government is the problem. {A} So where I have served, we have put government back on the side of the people. Here's some of my track record:"

"As mayor I reduced taxes every year that I was in office. For over 6 years, I eliminated personal property taxes, & eliminated small-business inventory taxes. As governor, we suspend our state fuel tax, anything & everything that I can do to be able to literally {A}, so that what we could do was literally hang that shingle outside of our community, & outside of our state, & say, 'We are open for business', & it will be the product {...} grows & thrives & prospers."

"So that's part of my track record, & I'll tell ya, California, I always knew that I was accountable to the people who hired me; it was the people of Alaska. And I can promise you that John McCain & I will never forget that we will be there in Washington, DC to work for you, the people of America!"

{A}

"And one mission of our administration, it will be to bring tax-relief to every American, & cut taxes for businesses so that they can hire more people. That creates jobs!"

{A}

"Yes, John mcCain is a real reformer in this election, & he can do this, & he has a record to prove it, & so do I as mayor & governor, as I was cutting taxes for the people of Alaska, & building up infrastructure. And so many claims in this campaign, you know, I think that the phoniest claim in a campaign that's been full of them, is that Barack Obama is going to cut your taxes."

{L} {B}

"I mean, think about it, think about it! He's built his whole career on building up tax money, first as a Chicago politician, & then raising taxes as a senator. He's voted 94 times to raise taxes, even on, {B} even on middle-class everyday Americans making $42,000 a year. {B} He tried to raise a million dollars a day just on his requested earmarks, & now he's committed to almost a trillion dollars in new spending, & he never bothers to tell ya where that money will come from, & no one seems to be asking him how he will pay for this huge government growth that he wants. {A} So since no one's asking him, let's just do the math. You can either do the math, or you can just go with your gut, & either way, you're gonna draw the same conclusion: Barack Obama is going to raise your taxes."

{B}

"Well, evidently, after a not-too-successful interview that I had kind of recently, because I was asked a question that I thought, oh, quite a few questions that I thought, 'Oh, come on, let's just get, you know, let's start talking to the American people about the issues that you guys wanna know about: our plans for {A}, how we're actually gonna put government on the side of the people, how we're gonna win these wars. Those type of issues, but instead, with a kind of a flippant answer that I got when asked about, what do I like to read."

"Evidently, there's been a lot of interest in what I read lately. {L} Well, I was reading today a copy of the New York Times, {B} & I was really interested to read in there about Barack Obama's friends from Chicago, {B} it turns out one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, was a domestic terrorist, & part of a group {B}, part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon & the U.S. Capitol.' {B} Man! These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. Remember? That's what Joe Biden said."

{B}

"Now this is not a man who sees America as you & I see America; we see America as a force for good in this world. {A} We see an America of exceptionalism. {"U.S.A." chant} Yes, U.S.A.! U.S.A.! {A} Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country? {B} This, ladies & gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change that anyone can believe in, not my kids, & not your kids. What we believe in is what Ronald Reagan believed in, & that is an America that is a nation of exceptionalism, & that {A}, that America is a good & honorable nation. We are not perfect; we make mistakes, but we learn from our mistakes. We are a nation that believes in the virtues of freedom, & that those virtues of freedom are worth fighting for!"

{A}

"California, thank you for understanding this; & thank you for understanding that the only man who can live that out in leadership in the White House is John McCain."

{A}

"And something else we'll do in a McCain & Palin administration, we're gonna set this nation firmly on the path of energy independence."

{A}

"Across California & America, high gas prices are making a full tank at the pump feel like a luxury. The cost of living, of course, is going up, & the cost for groceries is going up. Everything's going up. But the value of your paycheck is going down, all because of high energy costs. And that's nonsense. It's nonsense when you consider the wealth of natural resources that God has so richly blessed this land with."

{TO}

"You know, in Alaska alone, we have billions of, [she giggles] we have," {"Drill, baby, drill!" chant}

"You know, I thought when the raindrops started that you guys would want me to kind of rush through some of this!"

{"No!"}

"Yeah, God has so richly blessed this land with resources; in Alaska alone, we have millions of barrels of oil, we have hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean/free natural gas, & it's not just there, it's here in California, & we have the alternative sources of energy also. {A} To meet America's great energy challenge, we're gonna need an all-of-the-above approach. And in a McCain/Palin administration, that does mean developing new alternative sources, & it will require, there'll be more nuclear plants, &," {A}

[Note: Another heckler gets ejected at this time, & it's hard to hear Gov. Palin over the commotion.]

"{...} America {...} third world {...} but it does mean also that we will drill here, & drill now, & that's when you are to chant, 'Drill, baby, drill!'"

[Note: This was very cute the way she ad-libbed it like, "Gosh darn-it, you beat me to the punch!"]

{"Drill, baby, drill!" chant}

"You guys are great!" {A}

{"Sarah" chant}

"Alright, & one more thing on energy, {A} one more thing on energy, this is what it comes down to in a McCain/Palin administration: We will achieve energy security, energy independence for our country. That means American energy resources brought to you by American ingenuity, & produced by American workers!"

{TO}

"Alright, you know, from now until election day, you're gonna hear our opponents still go on & on about how they're going to fight for you, California {B}, California, you know there is only one man in this campaign who has ever really fought for you, {A} only one man with the courage to go on fighting for you, & that man is John McCain!"

{TO}

"California, thank you. You know, people all across the nation, we're always lookin' at what's going on in California. We're gonna be lookin' at what's going on in California between now & on election day. Please, join us, join our cause, bring more people into this, this {...} reform for our country, putting government back on your side. Thank you, California! God bless you, & God bless America!"

{TO}

[Note: I made this transcription based on poor audio from 4 YouTube video sources. The P.A. system had a bit of echo, & depending where you sat, or where the video was recorded, some of her words were drowned by the audience at times, so if you listen to one video & hear something slightly different, or don't hear something you read here in my transcription, please check several other versions. Once again, I did my best to put in bold font her improvised statements that were not on her teleprompter. Nonetheless, I encourage others to submit corrections especially as more recordings of the event, & possibly an official copy of her speech, are made available.]

Her speech ended around 3:20pm, & she spent the next 25 minutes or so greeting VIP supporters down front, signing autographs, even posing for photos with a few lucky people. It was such a thrill to get to spend this brief not-quite-hour-long occasion with her.

I have officially seen royalty!

"Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed; & who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"--Esther 4:13-14

[Note: I can count 19 cameras facing her in this last photo as she poses with a fan! Incredible!]

(No song-of-the-week due to time spent on photos. I took 69 at the event, & had a tough time choosing which ones to post here.)
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 186 views
Royal Banquine, 81 views
ASOR 2007 (p. 6), 60 views

Lighter Matters

2008-09-28T15:05:00.000-07:00

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the 4th day."--Genesis 1:14-19

The message being communicated in this King James Version passage seems so obvious, yet it causes so many people to question the timescale provided by the rest of Genesis, namely, that God created everything only several-thousand years ago. Why? Because we know from measurements of the speed of light using modern equipment, that the lights we see from distant stars must have begun their journey billions of years ago, not thousands of years ago.

Really?

Every student who's taken a high school Science class has been taught that the speed of light (especially in a vacuum such as outer space) is a constant. E=mcc. If you change c, it changes our universe. "Constant" means that it is what it is, & it doesn't change. Like Sarah Palin's patriotism, you can count on it.

But I can't figure out why so many Bible fans have bought into this concept of long timespans though, when the vast majority of those same fans believe God created Adam fully grown, & also believe Jesus changed water into wine instantly. God made the stars on the 4th day far away from Earth on the 4th day to shine light on the 4th day on Earth on the 4th day ... And it was so.

Millions of Bible fans & millions of Bible haters believe with 100% confidence that the stars, their light, space, & Earth are all billions of years old, yet they don't put enough thought into their belief (& I was guilty of this for decades), because if they did, they'd realize that the same competent scientists who proudly profess their belief in these long ages, also inform us that the known universe is composed of only 4% of things we vaguely understand (i.e., ordinary baryonic matter), but 96% of stuff we don't understand at all (22 or 23% "dark matter", 73 or 74% "dark energy"; see "Evolution Science" p. 41).

If you're not a young-Earth creationist, you place more confidence in dark matter/energy than in the Bible. For an atheist, that's admirable; for a professing Christian, that's an embarrassment.

Well, in recent years, the separation between faith & fact is getting fuzzier, & the definitions of facts are changing. More & more, what we thought was true & proven & constant/unchanging, ain't so. Yet Genesis 1 & Exodus 20:11 still inform anyone with an open mind that God created everything (including the stars) in only 6 otherwise-ordinary days.

In the past decade, scientists have successfully slowed down light tremendously. In nature it may appear to be constant (with only trivial decreases in speed when it travels outside of a vacuum), but in photonics laboratories, t'aint so! Harvard issued this press release way back in 2001:

"Researchers now able to stop, restart light ... 'Two years ago we slowed it down [20 million-fold] to 38 miles an hour; now we've been able to park it then bring it back up to full speed.' ... Less than five years ago, the speed of light was considered one of the universe's great constants. ... [Lene] Hau, [then] 41, a professor of physics at Harvard, admits that the famous genius [Albert Einstein] would 'probably be stunned' at the results of her experiments."

In this month's issue of Laser Focus World comes another interesting report of a practical application for slowing down the speed of light ... to help you surf the Worldwide Web faster:

"The ability to route, switch, and store information in broadband telecommunications networks typically depends on electrical signals, but a new optical technique to slow down and trap light may offer a 1000% speed-up of Internet traffic."

OK. So if you're the type who normally laughs at the notion of the universe being only several thousand years old instead of billions of years old, you're probably laughing even harder right now, because it's obvious to any school child that even if dark matter & dark energy could somehow make light travel slower, that would be even worse for young-Earth creationists.

True. But the point I'm making is not that light can travel faster than its typical "constant" value, but that it's not necessarily constant everywhere in space, particularly in regions way outside of our puny little solar system where we've never been; & if it's not constant, why would you want to express faith that it is constant (or possibly slower) everywhere in the universe all the time, rather than trust whoever wrote Genesis & reported on the miracles that Jesus performed?

But alas, we're actually getting closer to demonstrating that the speed of light can be increased! And it makes sense that if it can go much slower under certain conditions, it should theoretically go much faster under others. Last month, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania reported:

"Scientists [there] have theorized a way to increase the speed of pulses of light that bound across chains of tiny metal particles to well past the speed of light by altering the particle shape. ... An interesting conundrum arises from the work. The theory of relativity prohibits anything from moving faster than light. 'But what is a thing?' [Dr. Vadim A.] Markel said. ... It is predicted that the superluminal properties of these pulses are much bolder than anything previously observed."

As the article states, currently the advance is only theoretical. But if it's theoretical, it may very well be possible some day. Some day when school students conduct experiments speeding up & slowing down light, & if 96% of the path along which light travels from a distant star to Earth remains "dark", will they stop & wonder if God could've done something special on day #4 to make light travel faster, & then slow it down to only 186,282 miles/second?

"Who is as the wise man, and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed."--Ecclesiastes 8:1

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."--Acts 4:13

Song of the week: "I'm Beginning To See The Light" by Bert Kaempfert (CD not available on Amazon; click here for a 25-second sample; 328kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 186 views
Royal Banquine, 79 views
ASOR 2007 (p. 6), 59 views

God Bless Sarah America

2008-09-07T14:43:00.000-07:00

After her tremendous speech Wednesday night, Sarah Palin made me think (among other things) about Biblical Queen Esther, which in turn prompted me to think of the Hebrew word for "queen". I thought it was either MLKE or MLKT, or something with "MLK" in it, but I was surprised to find 3 words translated into "queen". One was indeed MLKE/MLKT (same basic root; Strong's #4436), & the other 2 were SGL (#7694) and ...

"Her wise ladies answered her, yea, she returned answer to herself...""--Judges 5:29

"And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."--1Kings 11:3

"Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen."--Esther 1:18

"And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for Me."--Isaiah 49:23

"She that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!"--Lamentations 1:1

Strong's #8282 sarah {saw-raw'} from 08269; TWOT - 2295b; n f
AV - lady 2, princess 2, queen 1
1) princess, noblewoman, noble lady

Indeed! Talk about serendipity ... or in this case, sarah-dipity!!!

"I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America. I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country. ... To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."--Sarah Palin, 2008-Sep-3

As humans formed in God's image, we are obligated to respect God's creation including the miracles of conception, prenatal development, & childbirth (all obviously designed by God). We are all "special-needs children" in this sin-cursed world, even moreso now that abortions, homosexuality, & atheism have become things of respect, rather than things of disdain.

We who worship God & care about the future of America's culture need to reform our public schools so that children can be inspired & encouraged to think freely ... not force-fed a single perspective on biological origins, & that kind of positive change will not be the product of an Obamanation.

Though our ultimate Advocate is our risen Savior, it would be nice to have one in a very high place within our temporal government. One who doesn't just claim to be a Christian, but one through whom Christ actually lives!

God has truly blessed America with this noble lady, Sarah Palin! We have not been ashamed for having waited...

Last week I couldn't make up my mind which side of my car's bumper I should put my new sticker on. I fixed that by designing a new one!

Song of the week: "Bless The Beasts & Children" by The Carpenters (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 26-second sample; 328kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 182 views
Royal Banquine, 79 views
Checkmate, 43 views

Running Mates & Genitals

2008-08-31T18:08:00.000-07:00

"The notion that genital size is related to the origin of species is not new. But how they are related has perplexed evolutionary biologists. The individuals of most species do not choose mates according to the size and shape of genitalia."

So said Science Daily this week ("How 'Secondary' Sex Characters Can Drive the Origin of Species") reporting on an article to be published in next month's issue of Evolution (International Journal of Organic Evolution).

The species being discussed is yet another member of the ancient royal-symbol scarab family, Onthophagus taurus.

One side of the scientific fence ... evolutionists ... examines animals like these beetles with the belief that the forms we observe today evolved over millions of years from some completely different form of life, & will continue doing so via the process of Natural Selection unless they either become extinct or change into something completely different again. The speciation of this particular animal occurred faster than expected ... within 50 years, which for scientists who religiously believe in evolutionism is "an extremely short period of time".

On the other side of the fence, creationists believe that in the beginning God created a variety of animal families, each with "very good" DNA chock full o' information allowing descendants within the family to spread out over the planet, & adapt to various environmental conditions. The net result now, some several thousand years later, is a cornucopia of diverse populations thanks to the same Natural Selection process. What most evolutionists don't grasp very well is the concept that this process acts upon existing traits. It can't select something that doesn't exist, & DNA contains information that's way too complicated (even in the least complicated forms of life we know) to have appeared randomly.

Mutations are a form of genetic change we can observe. Progressive improvements resulting from mutations, however, are imaginary ... they're a form of change we can believe in, but they require a miracle (i.e., a yet-to-be-documented process, like believing Jesus will return to reign over us some day).

One of the reasons that evolutionists only consider topics like this from a narrow-minded, limited framework, is that most of them have been indoctrinated to think this way courtesy of an education system that's not exactly creationist-friendly.

***

Another interesting happening this past week in the U.S. political arena, came from John McCain's announcement that Sarah Palin will be his running mate. Critics were quick to accuse him of choosing her solely according to her genitalia (i.e., because she's a very pretty woman, & he hopes to draw votes from Hillary Clinton's supporters).

These pundits must not have heard about the latest research on the aforementioned beetle!

I overheard an Obama fan laughing at Ms. Palin ... something about her being a beauty queen under investigation with no political experience ... & I was curious what the truth was since most Obama supporters lack credibility (e.g., based on their beliefs that irresponsible women have the right to choose to kill their unborn children, that homosexuality should be condoned via marriage, & that President Bush was wrong to invade Iraq to dethrone its anti-American dictator, who was obviously harboring our enemies).

Later, when I heard her acceptance speech via radio, she impressed me with her loud, confident, conservative voice. Senator McCain lauded her beforehand by describing her character, but I rarely pay attention to things politicians say in speeches; however, when I heard a commentator mention that she was pro-creationism, I became more interested!

According to the Anchorage Daily News blog posted on October 25, 2006, Governor Palin participated in a televised debate in which the moderator, Michael Carey, "asked about teaching alternatives to evolution[ism] - such as creationism and intelligent design - in public schools." According to the blog's transcript, she said:

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution[ism]. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

That settled it for me! For the first time in my life, I'm officially interested in politics! A lady with that level of intelligence, who so far has apparently been an excellent mayor & an excellent governor (as well as an excellent mother based on having raised several decent kids), would make not just an excellent vice president, but president!

As for the aforementioned investigation into her, as far as I'm concerned, any politician who's been accused by their opponents of abusing their power by dismissing another government worker (in this case, a Public Safety Commissioner), should consider it an accomplishment.

As for complaints about her lack of political experience & foreign travel, I again consider both of these to be attributes rather than scars. Some of the worst politicians are those who want to be ones, & don't know how to do anything else. George Washington was not a politician; he was a farmer first, & a courageous general second.

As for concerns over the possible neglect of her "special-needs" baby, she acted responsibly by giving him life rather than death (a.k.a. "exercising her right to choose", a.k.a., "having an abortion"), so I trust that she'll be responsible enough to take care of him, or even put him up for adoption if she finds the job of vice president too demanding. It's not like she's an irresponsible woman who needs to have an abortion to support her drug & prostitution habit. Aside from having a father & several older siblings capable of babysitting him, this child will be protected by the Secret Service.

Even though John McCain does not represent my ideal presidential candidate (mostly for his weak stance on closing our borders, rounding up people who crossed them illegally, & deporting them), I gave his campaign a small donation this weekend ... my first ever ... but it won't be my last if Ms. Palin decides to run for president in 2012:

So while the authors of the upcoming Evolution report, Armin Moczek & Harald Parzer, examine the horns & copulatory organs of male beetles, & while Democrats make fun of Ms. Palin for having participated in a beauty contest a couple of decades ago (during which time their presidential hopeful was attending worship services led by a hate-filled bigot/racist, who dumped his pastor & congregation when he found it to be politically expedient as if nobody with an objective brain would notice), I'm going to do my part (beginning with a simple little bumper sticker) in supporting someone with the courage & insight to take a stand for God & for her country.

Sarah Palin will help us preserve the vision of our founding patriots. I want America to continue being one nation under the God who created everything in 6 days. I don't want to let it become an Obamanation to God.

What are you going to do?

Song of the month: "In God's Country" by U2 (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 29-second sample; 361kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 180 views
Royal Banquine, 79 views
Checkmate, 42 views

G.M. & Gutenberg's Machine

2008-07-20T20:14:00.000-07:00

"We're so used to living with printed matter every day of our lives, from the cereal package in the morning to the book at bedtime, that it might perhaps be rather hard to imagine what the world was like before printing, so we have to come somewhere like here, this monastery ... in a village just a few miles from Mainz where Gutenberg grew up, & this is where, not the printed word, but the written word, was king."

So says Stephen Fry, the narrator for all of the popular Harry Potter films, about 800 seconds into the new 59-minute movie, "The Machine That Made Us" (Wavelength Films Ltd.). You can download the entire 100-Megabyte movie that aired earlier this year on BBC Four television at DontPressMe.com's site (I'd recommend you begin downloading it now in another window to get a headstart on it; after the page loads, press the viewer's Pause button, & resume reading this blog while it continues to download). It's well worthwhile for anyone interested in the history of the Bible.

Gutenberg didn't really "invent" the press; his chief accomplishment was his streamlining of the entire book-manufacturing process, bringing together movable/recyclable type, paper (from recycled rags), ink, press, & binding. His goal wasn't simply to mass-produce books, so much as to mechanically replicate handmade books. For example, instead of making a single uppercase "G", & a single lowercase "g", he formed about half-a-dozen variants to create what could legitimately be named Artificial Writing, & contemporaries spoke of his trade as the "art of multiplying books".

I've studied Gutenberg a bit, & have seen 2 original Gutenberg Bibles (The Huntington Library's vellum copy, & the Library of Congress (LOC)'s paper copy), several individual leaves ... usually in exhibits behind security glass except one I was allowed the privilege of holding for a few seconds (by a dealer/acquaintance, Dr. Craig Lampe; currently offering 2 for $79k & $119k). I also own 19 facsimile leaves (worth a whopping $19(!); discussed in the book I began writing in the late 1990s prior to becoming involved in LMLK research). Nonetheless, I found this film informative &, to a certain degree, entertaining. I especially liked Fry's observation that Gutenberg's press probably resembled that of a winepress used for squeezing grapes to make wine (another LMLK tie-in).

It was brought to my attention by Kitty Maryatt, Director of the Scripps College Press, Assistant Professor of Art at Scripps, and proprietor of Two Hands Press in Playa Vista, CA. She's been involved in the book arts since 1971 as a calligrapher, book artist, letterpress printer, binder, & teacher. Students in her Scripps class, "Typography and the Book Arts", have developed, written, printed, & bound 42 different editions. As Two Hands Press, she produces work for clients and makes her own one-of-a-kind books. Her credentials & her eloquence are very impressive (pun intended)!

She gave an excellent 1-hour lecture this weekend at The International Printing Museum, located a mere 15-minute drive from where I live here in southern California. I've been a financial supporter of this tremendous institution for over a decade now, & if you're ever visiting the region, I'd highly recommend you center your agenda around it!

Mark Barbour, the Director & Curator, & his docents always make it an entertaining, hands-on learning experience covering the entire history of printing, from cuneiform clay tablets, to Chinese paper-making, to Gutenberg's press (one of the few places in the world where you can see a working replica of one), to the history of printing in America. In particular, with the help of one docent who dresses up as Benjamin Franklin when school children visit on field trips, they emphasize the Revolution era & the Constitutional Convention (the kids get to play politicians from the 12 colonies [noting Rhode Island's absence]).

You can even get an authentic line-of-type cast from molten metal with your name (or any respectable words):

So how do all these topics, a Gutenberg movie, the American Revolution, & a chunk of metal, relate?

Prof. Maryatt's lecture discussed a project she challenged her students with a couple of years ago. Each year they produce their own original book, & in her lecture, she described one involving the replication of an original Gutenberg leaf kept in the Special Collections department of the Scripps College libraries (which are adjacent to, but distinct from, the Claremont School of Theology where I did a significant chunk of my LMLK research).

Here's the ad & abstract for her lecture, "Emulating Gutenberg with B-42 Type":

"This lecture is sponsored by a generous grant for the Book Club of California. Founded in 1912, The Book Club is a non-profit organization of book lovers and collectors who have a special interest in Pacific Coast history, literature, and fine printing. Its chief aims are to further the interests of book collectors and scholars and to promote an understanding and appreciation of fine books.

Ms. Maryatt will discuss her fascinating experiences hand setting a facsimile page of the Gutenberg Bible using Dale Guild Type Foundry’s B-42 type, a faithful re-cutting of the types of Johann Gutenberg, as seen in his monumental 42-line Bibla Sacra, ca. 1455. Production of this font required that 245 characters were drawn, cut and cast.

The Scripps College Press developed an artists' book version of a leaf book. The resulting letterpress edition was called Beorum II, an investigation of risk.

In her lecture, Ms. Maryatt provides an explanation of scribal practices used in medieval books to enhance an understanding of the abbreviations and ligatures in the font. She will also provide information and elaboration related to the printing press, the handmade paper and vellum used for the edition, the decoration and aspects of medieval bookbinding practices and bookselling.

In addition to the lecture and PowerPoint presentation, attendees will have opportunities to see one of the printed pages and see some pieces of the Gutenberg type."

By the way, to inspire comments for this blog, I'd like to encourage my readers to guess why her students titled their book, "Beorum II"!

So while she & her students were busy producing their book in California, Stephen Fry was busy making his film in Europe. About 800 seconds into the film, I noticed a red flag in his research while he was in the basement of The British Library & stated, "They hold a copy of every book published in English!"

That may just be a little of his British pride peeping through his script, because all librarians know that our beloved LOC (founded on the great Thomas Jefferson's collection) has more books (20 to 30 million) than any other library in the history of the world has ever had, including a copy of my LMLK vol. 1, which is also in Harvard University's research library, but not in the British Library (which only has a paltry 13 million ... about half of LOC's)!

(Note to any librarian of the British Library reading my blog ... publicly admit that the LOC's books outnumber your own, & I'll send you a free copy of Lv1 to help your institution's card catalog evolve!)

During her lecture, Prof. Maryatt mentioned the movie was a documentary in which they were attempting to teach Gutenberg's achievement by building their own version of his press in order to reprint a page of his Latin Bible. They successfully built the press & made some rag-paper, but they lacked the letter-type that Scripps College had invested in (I think she said it cost in excess of $5,000).

I did not bring my high-quality camera along with me, but when I saw the actual type after her lecture, I found it so mesmerizing that I had to go out to my car & retrieve my cellphone, & use its built-in low-quality camera to take a picture of it. Even though the photo turned out fuzzy, I thought it would be nice to include it here since I don't usually include photos in most of my blogs:

I suppose that what fascinated me the most was imagining what it would've been like to see the original type some 550 years ago, the first time it had been arranged in the case like this, awaiting to print the first page of a Holy Bible!

When she showed one of the pages printed & hand-illuminated by her students side-by-side with a Xerox-copy of the original leaf, it was truly amazing! Gutenberg had printed his on slightly moist paper, or in a very humid environment, because the pressing operation caused some of the letters to bleed ink, resulting in a slightly smudgy appearance under high magnification. In fact, in one letter she zoomed in on during her slideshow, you could clearly see the outline of the original type within the puddle of ink since it was a shallower puddle of ink than the adjacent area it bled into. So side-by-side, the letters printed by her students were crystal clear:

It was a remarkable achievement, because not only did they have to identify the numerous versions of letters that Gutenberg originally cast (at least 270 variants identified by one researcher), but they also had to justify the columns & add filler material between the letters to maintain the same spacing!

46 minutes into the film, after outlining Gutenberg's history, his culture, & replicating a wooden press, & manufacturing a piece of paper & a single piece of type (a lowercase "e"), Stephen Fry brings us to the film's climax:

"The great day's arrived! It's been 5 months since Alan [May] first got together his plans & designed his printing press. It's now built, type has been made in Basel, I've cast the type personally, nothing can stop us from printing a page of Gutenberg text! This must be how the great man felt, himself! [begin voice-over] Before we start printing, I have a little confession to make: It took Stan [Nelson] & me the best part of a day to make just one individual letter, 'e'. To produce all the type needed to print a full Bible, probably took Gutenberg's team around a year, & frankly I don't have his time or his patience, so I cheated. This package has come from the States. It's a replica page of type set to the exact measurements of a Gutenberg original, & thankfully, nothing's been damaged in transit. [end voice-over] So this is ... [shakes his head in awestruck disbelief after opening the package sent by Prof. Maryatt of Scripps College] ... so this is perfect, isn't it?! We can print from these?!"

Well, you can watch the film to see for yourself if Fry & his team were successful in printing a Gutenberg leaf the old-fashioned way (not the way my 19 facsimiles were printed using photolithography); however, one thing you won't learn from the film, even from the credits that run during the final minute, is who made the type & loaned it to them! Those words crediting those persons are completely missing! I WAS SHOCKED! Those ungrateful British rats!!! They didn't mention Scripps College, Kitty Maryatt, or her students ... they didn't even mention California!

It's as if, "We were up against a dead end, & all we could print was one stupid letter made in Europe, then lo & behold, out of nowhere, a miracle happened, & this humble package came knocking on our door at just the right time, with all the letters from an original leaf of the Gutenberg Bible meticulously manufactured & arranged like they were 550 years ago ... wow, aren't we a lucky bunch of chaps, yes we are indeed..."

Shame on you Stephen Fry!

Shame on you Wavelength Films Ltd.!

So I'm deliberately going to go through great lengths to give Prof. Maryatt & her students some well-deserved attention & credit where it's due. Using Google, I found hundreds of sites discussing this film, but only a single page mentioning their contribution (the Chesapeake Chapter of The American Printing History Association's December 2007 Member News entry by Stan Nelson, who appeared in the film, credited as a "printing historian (type maker)").

So here's a screen-shot of Fry & 2 others on his team opening the package sent by Kitty Maryatt on behalf of Scripps College in California:

Here's the typecast-page as they remove it from the package sent by Kitty Maryatt on behalf of Scripps College in California:

Here's a close-up of the typecast-page made in America by Kitty Maryatt & her students at Scripps College (a much better quality photo of it than I was able to take at the museum):

Here's Stephen Fry's guilty British fingers holding up the single version of a single European letter that he made:

Here's Stan Nelson's innocent fingers inserting the single version of a single letter that Stephen Fry made into the middle of the entire typecast-page made in God bless America by Kitty Maryatt & her students at Scripps College:

By the way, thanks to BBC Four (notice their watermark near the top-left corner of each of these lo-res screen-shots) for originally airing this film on April 14th, & for allowing me to use these screen-shots (whether they want me to or not) to give credit where credit is due.

For additional unbiased info, please refer to the film's entry in the Internet Movie DataBase.

Song of the week: "Words" by Missing Persons (click the song title to visit Amazon; click here for a 30-second sample; 394kb).
G.M. Grena

Chephirah–The Biblical Village Roars Again, 176 views
Royal Banquine, 79 views
Checkmate, 36 views