Archeaology and history corroborate the existence of Yah-weh (YAH-U-WAH) whom we know as God.

This thread was generated from my idea in a different post but i thought it worthy of it's own thread. In this thread i will go into a little detail about how the science of archeaology and common history corroborates the existence of Yahuwah (God). This thread is designed to teach those ignorant of how the Holy Spirit (God) teaches his faithful how to read not just between the lines, but to also read what is behind the lines and words and to teach people to stop believing only in what they see because your eyes can fool you.

The bible was written as a history of the Israelites and how God made them his chosen people. What does the word chosen mean in the bible? It means they were chosen to do God's work, he picked them to be the priests of nations not just to their own people. Jesus came to remind them of that during his ministry. He had more than one reason for coming to earth. Yes he died for our sins so that whoever believes in him should not be destroyed, but he also came to teach man how to live in accordance to the Father (Abba).

Science does corroborate the bible, its just non believers do not see it because they do not read the bible and because they do not belong to Christ they have not his Holy Spirit to show them the story written in the words.

Think on this. Science says man evolved correct? What is evolution? It is change in it simplest form of the word. Now, think back to Adam and Eve. God gave them all the trees in the garden to eat from except the tree of knowledge correct? So, look deeper into the story behind the words. They were gatherers, they gathered their food from the trees and bushes in Eden to eat from. Well what do you know? Evolution says man were gatherers first.

Now think back to after Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal and clothed them in to cover their shame (nakedness). So what does that mean? It means that, not only was Adam and Eve naked before they fell but they were also gatherers that did not hunt. Well what do you know? Evolution says, that man originated as gatherers that ran around naked as they hadn't begun to hunt and make clothes to cover their nakedness.

Now Cain and Abel hit the scene years later. Cain was a tiller (planter of crops) and Abel was a shepherd (livestock domestication). Well what do you know? Science (Archeaology) and history states that farming and domestication appeared in the world about the same time.

Cain slays Abel and God places a curse on Cain and sends him away after he murdered Abel. Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife and becomes the builder of the first city (civilization). Well what do you know? Science (archeaology) says that domestication of animals and farming bothcame before cities (civilization) were ever built.

If you know how to look for it, science corroborates the bible, not the other way around. The Bible came first and science came later in what we call the modern era. Now who wrote the Torah? Moses didn't write the first Torah, Yahweh (pronounced YAH-OO-WAH) wrote it. Moses came down from the summit on Mt. Sinai and saw his people worshipping a golden calf (Idol) and in his rage he threw the Torah God wrote with his own hand and destroyed the calf. God called him back to the summit and made Moses rewrite it with his own hand as punishment.

Now ask yourself, how did Moses know anything about science? He didn't. So who told him? Yahweh did, who has knowledge of a great many things we can never imagine. The words in the bible and science both corrobarate the existence of God. Atheists and non-believers try so hard to prove he doesn't exist when the evidence they seek is right in front of their eyes but they cannot see it because they do not have the Holy Spirit teaching them to see behind whats in front of their eyes. In fact, the bible is plum full of these little gems i just showed you. Only fools scoff and laugh at things they know nothing about. The bible is real and God exists.

Whats is the goal of ATS? To deny ignorance.

Amen!

I don't know what you just did, but I'm more than sure it was all subjective and none of it was factual from a historical stand point. Don't state such things as fact with anecdotal evidence.

To each his own, though.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
I don't know what you just did, but I'm more than sure it was all subjective and none of it was factual from a historical stand point. Don't state such things as fact with anecdotal evidence.

To each his own, though.

It is factual and historical. Pick up a history book and start reading. I majored in anthropology (emphasis archeaology) and minored in sociology. It is true, all of it. Cultural anthropology and archeaology both corroborate this.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Now ask yourself, how did Moses know anything about science? He didn't. So who told him? Yahweh did, who has knowledge of a great many things we can never imagine.

edit on 1-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Because men are too stupid to think on their own I suppose.. ?

Did God build the computer you used to post this theory? ..

God is merely man's lazy way of describing things he can't understand.. it was like that for thousands of years.. Other Gods existed before your Yah-weh .. I don't think Zeus would be too happy with you for not giving him proper credit.

Do you realize how many different Gods exist, or have existed in cultures around the planet over time? and all of these groups were sure they were right .. Kind of like today where all the various sects of religion believe they are the one true sect .. it's absurdity at it's finest.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
It is factual and historical.

False.. saying it's factual and historical while spouting of credentials doesn't make it so .. if it were factual and historical there would be absolutely no debate .. it would simply be.. and it's NOT

A fairy tale from the bronze age is proof of nothing. There is no archeological proof of the existence of god. Your thread title is incorrectly stated. Your subjective interpretation of the bible is not proof. And yes I have read it cover to cover more than once. I will however concede that you have a very interesting interpretation of the stories and one I haven't seen presented before.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


This only proves that superstition and a belief in dieties existed, not the reality of god.

I suppose that fire was first discovered when Moses saw the burning bush!

What about all the Sumerian, Eqyptian and Hindu gods that preceded the Abrahamic religions?

Are the heiroglyphs proof of the existance of Isis, Osirus and Anubis too?

Originally posted by mus8472
A fairy tale from the bronze age is proof of nothing.

It's far worse than that ..

It's a translation of a fairy tale based on other fairy tales .. and a poor translation at that..

Even if you go back to the original scrolls, which nobody does ( and surely the OP hasn't done or he wouldn't have said some of what he's said in his post ) .. you'll find a collection of stories based on other stories adapted to the religion..

If OP is basing his post on what you find in the new testament then it just makes the whole thing even worse.. so many errors, mistranslations, omissions and additions that the book is a shadow of it's original meaning.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Science does corroborate the bible, its just non believers do not see it because they do not read the bible and because they do not belong to Christ they have not his Holy Spirit to show them the story written in the words.

It really doesn't .. the only corroboration you have is that some of the locations and some of the people existed, there's not much evidence that most of the events actually took place..

What you have in the bible is a series of ancient tales that have been adapted to fit in with the locations and names that the authors knew of.. retrofitted ancient stories..

It would be like me taking the story of little red riding hood, re-writing it to take place in New York and then someone finding it a thousand years later.. they would find that New York existed which would suddenly make the story of little red riding hood seem plausible to some people in the distant future because archeology proved a location in the story existed .. see the problem? ... it becomes apparent when you ACTUALLY look at history without your goggles on and find that these same stories pre-date the bible and have existed in some form or another ( in most cases ) for a long long long time..

Believe what you may and don't believe what is ...but what is is because of what is and God is and no amount of disbelief in Him can change what is ... The belief in a god is only for those who would believe and for those that can believe in the true God s only for those that chose to believe ..all others move along ,nothing to see here ...

This guy is a professor of religious studies in North Carolina, a friend of mine took several classes under him. He's retranslating some of the older texts in an effort to bring things back to the original scripture. Some very interesting things are revealed and some stories are all together changed into something that most today wouldn't recognize from their bastardized version of the texts.

Original Bible Project

Originally posted by mus8472
This guy is a professor of religious studies in North Carolina, a friend of mine took several classes under him. He's retranslating some of the older texts in an effort to bring things back to the original scripture. Some very interesting things are revealed and some stories are all together changed into something that most today wouldn't recognize from their bastardized version of the texts.

Original Bible Project

I've read up on this project before .. I love what they are trying to do.. it's sad how people don't realize that what they view as the holy bible isn't at all like it was originally written .. bastardized is an understatement.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Now think back to after Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal and clothed them in to cover their shame (nakedness). So what does that mean? It means that, not only was Adam and Eve naked before they fell but they were also gatherers that did not hunt. Well what do you know? Evolution says, that man originated as gatherers that ran around naked as they hadn't begun to hunt and make clothes to cover their nakedness.

Why did god HAVE to kill an animal? Why didn't he shear a sheep or weave some cotton into fabric or take some silk from the silk worm to make clothing?

Because God didn't. Man killed the animal, maybe out of fear or self preservation, and found that it was tasty and the pelt was useful, and that the bladder made a good tote for water too!

Why didn't god cause humans to grow a coat of fur? Why did he have to kill an animal? Makes no sense, IMHO

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Cain was a tiller (planter of crops) and Abel was a shepherd (livestock domestication). Well what do you know? Science (Archeaology) and history states that farming and domestication appeared in the world about the same time.

So, the two sons of Adam and Eve were farmers and raised domestic livestock. That is what you say.

Then you say Science, Archeaology, and History states the farming and domestication appeared in the world about the same time (which, according to you, was less than 6,000 years ago).

Subsistence data at Nabta Playa shows that the early Neolithic period (9800-8900 BP) people dined on gazelle, rabbit and (eventually) domesticated cattle. Throughout the Neolithic is evidenced a steady increase in the amount of time invested in gathering, pastoralism, and eventually agriculture. Cattle were likely domesticated in the region by ca 9,000 BP BP = Before Present. Domesticated sheep and goats were obtained by the people at Nabta Playa from southwest Asia during the Middle Neolithic period.•Middle Neolithic 7,100-6700 RCYBPRadio Carbon Years Before Present.

archaeology.about.com...

Since their domestication in the Neolithic, cattle have belonged to our cultural heritage. The reconstruction of their history is an active field of research1 that contributes to our understanding of human history. Archeological data are now supplemented by analyses of modern and ancient samples of cattle with DNA markers of maternal, paternal, or autosomal inheritance. The most recent genetic data suggest that maternal lineages of taurine cattle originated in the Fertile Crescent with a possible contribution of South-European wild cattle populations, while zebu cattle originate from the Indus Valley. ...abtract from archaeology.about.com.../XJ&zTi=1&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=22&gps=442_25_1093_496&f=10&tt=13&bt=0&bts=1&st=11&zu=http%3A//dx .doi.org/10.1002/evan.20267
On the origin of cattle: How aurochs became cattle and colonized the world†

Paolo Ajmone-Marsan1,
José Fernando Garcia2,
Johannes A. Lenstra3

Article first published online: 26 AUG 2010

Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact
Melinda A. Zeder*
+ Author Affiliations
Archaeobiology Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013

Edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, and approved May 27, 2008 (received for review March 20, 2008)

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed a quantum leap in our understanding of the origins, diffusion, and impact of early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin. In large measure these advances are attributable to new methods for documenting domestication in plants and animals. The initial steps toward plant and animal domestication in the Eastern Mediterranean can now be pushed back to the 12th millennium cal B.P.

www.pnas.org...

Animal
Where Domesticated
Date

Dog
undetermined
~14-30,000 BC?

Sheep
Western Asia
8500 BC

Cat
Fertile Crescent
8500 BC

Goats
Western Asia
8000 BC

Pigs
Western Asia
7000 BC

Cattle
Eastern Sahara
7000 BC

Chicken
Asia
6000 BC

archaeology.about.com...

So, of the above animals, according to these archaeologists and scientists, only chickens were still "just domesticated" when Adam and Eve were created.

You see where the problem lies? You saying it is scientifically proven, and me hearing you, and then looking it up for myself DOES NOT RESULT in your statement being credible. Either you, or those scientists, are wrong.

lonewolf, I see you jumped ship (he he, sorry, just had to) from the other thread. But I have these replies to that very post which you have used to start this new thread.....

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Now think back to after Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal and clothed them in to cover their shame (nakedness). So what does that mean? It means that, not only was Adam and Eve naked before they fell but they were also gatherers that did not hunt. Well what do you know? Evolution says, that man originated as gatherers that ran around naked as they hadn't begun to hunt and make clothes to cover their nakedness.

So, shall we do hunting now?

Hunters and Gatherers (20,000-12,000 years ago)

For a good a long time after modern humans had evolved and won out over all of our cousins everywhere on the planet, we humans relied on hunting and gathering as a way to live. This ersatz category of mine lumps the more formalized periods in the Near East called the Epi-paleolithic and Natufian, the American Paleoindian and Archaic, the European Mesolithic, and the Asian Hoabinhian and Jomon.

archaeology.about.com...
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I really am grasping here to see where your statements are supported. I know how to do scientific research. You say "IF you know how to look for it"

So far as I can tell, that means you and all "believers" have some secret codex that is being withheld....and only those who promise to do as YOU SAY THE BIBLE SAYS get to know it = Because God said so.

But, God didn't say that to Me. You telling me he said it is YOU saying he said it. Sorry, but that is not good enough, bro. If you want everyone to believe you, you have to give them primary sources, not hearsay or bullying orders. Or threats of death and hell. Or saying the "Holy Spirit", (another concept which is something I DO get, because I've actually felt it) must fill me IN YOUR WAY, and not MY WAY.

Peace.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
Believe what you may and don't believe what is ...but what is is because of what is and God is and no amount of disbelief in Him can change what is ... The belief in a god is only for those who would believe and for those that can believe in the true God s only for those that chose to believe ..all others move along ,nothing to see here ...

whoa.....have you listened to yourself?
Does all that circular thought make you dizzy??

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

It is factual and historical. Pick up a history book and start reading. I majored in anthropology (emphasis archeaology) and minored in sociology. It is true, all of it. Cultural anthropology and archeaology both corroborate this.

Well, before I go down into my study to read the history book I've been reading for that last few weeks (Sarum, by Edward Rutherford), I'll just leave you with one more question,

WHEN did you major and minor in those fields? I have a masters in a field of social science (10 years ago this summer), and still read up on it EVERY DAY. One has to keep up with these subjects to be able to speak about them with authority. The facts change all the time as people continue to dig up more info.

Peace.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Now think back to after Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal and clothed them in to cover their shame (nakedness). So what does that mean? It means that, not only was Adam and Eve naked before they fell but they were also gatherers that did not hunt. Well what do you know? Evolution says, that man originated as gatherers that ran around naked as they hadn't begun to hunt and make clothes to cover their nakedness.

Why did god HAVE to kill an animal? Why didn't he shear a sheep or weave some cotton into fabric or take some silk from the silk worm to make clothing?

Because God didn't. Man killed the animal, maybe out of fear or self preservation, and found that it was tasty and the pelt was useful, and that the bladder made a good tote for water too!

Why didn't god cause humans to grow a coat of fur? Why did he have to kill an animal? Makes no sense, IMHO

God killed an animal to set a precedent... that sin is covered by blood. This precedent was set early; it ties in with the story of Cain and Abel (explaining why Abel's sacrifice was sufficient and Cain's was not: Cain did not offer a sacrifice in keeping with God's teaching), in Abraham and Isaac ("God will provide the sacrifice, my son"), and obviously in both the Jewish Law (offering a perfect, unblemished lamb) and in Christ (c.f. Psalm 22/Isaiah 53).

None of these things are accidental. This is why Revelation says that Jesus Christ was "the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world" - because the earthly precedent, set in Genesis 3, had a heavenly purpose: to reflect and prepare for the coming of Christ.

reply to post by vogon42
Its a hard thing to spin and keep a balance ..Sometimes when we think we know what is what we can discover something that makes no sense to the way we thought before ...Even in science they make claims that can make the mind spin until it is realized what is being said ...ie.faster than light speed must have made some heads spin until they realized what was going on ...peace