Matt Lauer Boasts Today Exclusive 'That Could Rock Christianity to its Core'

Photo of Geoffrey Dickens.
  • Bookmark and Share

Brought to you by the same people who couldn't get enough of Ron Howard's Christian-bashing The Da Vinci Code, comes another promotional effort of yet another Hollywood director's take on Jesus Christ conspiracy theories. At the top of the show NBC Today host Matt Lauer greeted viewers with the following tease about James Cameron's new documentary: "A shocking new claim that an ancient burial place may have housed the bones of Christ and a son. This morning a Today exclusive that could rock Christianity to its core."

Today co-host Meredith Vieira conducted the interview and promoted the discovery this way: "There are so few 'wow' stories out there, this is one of them." While Today did air some contradictory statements for the most part the entire segment ran as a full blown infomercial for Cameron's documentary. The following are all the teases and then the full segment as it aired on the 7:30am half-hour of the February 26th Today show:

[7:00am]

Matt Lauer: "Is it the tomb of Jesus? A shocking new claim that an ancient burial place may have housed the bones of Christ and a son. This morning a Today exclusive that could rock Christianity to its core."

...

[7:03am]

Meredith Vieira: "And then we have a potentially amazing story. Have we possibly found the tomb of Jesus Christ? You're looking live at the boxes that could have contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. They are in an undisclosed location. There's a news conference later today but we're gonna talk to the filmmakers first, here on the Today show about that discovery."

Lauer: "More research needs to be done but if this turns out to be true this changes everything."

Vieira: "Oh it's a huge story, absolutely."

...

[7:20am]

Meredith Vieira: "Meanwhile, coming up, a story that's bound to become the subject of a lot of debate. Have archeologists found the tomb of Jesus Christ? We'll get into the controversy but first this is Today on NBC."

...

[7:31am]

Matt Lauer: "Also ahead we're gonna talk about a discovery that if it's true it could rock the world. Did this 2000 year-old tomb in Jerusalem once hold the bones of Jesus and his family including a son? A new book and a documentary from Oscar-winning director James Cameron traces an archeological find that could change everything we know about Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene."

...

[7:37am]

Lauer, over song "Jesus Christ Superstar": "But up next a Today exclusive. Did these boxes once hold the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene? We'll find out why director James Cameron and others think it just may be true when we talk, right after this."

...

And now the full segment, in its entirety:

[7:40am]

Meredith Vieira: "It could be the greatest archeological find ever. Since the 1970s hundreds of tombs and thousands of ancient bone boxes have been uncovered in the holy land but now one tomb unearthed in Talpiot in 1980 is being regarded differently because it once held a box with this inscription: 'Jesus Son of Joseph.' While the Bible tells the story of Jesus and his resurrection this box could show physical evidence that he existed, was buried and that he had a son, Judah. Those are the claims in a new book from Emmy-winning investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici and a documentary from Academy Award-winning director James Cameron."

[Clip from The Da Vinci Code: "Witness the biggest cover-up in human history."]

Vieira: "It was the central controversial claim of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code."

[The Da Vinci Code clip: "Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife."]

Vieira: "That Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and started a royal bloodline that continues today. Brown's story was fiction but now a new documentary and book announce a startling real life discovery."

[Clip from documentary]

Simcha Jacobovici: "It's unbelievable."

Unidentified man: "This is it!"

Jacobovici: "It's the real thing."

[End clip]

Vieira: "Journalist Simcha Jacobovici says this tomb discovered underneath what is now an apartment complex near Jerusalem may be the final resting place of Jesus Christ. And this limestone box, called an ossuary, could have held his actual bones."

[Clip from documentary]

Unidentified woman going over tomb inscription: "...is for 'M'"

[end clip]

Vieira: "This ossuary may have held Maria's or the Virgin Mary's. This one is labeled Mary Amne which Christian scriptures says was Mary Magdalene's real name. And perhaps most shocking of all the writing on this box translates to: 'Judah Son of Jesus.' If true the consequences are impossible to measure."

Father Thomas Williams: "Well Christianity really stands or falls with the fact of Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead and that he physically ascended into Heaven."

Vieira: "Father Thomas Williams is an NBC News analyst."

Williams: "Where was this supposed son if, if he had one he would've been a prominent member of this new church and he wasn't."

Vieira: "The Church is not alone in auguring this tomb may have nothing to do with the Jesus Christ millions now worship. The site was first examined 27 years ago. An archeologist then came to a very different conclusion."

[Clip from documentary]

Professor Amos Kloner: "These are the most common names among Jews in the first century common era."

David Mevorah, chief curator, Israel Museum: "Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is far-fetched."

[end clip]

Vieira: "Jakobovici says experts in statistics, DNA and patina testing back up the conclusion that this could be the biggest archeological find ever."

[clip from documentary]

Man: "We found it, we actually-"

[end clip]

Vieira: "Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron are here for their first television interview on the Jesus Family Tomb and the Discovery Channel documentary called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Good morning to both of you gentlemen."

Simcha Jacobovici: "Good morning."

Vieira: "Read the book over the weekend, watched the documentary. There are so few 'wow' stories out there, this is one of them. I mean Simcha you believe you have found the family tomb of Jesus. You have brought over two of the ossuaries or the, the bone boxes, as we call them and you're gonna display them in front of the, the press later on today. We have them here. I want to show the audience. Got a live shot of them. And you describe which ones we're looking at. Oh there, there they are, right there."

Jacobovici: "We're looking at the bone box inscribed: 'Jesus Son of Joseph,' that's the more plain one, the smaller one. And the other one says Mari Amne which is, scholars today say is the real name of Mary Magdalene."

Vieira: "And they were found in that tomb along with other boxes that you believe held the, the remains of Mother Mary. Some of the relatives and also Judah who you think was the son. The box says, 'Judah Son of Jesus.' If this is correct what are the implications? They're huge."

Jacobovici: "They are huge but they're not necessarily the implications that people think they are. For example some believers will say, 'Well this challenges the resurrection.' I don't know why. If Jesus rose from one tomb he could have risen from the other tomb. It really has to do with ascension. But we're not theologians, I'm not a theologian. We're here, we're reporters and we're reporting the facts and what we're saying is here are the facts. There is a tomb, it has ossuaries. This, everybody agrees on that, archeologists. What do they say? 'Jesus Son of Joseph.' One that belongs to Maria, the mother, one belongs to Mary Magdalene. Another belongs to Josi, which the Gospel of Mark, the, the earliest gospel says is a nickname of the brother of Jesus. These are facts."

Vieira: "And that was a rare name, Josi? Not one you would find very often."

Jacobovici: "No."

James Cameron: "It's the only one, it's the only one found with that exact name."

Vieira: "And another box is, is inscribed with the named Matia?"

Cameron: "Matthew."

Jacobovici: "Matthew, yeah."

Vieira: "Matthew."

Jacobovici: "So what we're saying is that we took, we took the facts and had been dismissive. 'It couldn't be, it couldn't be the family of Jesus.' For two reasons. The second Mary couldn't be, isn't Mary Magdalene. But in 1980 when it was found they didn't know that her real name, not her title but her real name is Mari Amne, and that's what it says on the box. And the second thing is what these people said on your show. They're common names. But these are archeologists, they never went to statisticians. What are the odds a cluster of names? We went to statisticians. We were shocked by, by what they said."

Vieira: "And what were the odds that, that this is indeed the family of Jesus."

Cameron: "Well I, I think that you, that they don't like to use the term odds but they'll do a probability study and the, sort of the upper numbers that we're coming up with were up in the range of a couple million to one against, I mean in, in favor of it being them. Or say two million to one that it's, that it's not, a chance that it's not them. And the lowest boundary is somewhere around 100 to 1. So 100 to 1 is a 99 percent probability."

Jacobovici: "It's 100 to 1 for the tomb, between 100 to 1 and 1000 to 1 for the tomb."

Vieira: "And nothing to you suggests that there's any forgery involved or anything like that?"

Jacobovici: "Nobody argue, the archeologists who even deny that this is the family of Jesus don't deny that this is a true, authentic find. The issue is that archeologists played statisticians and dismissed the find. What we did is we went to the statisticians. We're just reporting the new-, we're not statisticians, we're not theologians. We're reporting the news. And now the debate is gonna begin because statisticians say it's significant. DNA experts say it's significant."

Vieira: "I want to talk about the DNA because when these ossuaries were first found there were bones in them back in 1980 and the archeologists removed, the bones were removed and buried. But there was enough remnant in, in the, the box that you believe contained the, the remains of Jesus and the one with Mary Magdalene. And you were able to, to DNA tests. And what did you find?"

Jacobovici: "We didn't do, experts did-"

Vieira: "Right."

Jacobovici: "DNA experts-"

Vieira: "Were you able to have them conducted?"

Jacobovici: "They didn't remove, they didn't remove bones. What they removed was what they call forensic human residue. We had a CSI lab in New York work on this. We had a paleo-DNA lab in Ontario work on this. And, and they got mitochondrial DNA. And what they found, see this could have killed the whole theory. If Mary Magdalene and Jesus', if that, if they match it means they weren't husband and wife, they're brother and sister. They didn't match. So they got a DNA profile. And again we're here to, you know, people have to, you know, people are gonna talk about all kinds of rumors, people are already commenting. They have to see the film, they have to see the evidence, March 4th on Discovery. They have to read the book The Jesus Family Tomb because only after they see the evidence will they be able to judge something as shocking as this."

Vieira: "And there are some critics including and I'm probably not gonna pronounce his name right it's Jozias, 'z' 'i' 'a' 's.'"

Jacobovici: "He hasn't seen the film and he hasn't read the book so this-"

Vieira: "Well he is a curator who was involved in the, in the initial finding of the ossuaries. Let me just read to you what he says, James. He says, 'Simcha has no credibility whatsoever. He's pimping off the Bible. He got this guy, Cameron,' you, 'who made Titanic or something like that. What does this guy know about archeology? Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession. You were brought into this because, obviously, you felt strongly about it. What do you think of that statement?"

Cameron: "Well yeah. I mean I, I think that, first of all, it's fair to say that I'm not an archeologist, I'm not, I'm a filmmaker. I'm the executive producer of this film. I helped put together the financing to get it made. I, I looked at the evidence initially and as a, as a, as a layman I found it to be compelling but I, I knew I needed to learn a lot more which I did over the, over the two years of the study. And, and over that two-year period I haven't seen anything that contradicts the, the initial hypothesis. I think people have their, their specific agendas and their, and their specific kind of knee-jerk reactions but I think when they see the film and they see how the evidence is presented then they should, then they should comment. Yeah, I'm not a theologian, I'm not an archeologist, I'm a documentary filmmaker."

Vieira: "Why wouldn't people be clamoring to get at this information? That's what I don't understand."

Jacobovici: "By the way, by the way the same Jozias, by the way I agree with Jim, I'm not, I'm an investigative journalist. That's my skill-set. And we went to archeologists and saw, and so they're reporting. It's not us. It's not us doing the science but I'll say this, when Jozias was involved in the find back in 1980 he said, and I quote, 'If I hadn't seen this excavated myself I would think it was a hoax.' So he was very compelled. And then what did they do with all these ossuaries? They put them on shelves, kinda Indiana Jones-style and they ignored it for 27 years. All we're doing is we're telling the world a story and let the scientists-"

Cameron: "To be fair, to be fair to them, they, there was a critical piece of information they didn't have available. They looked at the, they said, 'Oh well there's a second Mary here, you know Mary Amne is a, is a diminutive of Miriam which is Mary."

Vieira: "Miriam, right."

Cameron: "And but they didn't have the information from the, from the Acts of Philip which definitely identifies Mary Magdalene as Mary Amne. If they had that information-"

Vieira: "Maybe they would've, yeah."

Cameron: "-they might have looked at the whole name cluster very differently in 1980."

Vieira: "Well it is-"

Cameron: "Simcha found that information."

Vieira: "Yeah I am, I'm sorry that we've run out of time because it is absolutely fascinating, potentially, I mean, many would argue the biggest story or one of the biggest stories of our lifetime if you are correct."

Jacobovici: "We are unveiling this today at 11am, at a press conference."

Vieira: "Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron thank you to both of you. The book is The Jesus Family Tomb and the Discovery Channel documentary is The Lost Tomb of Jesus which will air Sunday night at 9pm/8pm central. I'm sure you're gonna hear a lot more about this. You can also find more on our Web site at today.msnbc.com. And we are back after this. Thank you gentlemen very, very much."

UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 23:38 EST): Below are a few good blog items that have picked apart Cameron's assertions as inconsistencies, although it appears the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins is taking Cameron on blind faith at his blog, which labels itself a "clear-thinking oasis."

Kim Priestap at WizBang pointed out archaeologists who dispute Cameron's claim.

Bryan at Hot Air dismisses the use of DNA analysis as meaningless pseudoscience when dealing with 2,000-year old remains and adds that it's laughable if Cameron's DNA comparison is that found on a relic of questionable authenticity:

If they’re comparing the DNA to what appears to be blood extracted from the Shroud of Turin, well, that would be…interesting. The Shroud’s authenticity isn’t exactly an established fact, though, making such a DNA comparison a bit specious, to say the least... It would be ironic, to say the least, if the Shroud pops up as Cameron’s DNA ace in the hole. The phrase "house of cards" comes to mind.

—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

rock thee

Not mine.

Yawn and double yawn

Sunday, February 25, 2007, Yawn and double yawn,

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/JWalking/2007/02/yawn-and-double-yawn.html

 The bottom line from the whole, "Hey, I found Jesus' bones in a box!" thing by James Cameron - yawn and double yawn. There really isn't anything new - although I have no doubt that there are those who will make it seem like new news. This is a rehash of old accusations made about a tomb discovered 27-years ago. The best piece I've seen about it comes from The Jerusalem Post. Here it is in full: The Israeli-born, Canadian-based filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici is reigniting claims, first made over a decade ago, that a burial cave uncovered 27 years ago in Talpiot, Jerusalem, is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. At a press conference in New York on Monday, the two-time Emmy winner Jacobovici and his team - including Hollywood director James Cameron - will detail claims that of 10 ossuaries found in the cave when it was discovered in 1980, six bear inscriptions identifying them as those of Jesus, his mother Mary, a second Mary (possibly Mary Magdalene), and relatives Matthew, Josa and Judah (possibly Jesus's son). Their documentary will be screened this week in the US, UK, on Channel 8 in Israel and around the world. The producers are said to have worked on the project with world-renowned archeologists, statisticians and DNA specialists. But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense." Kloner, who said he was interviewed for the new film but has not seen it, said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that "Jesus son of Joseph" inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years. "There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb," Kloner said. "They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE." A spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority had no comment herself on the documentary and referred inquiries to Kloner, who no longer works for the IAA. The spokeswoman did say, however, that the IAA has loaned out two of the ossuaries that were found in the Talpiot tomb for display by the filmmakers at Monday's New York press conference. She said it was a routine procedure to lend out such artifacts provided the borrowers complied with the necessary handling, transport and insurance requirements and that it did not signal any IAA authentication of claims made in the documentary. Kloner said the IAA had been "very foolish" to agree to the loan. "The left hand there doesn't know what the right hand is doing," he said. The Daily Telegraph reported this weekend that the 10 ossuaries removed from the tomb when it was first excavated "were taken initially to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Nine were catalogued and stored but the tenth was left outside in a courtyard. That ossuary has subsequently gone missing." But Kloner said the IAA routinely left ossuaries in the courtyard if they were not inscribed and were unremarkable, since it had no room for them all "under our roofs." He added: "Nothing has disappeared." The Jacobovici documentary comes more than 10 years after similar speculation about the so-called Jesus family tomb made world headlines, prompting a London Sunday Times feature entitled "The Tomb that Dare Not Speak Its Name" and a BBC documentary. The assertion that the ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb were those of Jesus of Nazareth and family members was branded by The Sunday Times at the time as an archeological discovery "that challenges the very basis of Christianity." The makers of the documentary are refusing to discuss its content prior to their New York press conference.

Wow.  Thanks, Matt and Mered

Wow.  Thanks, Matt and Meredith.  Can we please get back to Anna Nicole now?

...yes, Christianity is suffi

...yes, Christianity is sufficiently shaking in it's boots now - after all these centuries - first nailing Jesus to a cross, then beheading John the Baptist, then the Romans feeding believers to the lions, etc - we've finally met our match in the form of a...HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR...Christianity is surely done for very soon...

I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...

As I said in today's Open T

As I said in today's Open Thread:

There's more than one inaccuracy in what [James Cameron] claims to have found, but
the biggest is the fact that the Jews didn't use coffins. Jesus was
ceremonially wrapped in a special linen cloth and placed inside the
tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea where the only barricade between his body
and the outside air was the stone used to cover the entrance. See John
19: 38-42

To add to that:

As for Jesus's remains, they will never be found. After three days, his spirit and body reunited in glorious resurrection, he showed himself to his disciples, stating he had "flesh and bones," and when he ascended into Heaven, he took that same body with him. See Luke 24.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

Dyne, just for the record:Dur

Dyne, just for the record:

During the time of the Second Temple, Jewish burial customs included primary burials in burial caves, followed by secondary burials in ossuaries placed in smaller niches of the burial caves. Some of the limestone ossuaries that have been discovered, particularly around the Jerusalem area, include intricate geometrical patterns and inscriptions identifying the deceased. (from Wikipedia)

Fortunately, Jesus never needed one.  I have been to the "other" tomb in Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb.  Personally, I felt that I had been in the very place He was laid and more importantly rose from.  The inscription on the door says "He's not here, He has risen!"

face piles of trials with smiles

Jesus loves me yes I know...f

Jesus loves me yes I know...for the bible tells me so. 

Sorry Dyne, just because something is written down in some book (of questionable interpretation I might add) don't make it so!  

DanKenton

Its faith that makes it happen.

Spoken like a true liberal wh

Spoken like a true liberal who professes religious tolerance except when it comes to Christianity. If this was about a discovery that could discount the existance of Mohammed, every liberal moonbat and their brother would say it was a "right-wing conspiracy."

I do know that Jesus loves me, because my faith in God tells me so. Nothing that you or James Cameron or any other left-wing looney can say will disway me from my faith.

As for questionable interpretation of the Bible, that mantra has been around for centuries, can't you find something original?

"At an end your rule is, and not short enough it was!" -- Yoda

"...written down don't m

"...written down don't make it so!"

like:

  • evolution
  • global warming
  • whole language

More proof of Biblical events than those of evolution and global warming combined!

face piles of trials with smiles

I tend to be more of a reader

I tend to be more of a reader of this site, and not a poster, but I feel compelled to jump in here. If you are still clinging to the idea that there is no proof of evolution, you should not be engaging in a discussion with grown ups. Your statement can only be described as ridiculous.

LRK27 - Good point.

LRK27 - Good point.

Personally, I don't think very many people really reject evolution theory.  One would have to be a rather 'neat fit' of the Leftoid hammered picture of a looney Far Right Christian to buy into the rejection of evolution.

Like yourself, I believe most readers here know all of that.

Unfortunately, there are some who post here who are heavy duty Bible thumping folks that give the impression that Conservatives equal Christian nut cases.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

"many don't reject evolu

"many don't reject evolution theory"  Sorry ACA but up until now I sort of enjoyed your posts.  But where do you get that not "very many people really reject evolution theory."  Done a poll lately? 

So let's see...slime=fish=iguana=monkey=ACA.  I would rather think of myself as a Child of God thanks.

face piles of trials with smiles

Exactly the point.  What we,

Exactly the point.  What we, or a school board in Alabama, would prefer to think of human beings as is irrelevant.

Aca, I'm rather shocked at

Aca, I'm rather shocked at your last statement. I am one of those "heavy duty Bible thumbing folks" I hope I've never given "the impression that Conservatives equal Christian nut cases."

I most strongly disagree with evolution. There is not one person on this planet that can prove to me through the scientific method that evolution is a fact.

This doesn't make me a looney though. 

It is to my chagrin that I find I must post this short comment.

Eric - The context of my post was faith and science..

The context of my post was to point out that faith and science do not require the same rigour.  That wasn't very clear, I'm afraid.

One can 'believe' in whatever one wants.  The particular concept of evolution being 'wrong' because it somehow conflicts with one's faith in Christianity or any such faith; I'm not a Christian myself, but I find it hard to discount one over the other.

When people argue against a scientific theory from a theological point of view; then the one who wishes to discuss the theory itself is put on notice that there will be no further argument or point in continuing.  How could anyone dismiss another's 'faith'.  They cannot.

So, I see the topics as being necessarily separated.  For the purpose of discussion; let us assume that the Christian POV of creation is correct.

There is no further point to be made, would you not agree?

And if that is the case, then why bother to discuss it?  That is why I don't get into these discussions.  I might have something to say from my point of view; but that doesn't matter any longer, once the Bible (sorry if 'thumping' was offensive) is brought out by the other side of the discussion.

That is my main point.  Now whether the two can be reconciled (Christian Creation versus Darwin's theory) has been discussed by many greater minds than mine.  It is my impression that deep thinkers on this subject have been able to reconcile the two and therefore they are not mutually incompatable issues.

To this end, I disagree with trying to teach 'Creation Science' or even to lable Christian POV Creation faith as 'science'.  It isn't science.  It is faith.

My particular POV, which I never disclose on this site, would conflict quite a bit with both ideas.  But that is my issue, not yours.  And I contend I have as valid a reason for my POV as those who point to the 'Bible'.

The Bible is a document of a particular theological POV.  To that end, it is just fine as it provides comfort and a basis for the faithful.  It is in itself a book that reflect faith.  It is not in itself the original basis for the faith professed by Christians.  My understanding of Christianity is that Jesus is the basis for the faith.

Now, we can argue theology or we can argue science.

It is the indivudal's church's responsibility to discuss theology, not the school's.

To this end, if Creation 'Science' is taught in a tax-payer funded Government School; it abuses my individual faith to do so.

That is my point.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

I still stand with you! ;-)

Aca, I know you rarely reveal any personal beliefs but I have seen you do so. I know I have - especially of late. I try not to. But it does come out.

I would argue though that although many claim that Christianity (or Judaism) is not compatiable with science I would disagree. I am not capable or educated enough to elaborate on that topic more than just what I said. 

The evolutionists have already won the battle if we take a creation POV out of the picture.  They win by default and that's what they want.  If there was/is no creator - then we must come from one-celled organisms.  As long as they can keep any hint of a creator out of the discussion by stating the two topics are intrinsically and inherently separate they win.  After all, what alternative to evolution is there if there was no creator?  None, so by default evolution must be true.

I believe that (even without the Bible) one can point to a beginning of life from a creation POV (regardless of who that creator might be - God, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, what- or whoever). But neither side can be proven through the scientific method. I suppose we'll just all know when we die!

However, my main point of contention with evolution is not that they teach it - but that they teach it as fact.  I don't even care if they don't discuss creation science in school. I just don't want them teaching evolution as fact.  I'd prefer them not teaching it at all to be quite honest.  I'd sent my kids to a private school if I could afford it.  Heck, I'd homeschool them if I could.  (and yes, this is an attempt to seek out donations from fellow NBers for my kids' education).

However, I do see my kids learning evolution as somewhat a good thing because it forces me to research it and find the answers from a creation POV - and they are out there, or to simply show how evolution "facts" can be successfully challenged which can also be done.

I'm not seeking a dominance of Christianity theology or philosophy in our government or schools - I am seeking an equal standing with secular humanism.

This all said, I will still stand side-by-side with you as we continually struggle against liberal worldviews! ;-)

Eric, I can see your point quite well.

Eric, I can see your point quite well.

I would possibly take some issue over the '...evolutionists have already won the battle...' comment if I thought there was a 'battle'.  I don't particularly view it as a battle at all.

I often muse to myself that the noise being made over this issue paints both sides in a poor light.  When I see it played out here; that viewpoint is often more reinforced than ameliorated.  For example, I was raised in Kansas.  I don't think I need to elaborate on that silliness.

I really did appreciate the equation posted by another here moving from slime to ACA; although it maligned my Iguanas who want little to do with my heritage.  I can't remember being insulted in such a backhanded manner quite as neatly.

But, I digress.

All I am saying is that the Christian faith based belief in Creation is owned by the Christian faith.  That's OK, if you are Christian.  If not?

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Iguanas unite!

Aca,

1st - I agree about your iguanas. Your iguanas should take insult to the insinuation that you came from them. (there are more jokes I want to insert here but I don't know you well enough and this is a poor medium to make some of them)! I guess one isn't so bad - You could only hope to be as well-mannered as your iguanas! ;-)

2nd - Logically, Christianity is (as are all faiths) fundamentally exclusionary. I don't care what post-modernists have to say on the subject. If you believe in one faith, by definition, all others must be false.

Therefore, as a Christian I must believe that my worldview is the only correct one. However, that doesn't mean that I have to go around pushing it on everyone else. God (vis-a-vis Christ) only wants those believers who willingly come to Him. So it does me no good to force my beliefs on others - in school or in government. Basically, I just ask for clarification to be made during the instruction of evolution.

3rd - As for me believing it's a battle. I have to. As a former soldier (you are too if I'm not mistaken), I see everything in terms of military definitions! My wife hates it too. But furthermore, I see it that way, because according to my faith and beliefs I see everything on earth as a working out of the spiritual world.

It is my worldview and I see everything that goes on through the lenses of my worldview.

(Caveat: Please don't think I'm trying to preach to or convert anyone. I'm simply clarifying why and how I see things the way I do. That way folks can better understand me better.)

Choosing battles is important.

Choosing battles is important.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

maligned my Iguanas...that wa

maligned my Iguanas...that was me.  Evolution actually would put a lot more "=" to's in the string, but the point is made.  Sorry, was not meant as an insult but an insight.  Evolution teaches that we evolved from some sort of primevil slime thousands/millions/billions? (however long they now claim, but how do they really know?) of years.  From slime to fish, to fish walking on water and breathing air, to so on and so on to monkeys/apes to men.  That takes alot more faith than I can imagine.  Plus the odds, which have been calculated, are astromonical, thus the t/m/b/ years for it to take place.  Kind of like the old saying "if a million iguanas typed on a million typewriters (remember those?) in a million years one of them would type the script to the Da Vinci Code". 

face piles of trials with smiles

Eric..homeschooling isn't exp

Eric..homeschooling isn't expensive or hard to do.  We (my wife) have been doing it for over ten years.  We started because of moving a lot, but after hearing "horror" stories on "Point of View" about such things as Whole Language, Outcome Based Eduacation, and the like, we had no choice.  Faith related issues is a whole other issue.  Please feel free to contact me thru my inbox here and I would be happy to help.

BTW, one of my favorite responses to evolution, etc. that even my kids use is "where you there?  How do you know?"

face piles of trials with smiles

vrwc13, I agree that home s

vrwc13, I agree that home schooling is an excellent option when parents have the time and energy to really do it. Can you explain Whole Language? I've been involved in education for 20 years and never heard that term.

Rupert C...Whole LanguageSurp

Rupert C...Whole Language

Surprised in 20 years you haven't heard of it, it's been quite a controversy.

Whole Language: A philosophy of reading instruction based on the belief that children learn to read in the same way they learn to speak: naturally. Thus the child is introduced to whole texts at the very beginning and is expected to learn a variety of strategies which help him or her figure out what the words say. Some phonics is taught as in look-say, but is meant to be used by the reader only as a last-resort strategy. The emphasis is on looking at words at wholes, as units of potential meaning, and "interpreting" the text rather than reading for accuracy. Teaching phonics is discouraged because it breaks up words into letters and syllables which have no meaning and negates the idea of the whole. This method of teaching produces inaccurate, subjective readers.

http://www.home-school.com/Articles/WholeLanguage.html

more at Wikipedia, a ton if you "Google" it.

Worst comment I heard on it was as you learn each word on its own if you come to a word you have not "learned" yet, you skip it!  So much for reading comprehension.  We heard about it around 1994 as we were getting ready for our first of 5 kids (6 on the way) to start school.  Point of View radio program was doing a series on what's wrong with our schools and this one one of the major topics.

Got to run, not supposed to be here today...going to Tres Dias retreat for a bit of a sabatical.

face piles of trials with smiles

Here's how 'whole language' works in the real world.

Here's how 'whole language' works in the real world.

Young Boy Finds Note:  "Being held in underground coffin.  Call Police immediately; Location - ...."

Young Boy Reads Note: "Being held in ....skip...skip...  Call ...skip ...skip... skip...

Young Boy Throws Note in Garbage Can:  "Gee mom would be proud of my taking care of the litter."

Pretty much it.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Good one LRK27.  When did t

Good one LRK27.  When did the theory of evolution turn to fact or proof as you now state it?  I must have missed that discussion.  And, of course, as a Christian, I am not allowed to foster any beliefs based on my faith or engage in a discussion with "grown-ups" such as yourself.

Your statement reminds me of that meteorologist from the weather channel who thinks that any AMS certified meterologist who does not believe that humans are the primary cause of globabal warming should have their AMS credentials revoked.

We are either haters or phobic.  It's all about the science.  Believe or be silenced.

Hey man - it's the un-biased

Hey man - it's the un-biased, impartial and cool-headed academics of the Darwinist clergy (and their science-book thumping followers) who champion the idea of rich and diverse discussion and exchange of ideas on the origins of humankind...NOT : ) !

I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...

I agree with you on global wa

I agree with you on global warming. For the same reason that I believe in evolution. Science. You can't pick and choose when science is your friend and when it is wrong. Apparently you did miss the discussion when evolution turned to fact or proof, as any scientist will attest to.

For all of you that quote scientists arguing against global warming, ask any of them if they believe in evolution.

Science should not be a political tool. It tells you the rules of life.

As for evolution, it says that it is correct. Sorry that they haven't collected every single fossil of the several trillion species that have lived over several billion years, but the evidence that they DO have is overwhelming and easy to find, if you're willing to see it.

As for global warming, the science says that, yes it is slightly warmer now than a few years ago. We are in a warming cycle. The science says that that happens naturally. There is a hypothesis that man is causing it, with no proof behind it. I believe that man has nothing to do with any possible warming going on right now. We agree on that.

Let science be science. If you faith goes against what science says, then it's up to you to adapt. Just has the church has done over the years by accepting evolution, and that the earth is round, and goes around the sun, etc.

Evolution is a theory, not fa

Evolution is a theory, not fact or proof.  If you insist that it is, then it is you who is  having a problem with the science.  Gravity is not a theory, I can prove to you mathematically that it is force of a specific magnitude between two masses over an inifinite distance.

Gravity is a scientific theor

Gravity is a scientific theory. Newton had what he called a law of universal gravitation, but it turned out not to be a scientific law. This by no means means that things won't fall and gravity is a myth, only that it is technically called a theory. Just as evolution is called a theory. It has nothing to do with the overwhelming and ridiculous amounts of data to support the theories.

From wikipidia: "Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics."

LRK, if we consider the origi

LRK, if we consider the origin of life to be a binary solution set, i.e., life starting by evolution or by creation, and then consider the probabilities of each possibility, then, evolution becomes a matter of great faith.  The British astronomer, Robert Jastrow, who is an evolutionist, calculated the probability of life starting by accident as 1 in 10 to the forty thousandth power.  That is zero, decimal, 39,999 more zeroes, followed by a one.  The probability that life originated with God, then is zero, decimal, 40,000 nines.  To put these numbers in perspective, 10 to the 40,000th power is a number greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.  In probability theory, any event with a probability less than one in ten to the fiftieth power is considered impossible.  So, you are dead certain that an event that is 39,950 orders of magnitude beyond impossible is the right one?  That takes faith!

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

LRK27=Blatherskite

Blatherskite I say.  First of all what "proof" do you offer for evolution that is not theory?  Go ahead and list fossils, but they do not.  Go ahead and mention "links" for they do not exist either, as far as I know they are all still "missing" other than the ones that occasionally pop up only later to be found as fraud.  And as far as your arguement of "over thousands, no make that millions, no make that billions, oh for heavens sake let's just make it bazillions" years, my kids would ask you "Where you there? How do you know?"

Then check the Bibical facts and tell me which ones have been proven false.  Please just one will do.  I'll wait.

Second, what kind of debate do you call it when you question one being "grownup" and describing my post as ridiculous without any facts.  Just by you saying so?  Blatherskite.

face piles of trials with smiles

As for proof of evolution, vi

As for proof of evolution, visit any museum or talk to a scientist. I believe too many of you guys are seeing the word "theory" and assume that it's a debated idea. Theory has a different definition in the scientific world. Just like gravity is a theory, so is evolution. Lack of proof is not an issue. It is entirely too complex to explain in one post on a message board. I trust you are all smart enought to look at the evidence objectively yourselves. It's there, and not debated at all in the scientific community.

As for not being able to prove a single biblical fact false? Are you serious?

First of all, it depends on what you call a biblical fact. I'll for now ignore the blatant contradictions, that by rule, make each other incorrect.

Let's start with the age of the Earth. 6000-10,000 years has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt to be 100% false. Not only false, but laughably false. Try closer to 15 billion years. And yes, it's scientifically PROVEN.

I'll be glad to get you some more if you feel the need to go on. There has to be more evidence on this flat world we live in at the center of the universe. (You guys still believe that one right?)

The Earth is 10-15 Billion ye

The Earth is 10-15 Billion years old?

If BS were electricity, you'd be a powerhouse.

And you look like a horse's behind to me.

I apologize. The age of the

I apologize. The age of the UNIVERSE is 15 billion. The age of the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years. Still, not quite 6000.

But since God made Earth, THEN the Sun and stars, how is this possible?

Why do you assume God's day i

Why do you assume God's day is equal to the duration of one rotation of the Earth on its axis? 

NL,I know this question wasn'

NL,

I know this question wasn't directed to me....

But I've always wondered why any human would even try to equate our own sense of time to that of God's.

It's one of those questions that's always made me shake my head at the arrogance of humans.

Just sayin.

Arrogant lberals can, have, a

Arrogant lberals can, have, and continue to do just this on a daily basis. 

They can conceive of no God greater than themselves and no morality that is not amendable by themselves. 

I intend to have some good sport with this one.

I don't know NL207

I don't know NL207.....LRK27 makes a very compelling case for evolution.

Not a day goes by where I am not totally amazed at how some humans are rapidly evolving into beast-like animals.....particularly in our liberal media.

I don't know that we have any

I don't know that we have any other basis on which to form an idea of what is meant by a "day" in the Bible if not the standard.

Expand your frame of referenc

Expand your frame of reference Balboa.

Instead of trying to continually provoke people here.

If you'd actually stop and consider the entire story of the Garden of Eden, and think about it (with your continual pseudo film juju) you might actually enjoy the story.  Particularly if you didn't take it all so literally.

It is the absolute most fascinating story ever.  Take some time, read about it...then think about it, carefully.

Who knows...you might even learn something.

If not about us....about yourself.

And why do you assume I haven

And why do you assume I haven't read the story of the Garden of Eden?

And it's a legitimate question. If a "day" is not a day then how are we supposed to know what it is? Or are we not supposed to figure out how one of those "days" relates to us?

I assume you've never read it

I assume you've never read it, nor thought about any of it....because of the sheer shallowness of your postings, here.

Shallow, bal.  Extremely shallow.

You continually bite on the literal.  And show no depth, whatsoever.

Ponder that.

I'M shallow. You're full of n

I'M shallow. You're full of nothing but trite assumptions, and I'm shallow.

You're a peach.

That's extremely mature, Bal.

That's extremely mature, Bal.

"Astute" is the word you're l

"Astute" is the word you're looking for.

I assume it equals one rotati

I assume it equals one rotation because that is the definition of the word "day". If you are reading the book with different meanings of basic words, I can't have a reasonable debate with you.

I also interpret it that way because the word "day" is used with the same meaning throughout the duration of the bible. If you are willing to admit that the most basic premises of the book aren't to be taken literally, you must re-examine many things in it.

The 'book' you are referring

The 'book' you are referring to is attempting to describe within the limitations of the Hebrew language the creation of the universe man can see by an infinite God in terms that a man of 1400 BC might comprehend.

Again, how can you assume the length of God's day is knowable by you or even by the man who set this story to paper? 

We can start by the notion of what the most basic premises of the Bible are.  You have just, by implication, asserted that the details of the story of the creation is one of the most basic premises of the Bible.  I argue this misses the point.  The point of the creation story is that the universe we live in including ourselves was created by a omniscient, omnipotent God.   Proof:  This premise is necessary and sufficient by itself for the rest of Genisis to proceed coherently.

Again, how can you assume th

Again, how can you assume the length of God's day is knowable by you or even by the man who set this story to paper?

Why should we assume otherwise? Why would this story about creating the world in seven days be told in days if we're not supposed to think of them as actual days?

We might assume otherwise bec

We might assume otherwise because we are referring to an entity so far beyond our daily comprehension as to be unimaginable.  To conclude that a force sufficient to bring the entire universe as we know it into existence measures time in units of the planetary rotation of our home is pretty presumptuous, to say the least, and demostrates a complete lack of any humility.

But you see my point? Why &

But you see my point? Why "days" then? Why quantify it?

Balboa, even Biblical Christi

Balboa, even Biblical Christians differ on the meaning of "days".  But that is not the real issue here.  Days could mean days as we know it, thats what I believe.  Many people try too hard to connect the dots of the earths age and Biblical fact.  The Bible simply states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Then it goes on to state how He made things during the seven days “Creation.”  Want to call the earth millions/billions of years old?  Fine, Bible does not refute that.  The 6000 years you quote is a factual time from Adam to now as can be proven by the births and deaths of the line from Adam to Jesus. 

face piles of trials with smiles

 

Where is this proof of the

Where is this proof of the earth being billions of years old? Radio carbon dating can only go back 50 thousand years and that's assuming the "theoretical curve" doesn't change beyond where we can measure. As for geological events that may indicate the age of the earth many cataclysmic events can change the surface of the earthin a short amount of time . Such as....a flood maybe.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

- Ronald Reagan

hmm...a flood maybe?  Where

hmm...a flood maybe?  Where do you get such ideas!

face piles of trials with smiles

face piles of trials with smi

face piles of trials with smiles

 As for proof of evolution, visit any museum or talk to a scientist.

  • First of all, there are equally believable museums of Creation Science as there are on evolution.  Check it out.

I believe too many of you guys are seeing the word "theory" and assume that it's a debated idea. Theory has a different definition in the scientific world.

1.

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

  • Key words above from dictionary: propositions, proposed, explanations, conjectural.  Does the scientific world really believe in a different definition, and if so does that make it true?

Just like gravity is a theory, so is evolution.

  • Gravity is a law last I knew, evolution is still a theory.

Lack of proof is not an issue. It is entirely too complex to explain in one post on a message board. I trust you are all smart enought to look at the evidence objectively yourselves. It's there, and not debated at all in the scientific community.

  • Proof is better supportive of Biblical evidence, and there is actually quite a bit of debate in the scientific community over creation versus evolution.  And I am smart enough to look at the evidence, have you?

As for not being able to prove a single biblical fact false? Are you serious?First of all, it depends on what you call a biblical fact. I'll for now ignore the blatant contradictions, that by rule, make each other incorrect.

  • As of this point you have not named one, and as for blatant contradictions, name one.  I’ll wait.

Let's start with the age of the Earth. 6000-10,000 years has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt to be 100% false. Not only false, but laughably false. Try closer to 15 billion years. And yes, it's scientifically PROVEN.

  • PROVEN!  Which time?  Thousands, millions, billions?  And more importantly, the Bible does not date the age of the earth.  Surprised?  You should be, especially since you appear to be an expert on all things Biblical.  The Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Then it goes on to state how He made things during the seven days “Creation.”  Want to call the earth millions/billions of years old?  Fine, Bible does not refute that.  The 6000 years you quote is a factual time from Adam to now as can be proven by the births and deaths of the line from Adam to Jesus. 

 

Theory - "In scientific usage

Theory - "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence."

"Gravity is a law last I knew, evolution is still a theory."

Last you knew, you were wrong. Newton did have a "law of universal gravitation", but gravity in the modern scientific sense is technically still a theory.

"Proof is better supportive of Biblical evidence, and there is actually quite a bit of debate in the scientific community over creation versus evolution. And I am smart enough to look at the evidence, have you?"

There is very little debate about the facts of evolution. There is debate over how it should be taught, but the debates about the facts are largely originated from creationists.

Blatant contradictions? We'll start with a short list of simple ones:

It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 19:7
It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 18:31

Children are punished for the sins of the parents
Ex 20:5
Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
Ezek 18:20

Man is justified by faith alone
Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
Man is not justified by faith alone
James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13

It is impossible to fall from grace
John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
It is possible to fall from grace
Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21

No man is without sin
1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
Christians are sinless
1 John 3: 9,6,8

There is to be a resurrection of the dead
1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
There is to be no resurrection of the dead
Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14

Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
Prov 11:31
Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10

Annihilation the portion of all mankind
Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
Endless misery the portion of all mankind
Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2

The Earth is to be destroyed
2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
The Earth is never to be destroyed
Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4

No evil shall happen to the godly
Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
Evil does happen to the godly
Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7

Or some about the resurrection:

In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).

Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

For being the word of God, you'd think there would be less contradictions. There are hundreds more if you like.

"The 6000 years you quote is a factual time from Adam to now as can be proven by the births and deaths of the line from Adam to Jesus."

Proven how? Because it's written? Did they find all these bodies that I'm not aware of?

You have to learn the difference between faith and science. I'm not saying you shouldn't have faith, that's your choice. I'm saying that to ignore facts is a disservice to yourself and others that you are trying to convince.

If evolution is such a myth, why has the Catholic Church accepted it?

Bible inaccuracies...LRK27Loo

Bible inaccuracies...LRK27

Looks like you have done some homework or a lot of cut and paste...leaving for the weekend but I will get back to you.

In the meantime maybe some of my NB buddies will step in and assist.

First pass though you may be taking passages out of context...common error.  Plus you have to know the whole story not just pieces.  As in God said do not murder...yet he ordered the deaths of entire towns and cities, but this is not a contradiction...see if you can figure this one out.  I'll be back.

face piles of trials with smiles

Sure it's cut and paste, I do

Sure it's cut and paste, I don't have the time or motivation to rewrite and look them all up. I'm not even trying to say that every one of these is perfect, simply that they do exist.

I'm not attempting to get into a biblical fact vs. fiction matchup with anyone here. I only wanted to make my point about evolution. I know what I'm up against on this board as far as religion goes. Nothing in the world could ever allow me to win an argument, I'm simply outnumbered. But if you want to have a serious debate about serious issues, you need to accept the facts, however harmful to your argument or beliefs.

There are a lot of things in the bible I believe to be true. But there are also a lot of things that I believe aren't. I will always lean toward the side of science, just as you will always lean towards the side of faith. That's just how it is. You don't need to spend the weekend debunking the contradictions I've posted, if you'll simply concede that some may exist. Otherwise we could both go on for quite a while.

Biblical error? LRK27I am gla

Biblical error? LRK27

I am glad to hear you believe some of the Bible, that's a good start.  But after living in your world of belief for some 40 years, including belief in everything science as fact, I had an awakening to the truth.  I am now convinced that there are no errors, fables, nor just a good guy with one of the ways to heaven guy.  All of scripture is of God and man is no equal.

Thought to leave you with...if you are right its back to dust for us.  If I am right, well there just is not any easy way to put it other than I am in everlasting life with God and you're not.

I am off to a three day retreat to renew and refresh, I will be praying for you.

face piles of trials with smiles

If it's a simple disagreement

If it's a simple disagreement on faith, I have no problem with that. I was raised a Christian and went to Sunday school and the whole nine yards. I've drawn my own conclusions, as you have too. A debate to believe or not is a never ending debate, neither of us would ever convince the other. I see things differently than you. My only point of this argument was evolution. It's impossible to debate someone into changing their views on faith, in either direction. I am familiar with Pascal's Wager, and I am fine with my decision.

Enjoy your weekend. I hope to continue an honest and enjoyable debate with you in the future.

Back to gravity.  I assume

Back to gravity.  I assume you meant to say relativity was a theory, right?

Our best theory of gravitatio

Our best theory of gravitation today is the general theory of relativity. Both theories. But that won't stop the apple from falling next time you drop it.

"I tend to be more of a

"I tend to be more of a reader..."...and judging from your post, should continue in that venue. If you are going to make a blanket of statement professing "proof of evolution", and using words like "grown ups" to make your point...you should continue to be a reader, and not a poster.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Thanks bassndudeface piles of

Thanks bassndude

face piles of trials with smiles

vrwc...your very welcome. Sav

vrwc...your very welcome.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

One piece of indisputable evidence please.

Name one piece of undisputed evidence. Seriously... there isn't one. All evoultion is is a guy saying "hey they look kinda like us with fur and stuff." I'll bet there is a connection. Who were the first detractors of Darwin...Archaeologists! No fossil record man. And dozens of other accounts. Feel free to name them and I'll debunk em for you. Evolution takes WAY MORE FAITH than believing in God.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

- Ronald Reagan

The Abuses of Randomness

With respect a belated happy birthday to Former President Reagan. He actually enjoyed working his ranch- chopping wood, riding, etc.

The online book Your Endangered Mind (Christian Version Abstract) may help. Follow the links and you can print it out if you like. A word of caution- this is rather technical and definitely NOT light reading. There is also a "secular version" available, and the site index contains a list of much of his work, some of which is less demanding to read. The following is from the Professional Experience section of the resume of the author, Dr. Robert A. Herrmann.

(1) August 1987 - June 2004, Professor, Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy. (Retired June 30, 2004.)
(2) January 1981 - August 1987, Associate Professor, Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy.
(3) August 1968 - January 1981, Assistant Professor, Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy.
(4) August 1962 - August 1968, Instructor Advanced Placement Mathematics, Board of Education of Baltimore County.

One of my favorite titles among Dr. Herrmann's papers is The Abuses of Randomness: My Almost Final Thoughts on this Subject

Enjoy- let me know when yah'll finish reading 8>D

Carp

Questionable interpretation??

Questionable interpretation?  To who?  I am no religious person to say the least, but I understand fully what is being told in the Bible.  It's only the Liberals who have come up with this "questionable interpretation BS" Just like these friggin lawyers who run around defending people who dont know enough to not open hot coffee in your lap.  I am sick and tired of these people who think everything is relative.  Some things are pretty straight forward.  Like for instance the CONSTITUTION.  But there are some people out there who DONT LIKE the truth and will lie to themselves until they believe what they want.

Sure, I watch the MSM...     Through a pair of crosshairs.

The Book

Dan, there was a crowd who saw Jesus die on the cross, hundreds of people who saw and even touched Jesus after His resurrection, a crowd who saw Him ascend to heaven, and disciples who endured much persecution and painful deaths for the sake of what some dismiss as a lie.

You might want to check out the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  He set out to debunk Christianity and ended up a believer.  This book gives his findings in outline form along with extensive footnoting of his historical research.  This is not the only book of this type, but it's one of the best known.

The MSM finds at least one story every year around Lent and Easter season to "debunk" the Resurrection.  This is just the latest.  Christianity will not be shaken in the least.

He is Risen indeed!

Well, my only question was when I saw this thingy about Jesus.

Well, my only question was when I saw this thingy about Jesus...

"How the heck did they lose him for so many years?"

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

OK, that's it....I'm putting

OK, that's it....I'm putting all Bibles to include the "New Testament" in the garbage, obviously James Cameron and this Jacobovici are the true experts in the Christianity religion.  OH - you say they are not experts....  Well then, what is the deal here, what is the real story behind these boxes with names on them buried somewhere in Israel???  What is Cameron's big goal here - MONEY... Period...

Are we to ignore the fact that Jesus walked this earth and hundreds of witnesses saw Jesus after his resurrection?  Personally, whatever hollywood claims is the truth - is usually fiction and in this case fiction would be applicable.  Cameron is just jealous that Dan Brown made millions on the other bogus story of the "DaVinci Code." 

I wonder if the MSM would cover such a comparible story related to the Muslim religion.... One would wonder......Not in this life time. 

comparible Muslim story?...on

comparible Muslim story?...only if he wants to end up the same as John the Baptist!

face piles of trials with smiles

WOW, the new "Coming&quo

WOW, the new "Coming" of the Savior (MattLLauer.) to save us from the Christians....WOW !!    

The Attempt to rewrite History, is ever present.  I'm glad I missed his show, the last few Years.........I could have ended up suing my High School for givng the wrong History books.......History as Matt L. knows it. 

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.

What is Cameron's big goal he

What is Cameron's big goal here - MONEY... Period...

I won't be so quick on that one. 

I don't think The Da Vinci Code with Ron Howard and Tom Hanks and other things we've seen the last 10 years are just loose straws blowing in the wind.

Things like the ACLU threatening school districts who might still be using "Christmas Break" on a school calendar.  Things like Rosie O'Donnel and plenty of others like her saying radical Christianity are just as dangerous to American society as radical Islam (by which they mean more dangerous).  Things like saying John Ashcroft and Bush have turned the US into a police state where civil liberties are under attack and the Christian fringe are causing it.

I am not saying this is some vast left-wing conspiracy where they are all meeting behind closed doors and maping all this out.

I am saying it is a product of group-think and the set of circumstances we have seen since 2000 and the dems lost control of the White House.

Not being able to stop the war in Iraq or bring it to an end, and not getting the White House back (yet), has collectively made these people believe they have to fight back.

I see The Da Vinci Code and this by Cameron as a part of that fighting back.

It is the pop culture version of the ACLU attacking any hint of connection between church and state.

I'm not one for conspiracy

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either. However, as a Christian I don't merely see uncoordinated attacks from various immoral elements. I see them each - individually - as an attack from someone who is coordinating them.

Ephesians 6:12, "For our struggle is not
against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the
spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

And that's all I'll say about it as I really don't like to get into religious discussions on a political comments section. But that is how I see it. You don't have to agree with me I just want to interject my opinion.

Why not a story about how Mu

Why not a story about how Muhammed "married" a 9 year old girl ???  At least that would be true, and it would generate the same or greater ratings and maybe even "rock Islam to it's core."    The MSM is so courageous when bashing Christianity, but somehow they never seem to get to other religions....

mattm...I believe she was a

mattm...

I believe she was actually 6 or 7 when the marriage took place. He had the "decency" not to consummate the marriage until she was 9, however (I do have a good reference for this, BTW, just not at hand at the moment).

As I posted at hotair.com -

As I posted at hotair.com -

2000 years and they’re still trying to debunk Christ and who He is.
Cameron will fade away and be completely forgotten, but Christ remains
firm.

Actually, I have heard rumors

Actually, I have heard rumors that hotel chains are considering adding a DVD copy of 'Titannic' in the bedside drawer.

2000 years later

Yeah, what we need is another Mt. Carmel test...where is todays Elijah?

face piles of trials with smiles

 

Matt Lauer Boasts. . .

James Cameron/Matt Lauer:  Christ is dead.

Christ: James Cameron/Matt Lauer are dead

Why is it that the most anti-

Why is it that the most anti-Christian voices, Matt, Meredith, Hollywood elite, are always coming out with these Earth shattering Christian revelations. If there was a shift in religious doctrine why woud the faithful believe Matt and company instead of people like the Pope and other church leaders?

These morons take themselves way too serious. Matt, you are not a morning news anchor, your are basically an emcee for a morning adult cartoon show.

I have always felt Cameron, d

I have always felt Cameron, did great cutting edge movies, never following in the foot steps of others, I'm wrong.

How about a moslem movie?  I'll pay to see that, however that ain't going to happen.

If I remember correctly, th

If I remember correctly, there's an article in this months(or last month's) Archaeology magazine where they are talking about the problems with digs occurring but no one is bothering to publish any results for decades. One thing they did mention was that there was concern about accuracy before revealing, and they alluded to this whole ossuary issue as an example-it's already been proven to be a forgery, a fake.

If the experts have already tossed this aside as a fake, why are we still hearing about it in another fakumentary? Are the Oscar standards that much lower, so you just do your sci-fi/conspiracy/faerie tale movie with low production values and call it a "documentary", and guarantee a nomination at the very least?

Which experts? It seems that

Which experts? It seems that experts only are experts if they further one's side of the argument. There are plenty of experts that say global warming is real, plenty of others who say it's not. Who do you believe anymore?

information overload

Balboa - that seems more true today then ever before. You can pretty much get an expert to agree with any sides of a issue.

That's the problem. Who's r

That's the problem. Who's right? Seems like everyone is right to some degree, and it's that degree that they'll use to spin the issue and garner support.

Bal, do you think Cameron fou

Bal, do you think Cameron found Jesus's bones?

I'd say the odds aren't ver

I'd say the odds aren't very good.

I find the whole story rather

I find the whole story rather humorous. The Xtian-haters out there are in a collective orgasmic frenzy over this, and it makes me laugh.

This isn't CSI: Jerusalem... I can't wait to hear how they will ID Jesus' remains.

Rog...Some idiot will recogni

Rog...

Some idiot will recognize a tattoo or something as dumb.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

CSI: Jerusalem  classic shru

CSI: Jerusalem  classic shrub

No Soup For You

The best joke about it IMO

The best joke about it IMO came this morning on Howard Stern... "This is great, now we're all Jews!"
JMR

Uhh, balboa is not qualified to make that determination

Uhh, balboa is not qualified to make that determination. That would require a liberal to actually be capable of thinking or making judgements based on facts. Instead the liberals eyeballs swirl around in their skull sockets while their brain reels and spins in their head like an icecube in a roiling whirpool. In the end, they stick with their partisan talking point cue. It's safe, warm, and a good way to rip on anyone who doesn't agree with them.

 Bal is no different than any other lib. His excuse is he has no idea how to evaluate to come to an answer to your question, and in the end, both sides are possibly right, and freedom is choosing a side, and either is ok since they both have equal value and equal standing in the truth, since what one thinks is a personal decision of freedom for a lib. It's just that lib side is based on care and peace and fairness, and the other side is based on republican hatred and greed and intolerance. Therefore bal has made his choice already, as his eggshell can't take too much more pressure. 

They haven't even found Jimmy Hoffa's bones.

They haven't even found Jimmy Hoffa's bones.

And he's only in the Holy State of New Jersey.

In Cameron's such a smarty, he should get them first.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Jack, I found Hoffa's bones. But then I thought, what the heck?

Jack, I found Hoffa's bones.  But then I thought, what the heck?

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

oh my gawd

balboa, what you do is you look into both the experts sides, then you find out which side is telling all the big fat lies. It turns out that side has the fake expert.

I hope you never get called for jury duty.

B,This is why accepting at fa

B,

This is why accepting at face value the opinion of the "experts" has always been a dangerous thing to do, especially when the proposed "solutions" are so extreme and almost always entail some form of empowerment of government bureaucracy.

As fas as Global Warming goes: I don't believe anyone is denying it as existing, at least as part of a cycle; the contention is as to the possible causes. 

The hypothesis that it's caused by human (capitalist) activity is far from a proven fact.  Those who portray it as such, and use so-called "experts" as a way of stifling scientific debate, are demagogues, attempting to acquire power through fear. 

Remember, it was experts who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

B,This is why accepting at fa

oops, double post...

bal...You need to keep more

bal...

You need to keep more up-to-date on the AGW threads here. This has already been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. For example- scientists have discovered that increases in CO2 levels consistently happen AFTER periods of warming, yet the AGW crowd is blaming CO2 for whatever warming they "think" is going on now. Remember that saying about the "cart before the horse"?

Hey..UNDERCOVER "why are

Hey..UNDERCOVER "why are we still hearing about it in another Fakementry"....can be answered....starting with Al GORE's Oscar for an Invalidamentry....The there is the Quotes out of sequence "Mark Moore" success.

There are vast rewards in Hollowood for these UFO view points to be made into movies...especially since the "passion" success.  There's $$$'s to be made, and careers to be built....and NONE of the Hollywood types got to particpate in the $$'ss generated by the "Passion".

And it's been a long time since Star Wars.

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.

I read somewhere that James C

I read somewhere that James Cameron also found Al Capone's vault next to Jesus's tomb. Is that true?

What Matt actually wanted to

What Matt actually wanted to say instead of what he said, was.....

"This morning a Today exclusive that we hope will rock Christianity to its core."

I misheard him. I thought he

I misheard him. I thought he said "Christianity will rock your world to the core". I was surprised that we were in agreement, but then I saw the rest of the piece.

Lauer: "More research

Lauer: "More research needs to be done but if this turns out to be true this changes everything."

Vieira: "Oh it's a huge story, absolutely."

Ok, can anyone tell me how a MASSIVE LIE can "change everything"? Anyone?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Since when has truth been a

Since when has truth been a requirement for Liberal doctrine. Please keep in mind the socialist government needs to remove faith from it's people in order to maintain proper control of them.

Christianity flies in the face of all thing liberal. The presence of absolutes like good and evil makes the wicked squirm. We are commanded to act upon faith and lift our brothers when they fall, we chose not to rely on government social programs for this. We believe in the sanctity of human life, big lib no-no!

There's way too many reasons to list why liberals need to wipe out religion, specifically Christianity. Just keep in mind they want to wipe us out and stories like this one become so crystal clear in their motive.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

- Ronald Reagan

Wicked...Very well stated.I a

Wicked...

Very well stated.

I am not worried about liberals trying to destroy Christianity because they will fail. Destroying our country is another matter.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

CT, man do I hear you there

CT, man do I hear you there. It's like every thing they do is, consequences to the nation be damned till we're back in power. And in that mean time they're tearing the country apart.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

- Ronald Reagan

Wicked...Not trying to sound

Wicked...

Not trying to sound arrogant, but it's up to us and millions of others to make sure they don't destroy this country.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

Amen... Politics is suppos

Amen...

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

- Ronald Reagan

I'll try MM

Ok, can anyone tell me how a MASSIVE LIE can "change everything"? Anyone?

MM - An Incovenient Truth comes to mind........

I'll tell you what is "

I'll tell you what is "huge", it is James Cameron's ego! Remember when he won the Oscar for Titanic, he walked off the stage yelling, "I'm king of the world". Give me a break. No one who is grounded in their faith will give this another thought.

Two examples: Karl Marx's &

Two examples: Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" (cherry-picking data to the nth degree), and, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, the Third Reich. Those two lies, and they certainly were very close cousins, turned the entire world upside down. With this new "Big Lie" (AGW), expect the same degree of repercussions as the first two I've listed if it's allowed to continue unabated.

Lauer:  "Over 5 years a

Lauer:  "Over 5 years ago, planes were flown into the World Trade Center.  More research needs to be done on Islamic radicalism, but if it turns out to be true, this changes everything."

Viera:  "Oh, it's a huge story, absolutely."

After thinking about this &

After thinking about this "breakthrough" I came to realize that these are the exact kinds of people to whom Joseph Smith referred to when he said that, when Jesus descends to the earth at his Second Coming, those worldly people who see him will say that it's not him, but rather a comet, planet, etc.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

The list of duplicity

Oh God, where to begin?

This is the same story that was debunked a decade ago. Those who read Drudge have already seen the debunking, with far more evidence and credibility than the "reporters" who offer this story.  Just a couple comments:

  • "Simcha" admits that he is neither a theologian nor an archeologist, just a reporter. What's fascinating is that he expects viewers to accept his authority anyway. If he is neither a theologian nor an archeologist, on what basis can he evaluate the sources he refers to? Other than their "newsworthiness" (i.e., sensationalism)?
  • The phrase "son of" was a common method of identifying someone. But usually, that identification only made sense among people who knew the father. When the person in question was from far away, and the locals didn't know the father, the person in question was (instead) identified by where they came from. That's why Jesus was referred to as "the Nazorean" during the crucifixion, because none of the local Jerusalem people would have known Joseph. If these bones were found near Jerusalem, you'd expect the ossuary to refer to the bones as the Nazorean, not as "son of Joseph."
  • When the story appeared, it was advertised that it was verified "by DNA evidence." But the DNA only suggests that one set of bones was probably related to another set of bones. The DNA doesn't say anything about who these people were.

The list of duplicity goes on and on ...

KC,Thank you!

KC,

Thank you!

Breaking New Discovery

Breaking - James Cameron Makes New Discovery --The road to hell that has long-been considered to be paved with good intentions has now been proven by James Cameron's latest example to be actually paved with self-serving intentions.  NBC support's claim.

Good grief, here we go again

Good grief, here we go again with pitiful "science" masquerading as almost fact.  I love the casual assumption that we have now "proven" that Mary Magdalene's name was Mary Anne.  Since when?  By whom?  The "Acts of Phillip?"  Isn't this more of the apocryphal texts that were written hundreds of years after Christ's death, and were discarded as fakes way back when? 

And why would her burial there mean she must be Jesus' wife?  Why would some sort of residue on the ossuaries (something I have trouble believing would be there all these years later, given that forensic scientists have had trouble getting DNA from people buried during the modern era) give DNA results?  And why would that prove that Mary Anne was Jesus' wife?  And why would Matti suddenly be Matthew, and why would our Christian Matthew be buried with Jesus and his happy family anyway? 

The whole thing is so ridiculous.  To say that statistics prove it must be true is the most absurd thing of all.  It assumes we have exact probabilities for each name, it assumes that thes other names really stood for the names we think they stood for, and they assume that these ossuaries aren't frauds as were those of the "James, brother of Jesus" were proven to be last year or so.

If we assume A, then we can assume B, then we guess C, then we have proven D.  Ridiculous.

The only fact that can be drawn from their discovery is that there was a Jesus, son of Joseph, who had a son named Judah.  He may also have had female relatives named Mary.  Wow, what a shock.  And even this assumes the entire ossuary isn't a fake.

Lord, you gave them eyes, but

Lord, you gave them eyes, but they cannot see. Lord, you gave them a brain, but they cannot think. Lord, you gave them ears, but they cannot hear. Lord, you gave them mouths, and they sure can use them.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I've had a vision recently. 

I've had a vision recently. 

It began when I heard Newt Gingrich was going to run for president.

I think the resulting bloodbath will have a chance to cleanse America's soul.

All the signs the last couple of years, and from them looking back further, point to the idea American society is gearing up for a major catharsis, but even though there have been HUGE issues swirling around, nothing has brought the tempest to a focal point.

I think a Hillary vs Gingrich setting will do it.

The carnage will be massive, but necessary, I think...

Anyway, does anybody remember some time ago about finding one of these bone boxes that might have been Jesus' brother's?

Since these names were so common back then, I guess we should be prepared for these kind of revelations every few years.

Didn't "Dateline" d

Didn't "Dateline" do a story last Easter about Jesus not actually being crucified or something like that? Doesn't NBC always throw out an anti-Christian piece during Lent?

the world is simply mad and it's sad

As is written in the bible, on the day of resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, the first day of the week began to dawn, which comes after the sabbath, the two mary's came to see His tomb. At His tomb, the guards were still there, even at dawn.
when the two mary's saw the tomb, the stone was still in front of the door, with the guards watching on both sides.
not until an angel of the Lord came from heaven and rolled the stone away from the door and then sat on the stone, and the guards became filled with fear and became like 'dead men', did the angel say unto the women, "Do not be afraid, you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said."
The angel showed the women where the Lord did lay and to go and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead and at that very moment, Jesus was already entering Galilee. There, at Galilee, the women would see Him.

A note about the stone:

The stone was not too heavy to move. It was guarded and sealed for three days; that is what made the stone like a bank safe.
Jesus was wrapped in clean linen cloth and placed in Joseph of Arimathea's new tomb, which he made out of the rock. He then rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb while both mary's were there, watching, sitting opposite of the tomb. From there, they departed.
This was done before the sabbath, when many things are prepared before.
the chief priest talked with Pilate in fear of Jesus rising from the dead on the third day. So, the priests, with the help of the romans, sealed the tomb and set guard over it.

Jesus rose from the dead before the sealed-stone was rolled away and was already entering into Galilee when the two mary's came to visit His tomb, at Jerusalem.
Yes Jesus Christ died and yes He was placed in a tomb.
But there is one thing that surpasses all and was true from the beginning:

Jesus Christ is the Son of G-D and therefore He returned to His Father, so why would The Son of G-D all of a sudden not be who HE IS, and marry a woman, and then give birth to a son, and live happily ever after on this earth.

Remember, we are talking about the Son of God.

Great Idea

Hey, let's come up with an idea and put it out there and say IF THIS PROVES TO BE TRUE......

As long as it's Rebublicans and/or Christians it doesn't have to be true, you just conjecture.

Now, you'd have to research it and you'd have to prove it, but hey it should be good for a few news cycles until you've convinced allot of people who won't research it themselves and then you just drop the story and never report on it again because it's a lie.

They do this with the origins of our country as well.

These people think they are smarter than everyone else before them.

You'd think that if it was that easy the Jews, the ones who were persecuting Chrisitans at the time, would have found the tomb and exposed it.

The classic is that they have DNA evidence. How they "prove" that the DNA is from the Jesus from the Bible I don't know, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Cameron

What Cameron is doing is nothing new. PBS, CPB, Discovery, and History channels for years have sponsored scientists not to prove the Bible, but disprove it.

One program was on the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. The possibilities they came up with were comical.  “It was a great wind that parted the sea”.  “They went across  at a shallower place.” “It was not the Red Sea but another sea”.

NOTE: I read an article that divers went to the place were the parting of the sea was supposed to have occurred, and they said they found metal chariot parts.

There was another program on whether John The Baptist really existed. And the programs continue to go on and on with only one thing in mind - trash religion.

But, Cameron has taken the ultimate leap in trying to disprove the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity.  He's really playing with fire. And it will most probably be coming from a burning bush.

Exlib and poco...It's called

Exlib and poco...

It's called throwing s*** against a wall and see what sticks.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

Poco's a Canuck band, eh?

Poco's a band originally from Port Coquitlam, BC CAN, right?

Please excuse this post as my sides are still hurting from laughing after my last post on another thread. Thank's again to dscott and of course sarcasmo.

I'm still laughing/in pain. Have a nice remainder of your day(s), yah'll 8D.

The documentary on the chario

The documentary on the chariot parts was very interesting.  Of course, if I remember correctly, it didn't have all the bells and whistles of a Hollywood production, but the scenes of the search underwater was fascinating. 

It was done by a Scandinavian group, if I remember correctly, and they discussed different traditions and different possibilities.  Eventually, they got down to the diving, and there were a couple of artifacts that look like chariot wheels to me, and the sea was such that there wasn't much else on the bottom, so it wasn't hard to focus on the artifacts.

Chariot Parts

us,

Thank you for confirming the information. I couldn't remember who it was or where I read it. And I didn't know a documentary was made of the dive.

The documentary is called &qu

The documentary is called "Exodus Revealed"

Here is a short video clip I did of parts of the dive scenes.  I put in extra long fades in and out to show where I did the cut.

http://usinkorea.org/exodus.wmv

I have always viewed archealogy with skepticism regardless of what is being looked at.  My training is in textual analysis, and I get antsy the further back in time we go and the less number of written words we have on a subject.

New discoveries are rewriting what we thought we knew year to year.  I remember seeing a special on the Dead Sea Scrolls and how the early defintion of the community thought to have stored and written them was that it was a community of scribes and scholars - with the archaeologists mentioned ink wells - but later people who checked it out decided the ink wells were common wash basins and that the earlier group had mistaken what they saw because they were themselves Catholics familiar with monestaries and thus saw what they were familiar with and what they wanted to see...

With this dive special - you can see how the same might happen.  The images are not definative.

But, I bought it.

What struck me at first was how barren the sea floor was but also strewn with clumps of coral here and there.  I am no diver, but it seemed to me like the stuff was not natural to the sea floor but more like the video described: a junk yard littered with man-made objects trapped in coral.

Then, as I was watching and squinting at the screen, I kept thinking, "Now that could be any old thing as well as possibly parts of a chariot..."

but there were two or three images that I would bet money were chariot wheels and pieces...

When I get to heaven, I'll ask and find out for sure...

READ THE LABEL

Did anyone check closely to see if these pieces had "MADE IN TAIWAN" labels!

MATT & MEREDITH

Hey, we have to believe them, remember these are the same MEREDITH & MATT who earlier in the program stated 1)MATT: "I do my Heisman Trophy winning pose in the bathroom each year." & 2)MEREDITH: "I do my Oscar acceptance speech in my PJs each year."  One carries the ball for the DEMLIBS & the other repeats her lines just as told by the DEMLIBS.  Need I say more! 

Isn't Mr Cameron in for a

Isn't Mr Cameron in for a surprise come Judgment Day.

EXT. THE PEARLY GATES -- DAY

ST. PETER: I'm sorry brother, but the big guy is adamant. It's Hellish Warming for you.

CAMERON: I suppose it's the whole Hollywood thing. Fornication, infidelity, lust, envy? Bet the Jesus was a fraud documentary didn't help either?

ST. PETER: Err, sure, there is all that. But mainly...Titanic really sucked man.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Any TV production has probabl

Any TV production has probably twenty times the out takes that make it to air. Full of interviews that say...."who knows Who's bones they are" The track record of the director (Simcha) is to start out with a premise and then start filming till you get enough to string an hour of entertainment out of it. I'd imagine what was left out tells the whole story.

Clueless in Today Show Land

Lauer and Vieira were all too happy to find such earth shattering possibilites about Jesus really not being who the New Testament claims him to be.  The resurrected Son of God. 

I have a suggestion, let the Today show now counter with a full show's worth of commentary on Biblical Archaeology which confirms Biblical structures and actual people who were named in the Bible, like Pontius Pilate whom many didn't believe existed until an inscription with his name was found in Caesarea, Israel in June 1961.  Even though Tacitus and Josephus and Philo of Alexandria mentioned him by name - as well as the Bible.

For a great list of Archaeological finds just check wikipedia for a short list of finds.  There's PLENTY of things that corroborate the Bible.  You just have to have the will to look at them.  They aren't as spectacular for morning blather over your english muffins maybe but they're much more interesting.

& now 27 years LATER!

How come, WHY, did it take 27 years to come to this revelation!  Weren't these found in 1980?  Did someone, of course a so-called self professed Biblical expert, get paid for 27 years to find the writing?  Maybe they're dyslexic, or can't spell like me!  If the boxes aren't from Taiwan, could be they were made in Mexico, and the writing is Mexican, Jesus(Hey Sus)!

The same old intellectual banktruptcy

I'm always perplexed by these attempts to "prove" that Jesus is in a tomb somewhere. People who don't really believe that Jesus even existed (or if he did he was just a man who had some good ideas) get all excited when they think they have proof that He's dead. They're willing to believe that he was real, just as long as He wasn't God.

When this turn out to be a hoax, a lot of those same people will go right back to claiming that Jesus ( and everything in the Bible for that matter) is nothing more than a "fairytale." Why do they think they can have it both ways? Either He lived or He didn't. If they're willing to accept that He lived, as long as they think He was just a man, why aren't they willing to accept that He's alive when every attempt to prove Him dead for the last 200 years has failed?

Burial insurance, also known

Burial insurance, also known as final expense insurance, can provide you or your family with affordable life protection and it pays in addition to all other insurances that you have. Burial life insurance can be used for any need.

Burial insurance provides permanent coverage, level premiums and accumulates cash value. Get Burial Insurance Quotes today.