Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Dr Mariottini has posted an interesting article on the  Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription.  It is the oldest inscription in Hebrew ever found from the 10th century BC and it has been translated. It is inscribed on a shard of pottery. Dr. Mariottini quotes a passage from his source showing why this is noteworthy:

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

Anything that give us more insight into the world in which the Bible was written can only deepen our understanding on scripture. Dr. Mariottini has given a great place to start researching this. If you are interested the resource quoted by Mariottini also gives the translations of the text.

English translation of the deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

Professor Mariottini has provided the most up-to-date information. When the pottery shard was first found many thought it was about King David directly. To see the older information follow this link.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Here is the second part of  Mariano's four-part series telling more about the differences between Judaism and Christianity sees Psalm 22. It's brilliant. This part covers more rabbinical sources on the subject.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

Apologetics 315 has posted a pretty great discussion concerning Anthony Flew's recent book, The Big Picture: There Is A God. Anthony Flew is one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century and he has spent most of his career arguing for atheism....until about 2004. He used to argue, debate, and try to disprove the evidence for God for about 50 years! There has been shock and awe that he now says, after looking at the current evidence, the he has changed his mind. The discussion is about what caused him to change his mind. It's extremely useful to hear this discussion. The post also has other resources and documentation showing that Flew has indeed had a change of heart. I want to make clear that I am not saying that Flew is now a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. He has merely stated that now he has gone from saying that there is no God to agreeing that there is a possibility that there is a God. This is monumental and goes to show his character. Most people would rather not say anything than admit that they have changed their mind after expousing something for 50 yrs.

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

I've been debating Beechbaum on Saturday on the basically the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he says he can refute.  Craig has a  three-point  reasoning the  existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites

Beechbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to to have morality. I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in red font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective. He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: Kung San in Africa and The Na of China. I will be writing a second post on this. 

On Thursday 31st December 2009, @Beechbum said:

@_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question:

"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"

to highlight an inescapable property of morality.

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like say; the freezing/boiling points of water, E=MC² or the properties of thermodynamics. This is to say that morality is not, nor has it ever been, an objective property of nature, i.e. the universe. Morality is the excepted convention of the majority, concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents, the surviving members of an evolving society, it is subjective, (subject to a given situation). This is why we, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property etc. all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't. As for slavery, the Bible neither condemns or condones slavery as institution because the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans. In no way were the Israelites were supposed to think of their slaves as their own personal property nor could they treat themselves that way. Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us.

Like the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain for example is a case where civil law is enacted to instill a convention throughout a populous that is neither right nor wrong, just excepted and practiced. Morality is the practiced conventions of a society, excepted by the majority as good and right for all, which is why societies are evolving toward the betterment for all in free societies, but stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is right or wrong. This is also the proof anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, for the same reason that morality is a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, allowed to flourish, grow intellectually, pragmatically and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that  adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual? Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong? We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, and take everything you have  even if you can't stop me. Why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that its wrong?  We know it's not the latter because then you have to say why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image.

So, to the question; can one be good (moral) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! Now, the glaring question is, Can one be good (moral) with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to doubt that very assertion, also emphatically.

Not so fast. Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is. If I think that stealing your car is good, then why would I be wrong? What if I could convince the authorities that it was my car and not yours? Would I still be wrong? According to Beechbum, no. Do you really want to live in a world like that? Didn't think so. Be glad that there is a God. . 

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse their concerns that without some central authority, all is permissible. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the age of the Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide right and wrong, that is morality.

Maybe it's because Beechbum does not live on the continent, but he seems to have forgotten that the government is organized into a representative democracy because they thought that the common man was unable to govern themselves. The checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were put in place because they didn't trust people to not become power drunk or abusive.  Trust had nothing to do with it. There was an elitist attitude coached in "We the people". They really meant "US" (meaning they). I was three-fifths a man back then!  And they could have never conceived that there would ever be a black man in the highest office in the land a scant 233 year later. Looking at all that I don't want me or any other human being determining right and wrong because it will not always be in my interest. It's far better to follow after God's interest and trust Him, because we sure can't trust our elected officials.  We need to pray for them.

Twitlonger: @_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question: "Is what you're