The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Logical Fallacy of Inference from the Absence of Evidence
Yesterday I had to appear at a deposition in San Diego, and used the opportunity to see the Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibition at the San Diego Museum of Natural History, in magnificent Balboa Park. Tickets may be purchased in advance, and all tickets are for appointed times at 15-minute intervals, in order to avoid overcrowding the exhibit.One of the more hopeful aspects of the exhibition is that scrolls are on loan, and displayed along side one another, from both the Israeli Antiquities Authority and the Department of Antiquities of the Kingdom of Jordan--a rare public manifestation of Israeli-Arab cooperation at a tumultuous time. That is perhaps all the more surprising giving the Palestinian campaign to deny Jewish historical links to the land of Israel, which the Scrolls richly symbolize. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls collectively (all of them, not just the scrolls in this exhibition) include fragments from every book of the Jewish Bible--what Christians call the Old Testament--except for, curiously and perhaps appropriately, the Book of Esther, which takes place in Persia at the end of the Babylonian Exile. The Israeli-Jordanian cooperation also is fitting, because the first scrolls were discovered by a Beduin shepherd boy in 1947, just prior to Israeli independence and the first Arab-Israeli war that followed. Sold to a Bethlehem Arab dealer in antiquities, they were first viewed by Professor Eleazar Sukenik, an Israeli archaeologist and scholar at Hebrew University, and the father of Israeli archaeologist, soldier and politician Yigdal Yadin, at a distance through a barbed wire barrier that separated Jewish and Arab Jerusalem.
It struck me how the Scrolls demonstrate the logical fallacy, currently rampant among Middle Eastern revisionist archaeologists, to derive proof for their propositions from the absence of evidence. For example, because of the absence of archaeological evidence for the entry of the tribes of Israel into Canaan, they question whether the exodus from Egypt ever occurred, and the existence of Moses and Joshua. They also doubt the historicity of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They even call into question the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon.
And yet, to give just two examples, the findings in the caves of Qumran demonstated that in the second century before the common era, Jews already wore tefillin--the prayer boxes that traditional Jewish men wear during their morning weekday prayers--even though secular scholars previously had assigned the origin of tefillin to a time some centuries later. (Of course, Jewish tradition holds that tefillin originated with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.) Also, one of the scrolls is a first century B.C.E. Aramaic translation, or targum, of the Book of Job. Scholars had previously declared with confidence that the first such Aramaic translations appeared in the first centuries of the Common Era. Yet the evidence from the Qumran caves that conclusively proved both those prior scholarly conclusions to have been wrong was incredibly fragile, and its discovery completely fortuitous. When the Beduin shepherd boy who found the clay pots containing the scrolls brought his uncle to the cave, the uncle initially smashed the clay pots that held the scrolls, hoping to find treasure. He chose to take the fragile and perishable parchment scrolls to an antiquities dealer; in a different mood, he might have thrown them into a fire or left them exposed to rot.
Lowell and his co-religionists will especially want to examine the Papyrus Bar Kokhba 44—the Alma Scroll, a lease of land that the document states was previously owned by the government of "Simeon Bar Kosiba, Prince of Israel." That dates the scroll to 134 C.E., during the rebellion against Rome led by Simeon Bar Kosiba--also known as "Bar Kochba," whose regime held sway over parts of the land of Israel before being crushed by Hadrian's legions. The commentary on the scroll remarks, "Latter-Day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies 'Alma son of Judah' as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name 'Alma' outside of the Book of Mormon."
posted by The Kosher Hedgehog at 11:21 AM
|
19 Comments:
Good to read. Take care of yourself!
Good discussion, but I hope you see the irony in your ending comments concerning the "Bar Kochba 44" caption. You are "chiding" those who dismiss the claims of the Hebrew historical records because of the absence of other archeological/historical evidence, yet doing the same thing concerning the Book of Mormon. In the absence of proof to the contrary, one must accept the claims of both the "Old Testament" and the "Book of Mormon" for what they are. For over a hundred years the name Alma in the Book of Mormon has been used as "proof" that the Book was a fraud because Alma is of Latin origin and female in gender. Bar Kokhba 44 shows early semitic and male use for Alma which completely counters the argument.
Perhaps the writer of the caption was just trying to head off this type of discussion. (grin)
Aparently you DID see the irony.
I posted my comment and then noticed that the last paragraph was not what I remembered reading. I had to check my browser cache to make sure I wasn't going crazy.
In the words of Emily Latella...
"Never mind!"
Dear fe2o3: Actually, I still don't see the irony, and I also don't see the logic of your argument. I personally make a faith decision to believe in the authenticity of the Biblical accounts in those books of the Bible accepted as sacred by Judaism, but in the absence of any archeological evidence to back up my conclusion of faith, I do not expect anyone else to accept the authenticity of those Biblical accounts. I strongly disagree with your statement that "In the absence of proof to the contrary, one must accept the claims of both the 'Old Testament' and the 'Book of Mormon' for what they are." For one thing, that would compel me to accept that Jesus was the son of God, which based on the traditional Jewish understanding of our scripture is idolotrous. In traditional Judaism, God is not incarnate in physical or human form. That is obviously not the view of Christianity in general with respect to Jesus, or with the Mormon Church with respect to God. As a Jew, I do not accept the New Testament or the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture. I freely recognize that my view of scriptural truth is not shared by Nicene Creed Christians or by Mormons, and I also believe that neither archaeology nor science compels one to prefer any of our religious faiths over another. I wrote, and I hold, that the absence of archaeological evidence does not logically allow one to infer that the Biblical stories did not occur. However, likewise, it does not logically require one to assume that they did occur, as you seem to argue. As for my editing of the original post, I belatedly realized that the writer of the exhibition comment was not stating that the Book of Mormon is in fact older than the Alma Scroll. (Indeed, regardless of what one believes regarding the gold plates that Mormons believe were translated by Joseph Smith, and how old they may have been, they are not available for scholarly examination, and we therefore do not have any existing copy of the Book of Mormon that predates the life of Joseph Smith. Per my main argument, that does not preclude the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, but it also does not compel one to accept it.) Rather, the writer meant that of all the documents other than the Book of Mormon where the name Alma appears, this scroll is the oldest.
There is a lack of evidence that Jews were even monotheistic prior to around 610 BC.
This is a great documentary of history and the bible: The Bible Unearthed
Dear beaj: Thank you for visiting and contributing to our blog. I actually had already seen "The Bible Unearthed." Indeed it is precisely theories such as those of Professors Finkelstein and Silberman that caused me to write my original essay. Please understand that this documentary by no means presents the "final word" on biblical archaeology. As hinted at in the documentary itself, their conclusions are controversial and have been thoroughly criticized, and not just by non-scientist religious fanatics such as the Kosher Hedgehog.
Let's look at just one of the points raised at the outset of the documentary--that there is no archaeological evidence for an immigration of the ancestors of the Israelites from Mesopotamia. According to the Biblical account, Abraham came to Canaan from Ur with just his wife, his nephew and their servants and herds, and they came into a land already thoroughly populated by the Canaanites, who had towns and cities. Under those circumstances, what sort of distinct archaelogical record would one expect from one small nomadic group of herdspeople integrating with an existing population? I would argue that logically one would expect nothing distinct at all, but only the pottery and buildings of the existing Canaanite towns, which of course is exactly what the archaeological discoveries show. What the documentary tries to portray as contradicting the Biblical story actually is completely consistent with it, if one knows the Bible well.
I could go through the documentary point by point in this fashion, but time and space do not permit.
As for the main thrust of the documentary--that the Israelites were not monotheistic before the time of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, the show glosses over a major difficulty with this theory--how would one persuade a population with a well-entrenched polytheistic religion to give it up in favor of a new monotheistic religion? How would one persuade the population that they have a common ancestry and history, with past leaders such as Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, if they had never heard of such people from their own parents and grandparents? How would you suddenly persuade such people not to eat pork, lobster, oysters and other shell fish, and many birds; or to only eat venison if the deer were ritually slaughtered in captivity (rather than hunted with a bow), if that was not their existing tradition? The Soviets were unable to stamp out religious observance in Russia despite 80 years of suppression using all of the powers of a modern police state.
As for the archaeological evidence of polytheism among the Israelites in the prior centuries, that should come as no surprise, since the Bible itself, in the Books of Judges, Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1 and 2, relates that there was a continuing struggle by Israel's prophets to stop popular worship of Baalim and Asherot, and other Canaanite idols. Again, when one reads what the Bible really says, instead of what the documentary would lead one to believe it says, the Biblical account is not contradicted by the scientific record.
As Rabbi Moshe Tendler has repeatedly said, seeming conflicts between the Torah and science are the result of either bad Torah interpretation, or bad science, or most commonly, both.
Perhaps I should have clarified a bit when I said "In the absence of proof to the contrary, one must accept the claims of both the "Old Testament" and the "Book of Mormon" for what they are."
I was not intending to imply the "faith" argument that all claims must be believed. If I make a claim that a man named John Ferguson lived 100 years ago my claim cannot be dismissed just because no one else makes that claim; or no one outside my family makes that claim. People should accept my claim for what it is. (They don't need to believe it.) On that basis someone could write a caption stating "Those in the Ferguson family might be interested to know that FE2O3 claims that John Ferguson lived 100 years ago." Without expecting to take criticism like "Only someone who believes in the authenticity of John Ferguson would write something like that."
You wrote "that the absence of archaeological evidence does not logically allow one to infer that the Biblical stories did not occur. However, likewise, it does not logically require one to assume that they did occur, as you seem to argue."
And here is where I hope I have clarified what I meant. When a claim is made it must stand on its own weight but it cannot be dismissed as a claim until proven false. See the history of Fermat's little theorem for a glimpse of the scientific perspective on this.
Had the Exodus occurred, monotheism would have occurred swiftly right after, and I can't see how the Egyptians wouldn't follow directly either.
As far as convincing polytheists to become monotheists is concerned, I believe that was temporarily achieved by an Egyptian Pharaoh around 1350BC. I don't think it takes long to invent a history, and I think that was done by the ethnic Jews between 610-450 BC.
A new religion really just needs one good story teller, especially back in the days where there were no history books, and one person with a big mouth who believes the story.
I think a fake Jewish history was created to bring unity to the semites in the region. Lets face it, their ancestors had to get there somehow. Why not invent a story of Plagues and a parted sea?
Look what James Frey accomplished in a very short time with his fraudulent book in todays day and age. There was no The Smoking Gun back in biblical days to disprove any stories.
I want to add, that since the OT was put on paper around 450 BC, events close to 450 BC were very likely to be true and based on real history. So archaeological findings dated 450 to 600 BC should correlate with the bible.
The problem is that close to zero findings correlate with the bible prior to that time.
I find it interesting that this post has generated more comments than any I can recall. I suppose it shows that people are committed to either their religion or their agnosticism/atheism.
The arguments in Beaj' last two posts carry in them the seeds of their own destruction. As he notes, the introduction of monotheism in Egypt, in the form of the worship of the sun god Ra as the only deity, lasted only for the lifetime of one pharoah, Akhenaten. The swiftness by which this cult was overthrown by traditional Egyptian polytheism after the death of Akhenaten shows that it never took hold among the social elites or the population at large.
Beaj should also consider that Jewish monotheism, if it was introduced as a new religion in the reign of King Josiah, was not just merely a matter of worshipping one deity. It came with a code of law that would have compelled huge societal changes.
As just one example, it required the entire Israelite nation to leave their fields fallow during the Sabbatical year, and promised that their crops in the 6th year of the Sabbatical cycle would be so huge that they would last for two years until the planting of the 8th year, the first year of the next cycle, was harvested. At the end of 7 such cycles, the fields were to lie fallow for two years, the 49th and the 50th years of the cycle. Try foisting that concept on farmers who have never heard of it. Also, lenders could not charge interest, slaves had to be freed at the end of 7 years, and with the advent of the 50th year, the Jubilee year, all debts were forgiven and land returned to its original ownership.
There are hundreds of examples of similar laws in the Torah. If these laws had not already been observed, or at least were familiar, to the Israelites from the time of Moses, I do not see how one have could suddenly convinced the Israelites not only that God wanted them to observe these laws, but also that these were very old laws that their ancestors had observed for a thousand years. I know of no new religion that has ever made such a claim.
The theory that the Torah was never written until around 450 B.C.E. is another example of a conclusion reached on the absence of evidence of earlier copies of the Torah, which goes back to my main theme of the logical fallacy of drawing conclusions from the absence of evidence. Since Torah scrolls are written on parchment, one would not have expected such biodegradable artifacts to have survived from before 450 B.C.E.
Indeed, if you accept the theories of Finkelstein and Silberman, as presented in "The Bible Unearthed," at least the Book of Deuteronomy must have been written down in the time of King Josiah. Professors Finkelstein and Silberman theorize that the scroll supposedly discovered in the Temple around the year 640 B.C.E. was actually a pious forgery, designed by the King and his priests to rally the people around the new monotheism. Even accepting that theory, that book of the Bible certainly must date back to at least that time. Yet, since we don't have a scroll from then, I guess Finkelstein and Silberman have disproved their own theory.
It seems to me that one irony here is the "absence" or exclusion of evidence, in the very exhibit you saw, for the Jerusalem origin of the scrolls--at a time when Palestinians are still denying that the remains of the Temple exist there under the mount. I know that the exhibit mentions the Jerusalem view, but I'm speaking of the failure to present any of the evidence supporting it.
Thus, for example, you indicate that the exhibit features a historical document from the Bar Kochba caves near Ein Gedi, but does it explain that the failure to find any such documents (apart from the crucial exception of the Copper Scroll) in the caves near Qumran is one of the reasons that have led numerous scholars to conclude that the scrolls are remnants of libraries from an urban center, and were not written at Qumran?
Does the exhibit inform the public that there are over 500 scribal hands among the scrolls; that they are all copies rather than original compositions; that similar, and in part identical, literary texts were found at Masada where Jews are known to have fled from Jerusalem; and that medieval sources describe the discovery of similar caches of scrolls in caves near Jericho? Does it explain that the hidden artifacts listed in the Copper Scroll include ones known from rabbinical sources to have belonged to the Temple of Jerusalem, and that Rachel Elior of the Hebrew University has identified a corpus of around 100 scrolls that clearly concern the Temple priests? Most importantly of all, does the exhibit explain that an entire series of major archaeologists (beginning with the Donceels, through Hirschfeld, and up through Magen and Peleg and others as well), after a decade spent reexamining the evidence and the site of Qumran, were unable to find any evidence whatsoever that the site was ever inhabited by a religious sect, or that writing or copying of scrolls ever took place there, and have frankly admitted as much? In particular, does it explain that the so-called "scriptorium" is no longer believed to have been a "scriptorium," that some of the inkwells found at Qumran may have dated from the period of Roman occupation, and that inkwells have been found in many sites in Israel and Jordan without scribal copying of literary scrolls being inferred therefrom?
Similarly, tefillin (phylacteries) were found in the caves near Qumran; but does the exhibit explain that their textual contents vary from one amulet to the next, and that this has led scholars to conclude that the tefillin were not written by the members of a small religious group, but that they exemplify the multiplicity of doctrines found among the scrolls, thereby pointing to an urban center as their place of origin?
I know the exhibit is fascinating and enjoyable, but a more critical approach might lead visitors to question why the evidence is being presented in a slanted manner, why some of the fundamental facts are not being presented at all, and why an entire group of major scholars have been carefully excluded from participating in the museum's lecture series.
To understand why I am adding my voice to those who have been ranting about this, readers can google the article by U of Chicago historian Norman Golb entitled "Fact and Fiction in Current Exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls" and his Forward editorial "Take Dead Sea Scroll Claims with a Grain of Salt," as well as several Nowpublic pieces which expose, among other things, the curator's false written statement (made back in January) that she is a "Dead Sea Scrolls scholar." Here are the links to two of the Nowpublic pieces:
www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_san_diego_natural_history_museum_update
www.nowpublic.com/warriors_occupied_qumran_scrolls_battle_continues#comment-26026
P.s. Nowpublic now has another piece as well, documenting the ties between Christian fundamentalist organizations and the planning and content of the San Diego exhibit. The link is:
http://www.nowpublic.com/christian_fundamentalism_and_dead_sea_scrolls_san_diego#comment-28618
The reader can best assess the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit by viewing exhibit, or visiting the exibit website of the San Diego Museum of Natural History on line. However, I recall that the exhibition presents the "Qumran sect" as just one possible theory on the origin of the scrolls; identifies the Essenes as just one early theory of who the sect members were; notes that the theory has been challenged by more recent scholars; and mentions the theory that the scrolls are not solely the product of the Qumran sect, but that many of them may have been brought to the Dead Sea caves from Jerusalem and other locales. I went in looking for precisely the bias that Ms. Epstein suspects, and instead found an objective and scholarly presentation. No museum exhibition can give equal time to all of the competing points of views and theories; but this one never suggested that the Qumran sect theory of the origin of the scrolls was the only scholarly interpretation out there. If only we would see such scholarly modesty in discussions of global warming!
I went to the website cited by Ms. Epstein in her comments and was not impressed. The writer there tries to portray the exhibition as the product of Christian fundamentalists largely through a McCarthy-like series of "guilt by association" observations. He would have us believe that the Israeli government, the Jordanian government, the Jewish curator, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, the Jewish scholars associated with the exhibition and the Jewish donors such as Joan and Irwin Jacobs and Steven Spielberg all are either tools or dupes of a fundamentalist Christian conspiracy to hide the truth about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Question for Ms. Epstein and the author of that website: Would an exhibition steeped in a fundamentalist Christian outlook call attention to the fact that the "Alma Scroll" uses a name found in the Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Well, does the exhibit explain that an entire series of major Israeli archaeologists, after ten years spent re-examining Qumran, were unable to find a shred of evidence that it was inhabited by a sect or that writing of scrolls took place there, and that they frankly admitted as much? Do you think it was proper of the museum to carefully exclude precisely these archaeologists (including the Israel Antiquities Authority's own official team) from participating in its lecture series? I also don't agree with your assessment of Gadda's article--he doesn't blame the whole thing on fundamentalists the way you say, he simply points out that people who either received their degrees from Christian fundamentalist "educational institutions," or teach in such institutions, were (along with the original scrolls monopoly team) involved, and suggests that it was improper not to inform the public of their involvement.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. From Mr. Gada's own website, we learn that Professor David Noel Freeman received his PhD from John Hopkins, and now teaches at UCSD. Dr. William Schniedewind teaches at UCLA. Dr. Stephen J. Pfann received his received his M.A. at the Graduate Theological Seminary in Berkeley, which hardly has a reputation as a fundamentalist stronghold. Dr. Pfann received his PhD from that well-known "Christian" institution, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Professor Emmanuel Tov, who Mr. Gada seems to slight, is on the faculty of Hebrew University and was editor-in-chief of the Scrolls Publication Committee of the Israeli Antiquities Authority. So gosh, willikers, I guest the IAA wasn't slighted in this exhibition the way Ms. Epstein believes. Yes, of course many people associated with Dead Sea Scrolls studies and this exhibition have taught or studied at Christian colleges and seminaries. For better or worse, outside of Israel, those are the types of people who get involved in so-called Biblical archeology. Moreover, if one reads the critique of the exhibit by Norm Golb at the University of Chicago <,http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dss_fact_fiction_2007.pdf> or even Mr. Gada's shriller contributions, one finds that they do not claim, as Ms. Epstein writes, that there is not one shred of evidence for the older Essene-Qumran theory of the scrolls; instead, they argue that the San Diego exhibit did not give enough attention to the newer theories (which at least in part are based on reinterpretation of previously discovered archeological evidence). Ms. Epstein, I fear you are in danger of committing the very sin of which you accuse the Museum of Natural History--the desire to suppress the competing theories. As Chairman Mao once said (although he didn't mean it), "Let a thousand flowers bloom."
Good sir,
I fear you are reading Gadda's article in a most selective way, particularly as regards chief editor Tov, Pfann, and the old Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly on which you have not a word to say...
What is more, Norman Golb's articles, including in particular his Forward editorial, make it clear that he and others do indeed believe that the old Qumran-Essene theory was a blunder of science--which does not mean that supporters of the old theory should be prevented from defending their view, or excluded from participating in the museum's lecture series--I certainly never meant to imply the contrary.
What you continue to neglect, however, is the fact that Golb and those who agree with him have all been carefully excluded from participating. Do you or don't you believe the flowers should bloom? And if you do believe they should bloom, who's being self-contradictory here, you or I?
At any rate, Gadda's article now has an update, in which he points our attention to an Israel Insider piece of 2004, reporting on a press conference given by "archaeologists who are financed by Christian fundamentalist organizations," and whose aim was to reassert, in the face of contrary research, that Qumran was a "monastery" inhabited by a sect or "community."
That's the editor of Israel Insider speaking, not Gadda. So, while I appreciate your desire to defend an exhibit that you enjoyed, until I see some kind of statement on the museum's part explaining its stance on these issues, I will continue to believe that something went terribly wrong here, and that the end result will be an embarrassment for Israel, a country I love.
P.s. the link to Gadda's article has changed--it is now http://www.nowpublic.com/christian-fundamentalism-and-dead-sea-scrolls-san-diego
The San Diego exhibit catalogue has now been brutally reviewed by historian Norman Golb. See his article at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dss_talk_san_diego2007.pdf
You will see that he exposes error after error, mendacity after mendacity throughout the catalogue. I wonder how people will defend the exhibit now? By silence?
See also the latest Nowpublic piece: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/did-christian-agenda-lead-biased-dead-sea-scrolls-exhibit-san-diego
Ours is an envionment where evil is perceived to be rewarded while good is punished. As with everything the Gods have a reason for creating this perception::::
People who fall on the good side of the good/evil scale have more favor, and when they do something wrong the Gods punish them BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO LEARN. The Gods want them to receive this feedback in hope they make corrections and begin to behave appropriately. The Gods DON'T like evil and refuse to grant this feedback.
EVERYBODY pays for what they do wrong, only evil people must wait until their next life before they will experience the wrath of the Gods, manifested in their reincarnation as a lower form of life into environments with increased/enhanced temptations.
Sadly, this allows the Gods to position this perception of evil rewarded as temptation, one which they use as an EXTREMELY effective corruptor.
Both Africa and the Medittereanean are regions which have sexual issues. This is a sign of morbid disfavor once you understand that females are the God's favored gender. Muhammad's (Mohammed's) polygamy halfway through his life as a prophet was preditory. Now a huge percentage of Muslims believes in male superiority and that the abuse of women is God's will. Female genital mutilation is still practiced in Africa. Black misogyny is the most eggregious example in the recent past.
Black member size is temptation to a predisposed population.
The patriarchal cancer spread throughout Europe because of Christianity, of which the majority of policy makers were Italian men. Expect the largest landowner in Europe and the continent's original superpower also played a major role in African slavery.
Militancy in Africa is consistant with the Iraqi example, as was slavery and the KKK here in America:::Fear enforces proper behavior. Without it we see what happens as a result of gross/morbid disfavor:::::AIDS, crack babies, dead young men in gangland retaliation killings. This is the purpose behind many black's historical tendancy towards resistance.
The same principle was true in Europe and throughout the world for centuries:::People whom lived under iron fists were conditioned to think the right way. As a result they experienced higher numbers of children accend into heaven because they were taught to think and behave appropriately, which they passed on to their children. Our preditory envionment of "freedom" was the primary purpose the Gods had when implimenting this strategy that is the United States, one which they used to spred the cancer of democracy and westernization throughout the world. And the Gods use this tool that is America to prey on the disfavored both at home and abroad:::Much like the ghetto, America in general experiences a heightened level of temptation due to the people's disfavor.
Even the Old Testiment is not to be taken literally, but the Gods do offer clues throughout to help the disfavored:::The apple is a tool of temptation used to corrupt Adam and Eve and cast them out of the Garden of Eden.
There is another lesson to be learned from this passage, and it is quite similar to the vailing issue and the discourse over women's attire which ultimately died in the 70s:::Women are responsible for and control the fate of mankind.
Think about what I say. Consider what I teach. Society is going to become disturbingly ugly as we approach the Apocalypse due to spiralling, runaway disfavor.
I do not know when this will occurr, but it is the God's way to grant some time before they end on Planet Earth.
Make the decision to always be good and never look back. Until you do this technology will employ tactics to test your resolve:::Ridicule, beligerance, doubt and refusal to abandon what people perceive to be their "investment".
Pray daily. Think appropriately. Too many are confident, unaware of the God's awesome powers or their status as antients. Others may fall prey to their positioning.
Be humbled, God-fearing and beware of the God's temptations, for everyone is tested to evaluate their worthiness.
Search rest
Post a Comment
<< Home