News

Archaeologists find first artifact that mentions Bethlehem

Leave a comment

Dina sent me this article from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription “Bethlehem,” in what experts believe to be the oldest artefact with the name of Jesus’ traditional birthplace.

Experts state the tiny clay seal’s existence and age provide vivid evidence that Bethlehem was not just the name of a fabled biblical town, but also a bustling place of trade linked to the nearby city of Jerusalem.

Eli Shukron, the Israel Antiquities Authority’s director of excavations, said the find was significant because it is the first time the name “Bethlehem” appears outside of a biblical text from that period.

Shukron said the seal, 1.5 centimetres (0.59 inches) in diameter, dates back to the period of the first biblical Jewish Temple, between the eighth and seventh century B.C., at a time when Jewish kings reigned over the ancient kingdom of Judah and 700 years before Jesus was born.

The seal was written in ancient Hebrew script from the same time. Pottery found nearby also dated back to the same period, he said.

Shmuel Achituv, an expert in ancient scripts at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University who did not participate in the dig, said the discovery was the oldest reference to Bethlehem ever found outside of the Bible.

Apart from the seal, the other mentions of Bethlehem, Mr Achituv said, “are only in the Bible”.

There’s some good news for your Sunday!

Commentary

Hugh Ross debates Lewis Wolpert on scientific evidence for a Creator

Leave a comment

From the 2012 Unbelievable UK conference, Peter Byrom (BirdieUpon) reports on a great debate on science and Christianity.

Excerpt:

I had the great pleasure yesterday of attending the debate “Does the universe show evidence for a creator?” at Imperial College, London. Arguing in the affirmative was astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe,  a science-faith think tank from the USA; arguing the negative was Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of biology and British Humanist.

[…]But, onto the debate itself! A good turn-out. The lecture theatre was packed. It was hosted by Imperial College’s Christian Union, but a decent number of atheists and sceptics showed up too – which is quite something given that AC Grayling was giving a lecture in the next room (he passed by me earlier as I was editing my latest Dawkins-critical video on my laptop… I don’t think he noticed)!

This is where it gets interesting. Hugh Ross went first, and outlined for 20 minutes his Creation Model, arguing that the Bible – and only the Bible – contains consistent, scientifically accurate predictions about the cosmos, the empirical data for which is only being discovered recently in the modern age. His case is essentially that the more we discover about the universe, the more the evidence for design and a transcendent creator piles up and confirms what the Bible has been telling us for the past thousands of years. Of particular note were passages from Jeremiah and Romans, which Hugh claims tell us about the expansion of the universe and the law of entropy. Alongside we have the opening of the Bible, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth – the Big Bang is this beginning. When this was discovered, a great many scientists were reluctant to accept it, fearing that an absolute beginning of space and time gave too much leverage to those who believe in theistic creation.

It was fascinating also to hear Hugh cite an article written by atheist physicists called “Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant”. In this article, its atheist authors were forced to concede that this particular cosmological constant left them no choice but to invoke a transcendent causal agent. Their solution? To “do a Daniel Dennett”: conclude that this cosmological constant must, therefore, surely be false (!)

Go read the whole thing at Apologetics UK blog! It’s great when we have smart guys to give us a ringside report.

Humor

Saturday fun: 20 reasons why you should vote for Barack Obama in 2012

6 Comments

Mary sent me this article by John Hawkins, posted at Townhall. (Don’t worry, I linked to the printable version!)

Here’s a few:

2) Obviously Republicans hate women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann! Wait, bad examples…uhm, let’s see, they kill female babies, put women’s faces on pinatas and beat them, and degrade women by drawing them with penises in their mouth! That’s still us? Geeze, uh…war on women! Move on to the next item! Hurry, hurry!

5) Did you know Mitt Romney is a Republican? You’re going to vote for a Republican? Seriously? Everybody in my lesbian studies class at Berkeley always says “no” when I ask that question.

9) Mitt Romney is mean! Republicans are mean! You’re mean — unless you vote for Barack Obama, which makes you nice!

12) Did you see how good that guy was at reading speeches off a teleprompter back in 2008? That was really something, wasn’t it? Now it’s all kind of dull, but he might get better at it again.

15) Obama has driven up gas prices, which encourages people to buy more electric cars….ehr, wait, this is for an environmentalist group, right?

I am still very bitter that my Michele Bachmann is not the nominee! I must be one of those people making war on women, then. I think that everyone who thinks that two gay men can effectively parent a six-month old baby should definitely vote for Barack Obama. And so should anyone who thinks that it’s OK to abort an unborn child because she is a girl and not a boy. If those are your views, then Obama is your candidate.