Corrected Egyptian Time Line Affirms the Presence of the Israelites in Egypt During the Exodus Period

On a few of the atheist videos Christopher Hitchens mentioned that there is no evidence from archaeology for the biblical period of the Exodus or the the years spent by the Israelites in Egypt between Joseph and Mosess. Since there is at least one Egyptologist who has questioned that standard evidence or lack of it, which I posted on before, I want to bring that post up again, but there's also been a second interview with the same Egyptologist since then whilch I'll put up here:



These interviews were done by my Great nephew C Jay Cox, and here is also a film that presents this new evidence, "Patterns of evidence.: that I found on Amazon at the time of the first interview.

Here's what I wrote at that time: two posts on the subject.

https://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/search?q=Rohl+Egyptologist

Heres a way to say it maybe\

He's got a God Shaped Hole the size of the Grand Canyon but he's trying to fill it with himself.

His own prejudices and profound thoughts that is. And I like a lot of his opinions very much. But right nng as a barrier to finding God.

I remember en reading about religion for a couple of years ievver I suddenly understood that the truth was where Jerry Falwell lived and I was very prejudiced against Jerry Falwell. He represented my barrier.

Jordan Peterson, the Perils of Doublethink

Knew I should leave well enough alone but I had to post this other video of Peterson in the previous post and of course I goofed something up and right now I can't even listen to it. Oh well.

The thing about someone who has the kind of appreication of the bible and religion that Petedrson has is that he has to doublethink everything. He can't let it be what it is, he can't accept it as it is, the Bible is this "strange old book" that needs his modern perspective imposed on it. That's deadly for ever coming to a true understanding of God but in his case he does such a deep and passionate job of it, as I said in the other post, it's compelling in its own right. He has a profound appreciation for the human condition and that is admirable. He has a profound understanding of the role of the Bible in shap8ing the best in western civilization and that is admirable. He has a profound understanding of the need for each human being to embrace the best in culture for the purpose of self understanding and living with wisdom.

But the problem is that the "strange old book"

has to be read in simple faith and trust if you want to know God. If you doublethink it and impose your modern assumptions on it you maty get some very interesting and useful ideas for life out of it but you'll miss BGod completely.

Just thinking from the human point of view and forgetting for the moment that God must act in leading all of us to himself, I just wonder what it would take to jolt him out of his doublethinjk into the simple trust needed.

Jordan Peterson Intro Probably More to Say Later

Jordan Peterson. He's a fascinating phenomenon. It's hard to know what to make of him, he's so utterly unique. Something inb him is straining toward God with such a passion his God-shaped hole is swallowing him up. But at the same time he's pursuing God from such a personal point of view I fear he's going to miss Him altogether.

Oh wow, I'm not up to this post right now but my eyes are so bad I don't dare just leave it for another time because I never get back to the place i left off so I'm going to post one of the videos about him and exit for now:?]

sten to this guy. On the Bible He's trying to "make it rational" but he has an amazingly deep appreciation of his own take on it. He's wrong but there's something so compelling about his thoughts they're of value in their own right. It's missing God, that's the problem, and it's hard to see how you get to God from where he is but, wll, God is the God of the impossible.

Peter Hitchens Blasts the Pro-Choice Sophistry

This is the kind of aggressive assertion of truth we need more of. This is Chrisopher Hitchens' Christian brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyffzNR2R5U

The Atheist Mentality

It's natural for fallen humanity to be atheist because they don't have the spiritual faculty to discern God. We lost that at the Fall, when our first parents disobeyed God. That was the first death, the loss of the spiritual connection with God. yes we are still responsi8ble to recognize God because of all the evidence around us in Nature, but with our dead spirits it's just too easy not to notice.
We have to be born again. We can't expect a Hitchens or a Dawkins of a Harris to beleive in God. It would take God Himself to draw them and turn their minds to consider the possibility. But in their own fallen conditon they can't apprehend God and since the flesh is at enmity with God have no desire to. What Jesus did and taught is understandable only through the regenerated spirit. Expecting the flesh to obey it is asking too much.

It's of course annoying to hear over and over how "religionb" includes Christianity and Islam and Roman Catholicism and all the rest of them because they have no spiritual ability to discriminate. It's also annoying to hear over and over how Christians are believers becaus we are looking for consolation or meaning or whatnot. Because that isn't why we believe. We believe because we know it is true. THEY can't tell it is true bbbut WE know it is true and that's why we believe. It's why I believe, that's for sure.

Hitchens' hideous accusation of the idea of Christ's sacrifice for us as a shirking of personal responsibility makes my jaw drop through the floor. Good grief. We can't pay for our violations of the Moral Law that runs this universe. We'd all go to Hell if God hadn't sent us His perfect sinless Son to pay our debt for us and yet that is denigrated by this Phiklistine as immoral. Yikes.

Evolution is Such a Fraud But The Sophsticates Wikll Browbeat Us Forever Over It

The more I try to think about the strata, those layers of sedimentary rock found all over the Earth that are equated with specific time pderiods of the past, the wackier it all seems that they were ever equated with time periods. The scientific creationists get into the rocks and examine their content and the fossils they contain and can show that way how the facts support rapid deposition of the sediment rather than slow incremental accumulation over millions of years. B But it still seems to me that just looking at the strata either in the reality of the Grand Canyon or any other actual situation, or on that cross secrion I like so much of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area, you have to see with a little thought that it's absolutely impossible that they could ever have existed as separate time periods for millions of years. The idea is ludicrous in the extreme. You'd think a Dawkins or any of the scientists dealing with these things would see it.
]
I always come back to noting that they are individual undisturbed. Whether you are to think of them as havingb been underwater during their supposed time period, as presumably those of the paelolithic part of the stack would have been since they are mostly marine creatures continaed in the ro rocks, or on the surface of the earth, thethey are straught and flat on their surfaces, they usually cover enormous areas, whole contine nts, are found on many continents, yes the same layers, and surely it's not hard to see that they couldn't have surfivied either underwater or on the surface for anyh time at all in that straight falt condition.
]
,br>
RThose observations and the work of the scientists show over and over again that the best explanation for their actual condition is rapid deposition under water and Noah's Flood fits the necessary conditions both for the structure of the rocks and for the condition of the fossils like no other explanation could. ,br>
And yet they are going to go on believing that nonsense aren't they?
]
And the nonsense that
eEvolution by natural selection" explains all the diversityh of life that exists. That phrase was said over and over again in the atheist discussions, lectures and debates I've been watching. And it's always described as a hallmark of intelligence and grownupness to agree with it. I'm not going to lay it out again here because my computer is already straining to hold this much of a post, but sselection requires the loss of genetic diveristy. Evolution can't be the result of selection therefore.