Documentary Reveals ‘Incredible Journey of Discovery’ Confirming Biblical Exodus Account

Patterns-of-EvidenceA filmmaker who spent over 10 years investigating the reliability of the biblical Exodus story has concluded that the Bible’s account is in fact historically accurate and has released an award-winning documentary that sheds light on his new archaeological findings.

Is the Exodus story in the Bible accurate? Many skeptics today dismiss the account as a fanciful myth, but the recently-released documentary “Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus” challenges that verdict with historical evidence uncovered during a lengthy investigation.

“For more than 50 years, the vast majority of the world’s most prominent archaeologists and historians have proclaimed that there is no hard evidence to support the Exodus story found in the Bible,” the documentary’s website explains. “In fact, they say that the archaeological record is completely opposed to the Bible’s account. This view of extreme skepticism has spread from academia to the world. The case against the Exodus appears to be so strong that even some religious leaders are labeling this ancient account as historical fiction.”

Filmmaker Tim Mahoney has himself doubted the credibility of the Bible’s accounts. However, instead of accepting others’ opinions on the historicity of the Exodus, he set out to conclusively answer the question: “Is the Bible just a myth, or did the archaeologists get it wrong?”

To answer that question, Mahoney went to Egypt in 2002 to begin an in-depth historical and archaeological investigation of the Exodus account. After 10 years of research, Mahoney has released the “Pattern of Evidence: Exodus” documentary, which recounts his travels and detective work.

“The majority of the scholars today don’t see evidence for the story of the Exodus in Egypt, nor do they see it in the story of Jericho, which is the conquest,” Mahoney told reporters. “And that was a shock to me, and so this film is my 12-year journey, actually starting from scratch [as I thought], ‘Well, what would you look for if you were to look for the story of Exodus in the Bible?”

Mahoney did not just look for evidence for the Israelites’ exodus out of Egypt. He also investigated historical footprints that shed light on other related events, such as Joseph’s rule in Egypt and the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan.

  • Connect with Christian News

What did Mahoney discover? After considering the evidence, he concluded that the Bible’s accounts are actually accurate. The reason many archaeologists say there is no evidence for the Exodus is because they examine the wrong time periods, Mahoney believes.

“Most of the people who say there’s no evidence [for the Exodus] are looking at a particular timeframe,” he told reporters. “When they look at that time frame they don’t see any evidence of the Exodus and so the case is closed. … This is a situation where people haven’t asked the right questions.”

“There’s a bit of a bias against the Bible currently,” he added. “And they don’t want to treat it as a historical document.”

However, “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus” challenges the skeptics by showing evidence that appears to support the Bible’s historical accounts. Mahoney concludes that archeology validates—not disproves—the Scriptures.

“I think it’s very likely that these events happened,” he stated.

Now that the documentary has been released, the filmmaker says he has been encouraged by the support it has received.

“Our dedicated team, who has worked tirelessly on ‘Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus,’ could not be more thrilled with the overwhelming support our film has received across the country,” he said in a press release. “What started out as a crisis of my own faith led to an incredible journey of discovery.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • robertzaccour

    It’s already been confirmed in a book of history and prophesy. A book that is God’s word and is in fallible. It’s called the Bible.

    • Jim H

      The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is… in the Bible.

      Lets say you get an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune — but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. It reads:

      “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”

      Now you know it is legitimate… because it says so in the e-mail. Would you send the prince his $50,000?

      • Bacchus

        People hate truth. The Bible is unfortunately very true and very accurate. The best way to prove the bible is a is is to examine the prophesies. For instance a prophesy is either true or not therefore if you have 10 prophesies there are 1 in 1024 possibilities of them all coming true. There are 45 prophesies concerning Jesus. ALL of them came true. do the sums. thats one chance in 35,184,372,088,832.

        • Jim H

          The reason most prophesies/predictions come true is because they were written vaguely. Nostradamus did just that with his quatrains and people find ways to fit current events into them quatrains all the time. Someone writing a narrative to show how a prediction/prophesy was fulfilled doesn’t have much trouble doing it.

          A good example of this would be the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14-16:

          “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. (NRSV)”

          This doesn’t seem to be about Jesus at all; rather, the actual prophecy is that a child will be born (this is around the year 730 BC), and before this child is old enough to know right from wrong, the enemies of Judah will have been defeated.

          Matthew 1:22-23, discussing the virgin birth of Jesus says:

          “All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’ (NRSV).”

          Matthew, who spoke Greek, is apparently quoting, not from the original Hebrew text, but from the Greek translation available to him known as the Septuagint. And the Septuagint does say “virgin”.

          According to the Oxford Bible Commentary, the word Hebrew word ‘almah’ actually used in Isaiah does not imply virginity. The Greek translation of Isaiah, for reasons which are still unknown, here used the word parthenos, which does mean ‘a virgin’.

          If you read the entire passage in Isaiah, not just the sentence Matthew pulled out of context, it seems like a stretch to see this as being about Jesus, when the actual meaning is so clear.
          It’s also troubling that the child in the prophecy is called “Immanuel”. Jesus is never called that in the New Testament (unless you count Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah itself). His actual name in Hebrew was Yashua, which means Yahweh saves, Immanuel means El is with us. Yahweh and El are both translated God.

          • Willem Toerien

            1. Yahuwah, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, in the law and the prophets (old testament) is Yahushua (Jesus), the Son of the Father.

            2. A name in scriptures is not objective, but based on meaning, function or it is authoritative. Examples like Abram/Abraham. Jacob/Israel, El Shaddai/Yahuwah, etc.

            3. Prophecy in scriptures is not linear, but circular, repetitive and based on fractals. Immanuel was fulfilled before Jesus, and was fulfilled by Jesus. The prophecy of Elijah coming before the Lord, was fulfilled by John, and will be fulfilled by the 144k.

          • Jim H

            “1. Yahuwah, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, in the law and the prophets (old testament) is Yahushua (Jesus), the Son of the Father.”

            What’s your point, or are you just preaching?

            “2. A name in scriptures is not objective, but based on meaning, function or it is authoritative. Examples like Abram/Abraham. Jacob/Israel, El Shaddai/Yahuwah, etc.”

            Same response as 1 above.

            “3. Prophecy in scriptures is not linear, but circular, repetitive and based on fractals. Immanuel was fulfilled before Jesus, and was fulfilled by Jesus. The prophecy of Elijah coming before the Lord, was fulfilled by John, and will be fulfilled by the 144k.”

            What do you base that comment on? You seem to just be pontificating. The reason prophesy seem to be fulfilled circularly, repetitively, etc. could be nothing more than what I previously said; i.e., they are vaguely worded and can be easily interpreted to fit multiple events. My answer avoids all the gobbledygook of yours. If we apply Occam’s razor, I think my case wins.

            Besides, the whole Immanuel prophesy is clearly not about Jesus if you read it in the context of the whole passage, which no one seems to do.

            As far as The prophecy of Elijah coming before the Lord, being fulfilled by John the Baptist, John himself specifically denied that he was Elijah in John 1:21: “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’”

          • Willem Toerien

            #1-#2:
            My point was showing that Immanuel fits Jesus’ prophecy because indeed “God is with us”. But if I have to use your reasoning here, then that prophecy never came true.

            #3:
            What event am I talking about?
            – A man of 32.
            – Being the promised one.
            – Carrying wood on his back.
            – Being lead to be killed as a sacrifice.
            – Willing to lay down his life, trusting in God.
            – A sacrifice was made and blood was used to atone for sin.
            – A covenant was renewed.

            What event am I talking about?
            – A final separation between the righteous and the wicked.
            – The righteous becomes the first fruits.
            – The righteous going through a trial.
            – Judgement by water or fire
            – A covenant was renewed

            What event am I talking about?
            – A secular king, wicked servants, and the righteous.
            – Wicked servants urged the secular king to put forth laws that will place the righteous in harms way
            – Secular king agrees and sets the laws into motion.
            – The righteous are captured and condemned to death
            – God delivers the righteous
            – The wicked are killed.

            Prophecy is not linear, but circular, in other words, repetitive. The circle has a majority of certain way points that relates to previous circles that can be used for future circles. It can also have fractals. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of God. So if I were to tell you, “Hey, God is coming tomorrow,” I am lying simply because there are way points that hasn’t occurred yet. Thus, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [Is 8:20]

            #4:
            As for John:

            And His disciples, asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah has to come first?” [Making the question you put forth.] And Yahushua (Jesus) replied, “Elijah is indeed coming first, and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they wished. In this way the Son of Adam is also about to suffer by them.” Then His disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist. – Matthew 17:10-13

            It was believed also that before the Messiah’s advent, Elijah would personally appear. This expectation John met in his denial; but his words had a deeper meaning. Jesus afterward said, referring to John, “If ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, which is to come.” Mat 11:14. John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, to do such a work as Elijah did. If the Jews had received him, it would have been accomplished for them. But they did not receive his message. To them he was not Elijah. He could not fulfill for them the mission he came to accomplish.

          • Jim H

            In the prophesy, Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz and trying to warn him that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with a King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” The child mentioned is supposed to be a sign to Ahaz, so its birth must have been a contemporary event. If you claim it was a double, or repeating prophesy, then Jesus being born to a virgin would require that the child who was a sign to King Ahaz must have been born to a virgin as well. Do you believe that?
            Everything you said fits my argument that prophesies are vague and easy to fit to a person or event as people do with Nostradamus, the Mayans, Edgar Cayce, or whatever else.
            Your argument about John being able to fulfill the role of Elijah in prophesy, without actually being Elijah, shows the length you will go to find a fit.

          • Willem Toerien

            I know the prophecy for Ahaz. By the way, what was the child’s name? … Immanuel?

            Furthermore, Nostradamus, Mayans, Edgar, etc. None of them has the way points that I mentioned that you ignored.

            About John, not my claim, it’s Yahushua’s claim, the God I serve. I merely quoted Him.

          • Jim H

            “I know the prophecy for Ahaz. By the way, what was the child’s name? … Immanuel?”

            More important for our discussion, was the child of Ahaz’s time also born of a virgin?

            “Furthermore, Nostradamus, Mayans, Edgar, etc. None of them has the way points that I mentioned that you ignored.”

            What are these “way points” that I ignored? I don’t even know what a “way point” is.

            “About John, not my claim, it’s Yahushua’s claim, the God I serve. I merely quoted Him.”
            The denial of that claim came supposedly came from John himself. I merely quoted him.

          • Willem Toerien

            No no no… one of your arguments against the prophecy of Immanuel relating to Jesus was about name. So I’m pointing it back to you… Was the child’s name Immanuel?

            I gave way points in the comments above. You haven’t responded to anyone of them.

            And I merely only quoted Christ’s explanation on John’s claim.

          • Jim H

            “No no no… one of your arguments against the prophecy of Immanuel relating to Jesus was about name. So I’m pointing it back to you… Was the child’s name Immanuel?”

            Why would that be an issue? One would assume the child born as a sign to King Ahaz was named Immanuel otherwise it would have never been included as a prophesy. Matthew (likely intentionally) quotes only the snippet of the passage that makes it seem applicable to Jesus.
            The point is that you are claiming Isaiah was also talking to Ahaz about Jesus who would not be born for centuries. In order for the prophesy to refer to the virgin birth of Jesus, it would also need to refer to a virgin birth for the child Immanuel in Ahaz’s time.

            “I gave way points in the comments above. You haven’t responded to anyone of them.”

            As I said, I do not know what you mean by with the term “way points”. The only thing I know of close to “way point”, is “waypoint”, which is a reference point in physical space used for purposes of navigation. It is also known as a landmark.

            “And I merely only quoted Christ’s explanation on John’s claim.”

            John made no claim. He denied a claim others made.

          • Bacchus

            How do you explain that Jesus spoke to Zachariah and Malachi and told them about himself (597-538 BC) and both prophesies came true from 29 AD to 30 AD ? You argument is based on supposition and innuendo regarding the historicity of prophesy. Regarding the destruction of the temple, If you read the Pauline letters there is no mention of the destruction of the temple. the only Apostle to see the destruction of the Temple was John. Those that hate the Bible will often use the argument that prophesies were written after the fact. Your argument is not very convincing. Read Genesis 3 the first prophesy which came true 5 BC. written by Moses Whom Jesus gave to him.

          • Jim H

            What specific verse(s) in Zachariah are you referring to, the piercing, or thirty pieces of silver, or both? Either way, my Nostradamus analogy applies as well.

            However, if you are referring to the 30 pieces of silver which are thrown to the potter in Malachi and comparing it to Matthew saying that Judas received 30 pieces of silver which eventually bought potters field where he hung himself, it is worth noting that Matthew’s gospel makes every attempt to find prophesies that Jesus can fulfill.

            One of the most obvious examples is Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”

            Matthew made this mistake because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” the word translated “and” in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of “even”. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. which demonstrates that Matthew was willing to created/modify events in Jesus’ life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies.

            However to get back to what this has to do with the fulfillment of Zachariah:
            In Matthew 27:7 30 pieces of silver is specified and the chief priests buy the field after Judas hangs himself. In Acts 1:18 no amount or type of currency is specified. Judas buys the field himself. After that he dies when he bursts open and his insides spill out.

            Is your reference to Malachi is when he prophesied that Elijah must return to prepare the way for a risen Sun of Justice (Mal 3:20) and that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 17:12-13)

            In light of Matthews previously mentioned intentions, it is interesting that Matthew 17:12-13 says:

            And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.

            When John the Baptist specifically denies this in John 1:21:

            And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”

            One would think John would know.

            My argument is not based on supposition and innuendo regarding the historicity of prophesy. It is based on common sense and critical thinking. It accepts the most reasonable and natural (rather than supernatural) answer.

            Regarding the destruction of the temple, If you read the Pauline letters there is no mention of the destruction of the temple, because the Pauline letters were written long before the destruction occurred, that is why there are no “prophesies” about it. John’s writings were the last writings of the New Testament and were likely after the destruction occurred, so there are “prophesies” of it.

            I don’t hate the Bible, in fact I have been fascinated by it for many years. I use the argument that prophesies were written after the fact, because it seems to be the most reasonable conclusion. My argument is not very convincing to you, because your belief is not based on reason.

            I assume you are referring to Genesis 3:15:

            “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

            Eve’s seed is all of us. The snake’s seed is other snakes. Eve’s kids don’t like the snake’s kids, and they don’t like us. We try to step on their heads while they try to bite our heels. There is no mention of a Messiah and it is quite a stretch to claim there is.

            It is highly doubted by serious academic Bible scholars that Genesis was written by Moses when Jesus gave it to him. Does the Bible itself ever actually make the specific claim that Moses wrote Genesis?

          • Bacchus

            I have some news for you.If you are under 30 then this should be of concern to you. the book of Daniel tells us the year Jesus will return in the air and the start of the tribulation. Not long to go now. Have fun! PS. your chances of surviving the 7 years of tribulation are pretty close to zero

          • Jim H

            Hal Lindsey made a lot of money with the same claim back when I was under thirty. Others did so before him and have done so since him. I made something of a hobby of following end time predictions/ministries, but I got bored and gave it up. I’m not terribly worried. I’m also not at all surprised that you resort to the big threat of tribulation and eventually Hell. Shows how desperate you can get when challenged.

          • Bacchus

            Yep we wont know the day nor the hour but that is not important. Your arguments are spurious, You lie about the authenticity of the bible and you base your argument thus. Jesus told Daniel the prophesies. Didn’t you get that bit?????

          • Jim H

            How are my arguments spurious? Spurious is defined as not being what it purports to be. I don’t lie need to lie about, or misrepresent anything. My arguments are just what I present them to be, quite ordinary and natural rationally based explanations. You are the one who needs to make extraordinary non-rational supernatural faith based claims to support pretty much everything argument you make.

            Regarding the book of Daniel, you simply said it told us the year Jesus will return in the air and the start of the tribulation. Now you add that Jesus told Daniel the prophesies. That is a very odd statement. Or should I say spurious? Jesus himself said he didn’t know when it would happen. How could he tell Daniel, when he didn’t know?
            Putting more question marks behind a dumb question does not lend credibility to it. It just makes it look dumber.

          • Bacchus

            You deny the eye witness accounts of the writers of the new testament.

          • Jim H

            No, I deny that they were eyewitness accounts. Your contention that they are eyewitness account is merely a statement of religious belief. It is not supported by facts. The authorship of the Gospels is not stated in the Bible. The gospels were anonymous – they don’t actually say who wrote them. Only tradition links them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

            To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

            “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Luke 1.4; John 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

            Most serious modern scholars believe Mark is the earliest gospel, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next – written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John’s gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

            As I previously commented, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Most scholars believe the Gospels were written after that had happened. So the gospels authors are writing retrospectively when they say that Jesus had prophesized it.

          • Bacchus

            So you say John the Apostle is a liar? You deny the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were taught by the Apostle John were liars? You say that Josephus was a liar? You deny the Syriac Manuscript by Mara Bar Serapion? I consider you to be an educated idiot and a dammed liar.

          • Jim H

            You probably consider a lot of people to be an educated idiots and a dammed liars. Ad hominem attacks are a last resort of those who find that attempting to make a cogent argument in beyond their intellectual capabilities.

            As I said, I am not aware of any evidence that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him, and most serious modern scholars agree that he didn’t write it.

            I’m not sure what the other sources; i.e., Polycarp, Ignatius, Josephus, and the Mara Bar Serapion have to do with eyewitness accounts, since none make that claim. But, I address each anyway.

            There is only one extant writing of Polycarp. It is his letter to the Philippians. I have read it. He mentions Paul repeatedly, but never once John. Likewise, I don’t think that, anywhere in his writings, Ignatius personally made that claim either.

            As far as Josephus is concerned, scholarly opinion varies on the authenticity of his most important reference to Jesus in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities. That passage states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate.

            The general scholarly view is that while the reference is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.

            Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic.

            My understanding is that the Mara Bar-Serapion was only preserved in a 6th or 7th century manuscript held by the British Library, that is believed to have been composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century. It reads:

            “What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the “new law” he laid down.”

          • Bacchus

            No just you. I just gave you the evidence. You satanists attack Christians with your stupid ideology. I hoped you were capable of logical reasoning but it seems you hate everything in the bible. Please attempt refute the 45 prophesies about Jesus in the Old Testament using logic and reason not the regurgitated vomit of your fellow atheists. The pathetic arguments you use quoting modern philosophers with fabricated ideologies that have no correlation to historical facts. For example using you criteria of evidence you MUST deny the writings of Aristotle Plato Socrates even Eratosthenes. PS all 45 prophesies pertaining to Jesus came true thats 1:35,184,372.088.832

          • Jim H

            Your proof was the Gospel of John, Polycarp and Ignatius who you claimed were taught by him, Josephus and the Syriac Manuscript by Mara Bar Serapion. I addressed each one.

            You really don’t get the concept of using a scholarly, critical study of the Bible to determine if there is sufficient evidence for it, do you? You call me a Satanist, which I assume you mean literally; I.e., one who worships Satan, then a few lines later call me an atheist. How could one worship Satan for defying God, but not believe in God?

            You say you hoped I was capable of logical reasoning. I am. That is what a scholarly, critical study of the Bible is. Your idea of logical reasoning is actually viciously circular.

            I am not interested in making the considerable effort it would take to refute 45 prophesies, when the same general reasons apply to them all. I don’t make any claim for those prophesies, other than you can’t prove them to be reasonably proven or fulfilled.

            If you want to go to the trouble to list the prophesy, who said it, and the context which it was spoken, as well as its fulfillment, who declared it fulfilled and the context that occurred, I might give it a shot.

            The last part of your post just strikes me as full of mostly babble. I don’t care enough to try to figure out what you are trying to say.

          • Bacchus

            I knew you would not attempt to refute the 45 prophesies because you really hate Christians, Jews and the Bible . You hate Jesus. You wish hell on to anyone who goes against your pseudo religion. All the people referenced I have quoted You have rejected out of hand and you think you are justified . You hypocrite. You are supposed to be a scholar aren’t you? and yet you cannot find the these prophesies? you claim that you dont know who wrote the books of the bible, Did you ever read the bible? John says he wrote the Book of Revelation. Thus proving you are deceitful. You refute historical fact with no intelligent basis. You are a very incompetent troll. A fraud to say the least attacking Christians. Tell me why your religion is superior to Christianity? What hope do you offer that is better than What I have? I pity you!. Always learning but never able to come to wisdom. You are a sad pathetic old person. You try to destroy verifiable truth of the Bible but you have failed miserably. You really must stop calling Jesus a liar

          • Jim H

            “I knew you would not attempt to refute the 45 prophesies because you really hate Christians, Jews and the Bible. You hate Jesus.”

            I told you that I’m not going to waste my time because you don’t seem to be able to understand what I say and just reply with accusations. Most of my friends and family are Christian, I worked for a Jewish family for years and they were great folks. I don’t hate the Bible either. I spent many years studying it and it has been a labor of love. I just don’t read it with blinders on , as you do. I don’t hate Jesus either. In fact, there is much I admire about him. I just don’t see him as you do and am not sure how much anyone can know for certain about him.

            “You wish hell on to anyone who goes against your pseudo religion.”

            I don’t promote any religion at all and I wouldn’t want anyone to go to Hell. That is really more typical of folks like you. If anything, universalism makes more sense to me.

            “All the people referenced I have quoted You have rejected out of hand and you think you are justified.”

            How can you say I rejected them “out of hand”? Do you even know what that means? “Out of Hand” means “without taking time to think”. I presented thought out arguments based on facts, like the opinions of scholars.

            “You hypocrite.”

            You repetitive name calling idiot!”

            “You are supposed to be a scholar aren’t you? and yet you cannot find the these prophesies?”

            I don’t even know what 45 prophesies you are talking about. Some people claim over 300 prophesies. Besides, you don’t really understand my response to one or two. Why should I waste my time with forty or so more you can’t comprehend?


            You claim that you dont know who wrote the books of the bible, Did you ever read the bible? John says he wrote the Book of Revelation. Thus proving you are deceitful.”

            No, I’m claiming no one actually knows who wrote any of the books of the Bible have read every book in the Bible, including the The intertestamental books, largely written during the from the intertestamental period that are called are called the Biblical apocrypha. I have also read many of the Gospels that didn’t make it into the cannon, such as Thomas, Phillip, Judas, etc. I have read Gnostic works as well as Enochian ones.

            The text of Revelation states that the author is called John and that he lives on the Greek island of Patmos, where some believe he was in exile as a result of anti-Christian persecution under the Roman emperor Domitian.

            Traditionally, the writer of Revelation was widely considered to be John the Apostle, who was also seen as author of the Gospel of John. However, The Book of Revelation itself does not make that claim.

            The author has also been called John the Elder. Many modern scholars believe it was written by an otherwise unknown author, to whom they have given the name John of Patmos.

            Understanding modern scholarship does not make me deceitful, but your not understanding of it does technically make you ignorant (as in lacking in knowledge).

            “You refute historical fact with no intelligent basis.”

            You do not even understand what a historical fact is.

            “You are a very incompetent troll.”

            You are a very incompetent Bible scholar and historian and I am quite pleased that I am not a competent troll, since I’m am not tying to be a troll at all. Thank you.

            “A fraud to say the least attacking Christians.”

            That is not even an intelligible sentence.

            “Tell me why your religion is superior to Christianity?”

            Advocating Biblical scholarship and historic methodology is not creating my own religion. It is using the brain God gave me. You should try it sometime.

            “What hope do you offer that is better than What I have?”

            What hope do you offer, other than mind numbing conformity?

            “I pity you!. Always learning but never able to come to wisdom. You are a sad pathetic old personYou try to destroy verifiable truth of the Bible .”

            I pity you because you babble about truth and wisdom, when:

            “Truth, indeed, is something that is believed in completely only by persons who have never tried personally to pursue it to its fastness and grab it by the tail. It is the adoration of second-rate men — men who always receive it as second-hand. Pedagogues believe in immutable truths and spend their lives trying to determine them and propagate them; the intellectual progress of man consists largely of a concerted effort to block and destroy their enterprise.”

            H. L. Mencken

            “but you have failed miserably.”

            Hardly, you just suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect (a cognitive bias (wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusionary superiority mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than they are). You only think you are capable of even making such a determination. Your comments show you obviously are not.

            “You really must stop calling Jesus a liar.”

            I said nothing bad about Jesus, it is you I have no respect for. I don’t think you are a liar. I just think you have no critical thinking ability.

          • Bacchus

            You say you are searching for truth. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life.” Did you miss that bit? Jesus is the truth and you deny he is God and the Son of God. You are not looking for truth. Anyone who is a witness you deny. Modern scholars who do not seriously consider people who immediately knew John the Apostle (also known as the elder) reject outright their testimony and make the claim of being scholar are fools. I am NOT superior to anyone I AM a sinner who has been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. When you attack me through Christianity I take offence and I will defend My Jesus and myself. AS I said You hate Jesus. You just cannot see it. and No I am not delusional. I do not live a lie like you do.

          • Jim H

            “Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life.” Did you miss that bit?”

            Of course not. You are being disingenuous in saying that. I also did not miss the fact that Jesus is only reported to have said that in the Gospel of John. One wonders how the writers of the synoptic gospels missed such an important dogmatic statement, and that the Christology of the Gospels evolves from its most primitive form in Mark to its most evolved form in John. Only John presents Jesus as a pre-existent spiritual being (the Logos) who incarnated in Jesus. A reasonable person might wonder has to wonder if the fact that the gospel of John was written right at the end of the 1st century (after people had 60-70 years to speculate on Christology; i.e. Jesus’ divinity) had anything to do with that.

            “Jesus is the truth and you deny he is God and the Son of God. You are not looking for truth. Anyone who is a witness you deny.”

            I don’t deny anything. I just really don’t understand the concept of physical paternity by a being who has no body or DNA to pass on, which is what paternity is. I am even more confused by the idea that a purely spiritual being can have a purely spiritual “begotten” son. The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which once again is the last gospel written and has the most developed Christology.

            “You are not looking for truth.”

            I am. It seems to me that you don’t care about truth at all you don’t question the beliefs that have been passed down to you. You just blindly accept what you’ve been told. That is not looking for truth.

            “Anyone who is a witness you deny.”

            You have not proven your sources were witnesses.

            “Modern scholars who do not seriously consider people who immediately knew John the Apostle (also known as the elder) reject outright their testimony and make the claim of being scholar are fools.”

            Doubtless most would say the same of you. I would tend to side with them.

            “I am NOT superior to anyone.”

            At least we can agree on that, if nothing else.

            “I AM a sinner who has been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.”

            Good for you. I could never quite understand how that worked.

            “When you attack me through Christianity I take offence and I will defend My Jesus and myself.”

            Are you saying you are synonymous with Christianity and Jesus? That doesn’t even make sense.

            “AS I said You hate Jesus. You just cannot see it.”

            How do you hate someone and not know it? Hate is an emotion. You feel emotions. That too makes no sense.

            “and No I am not delusional. I do not live a lie like you do.”
            I haven’t lied about anything. I have been quite straight forward. However you thinking yourself synonymous with Christianity and Jesus does strike me as delusional.

          • Bacchus

            lets go back to the beginning. Jesus prophesied 30 AD that the temple would be destroyed in 70 AD. This happened exactly as he said. The Gospels of Matthew Mark and Kuke were written between 50 AD and 63 AD. So your “scholars” claiming the Gospels were written after the fact is a dammed lie since Matthew Mark and Luke died prior to 67 AD. Fact Jesus NEVER LIED. He said he is God and the Son of God. to say he is not is to call Jesus a liar and that makes you a liar.There is NO TRUTH in you.

          • Jim H

            “Jesus prophesied 30 AD that the temple would be destroyed in 70 AD.”

            You have no proof that Jesus did that because he never wrote anything down and his prophesies were recorded long he supposedly said them.

            “The Gospels of Matthew Mark and Kuke were written between 50 AD and 63 AD.”

            The majority of modern scholars disagree with you.

            “So your “scholars” claiming the Gospels were written after the fact is a dammed lie.”

            Why can’t you engage in intelligent discuss without continually accusing me or bible scholars of lying? You need to get a grip and not be such an emotional mess. It doesn’t help your argument and makes you look like a psycho.

            “Matthew Mark and Luke died prior to 67 AD.”

            Doesn’t matter since modern scholars don’t accept their authorship anyway.

            “Fact Jesus NEVER LIED”

            Fact- I never said he did. I said those who recorded what he said may have.

            “He said he is God and the Son of God.”

            Please provide a quotation from Matthew Mark, Luke or John where Jesus claims to be God.

            “to say he is not is to call Jesus a liar and that makes you a liar.There is NO TRUTH in you.”
            You are ranting like an hysteric who can’t control his emotions again.

          • Bacchus

            Prove what you say is true. I had enough of your innuendo comments. You have never offered any names of your “scholars. I have studied under Dr Harold Willimgton, Dr Elmer Towns, Dr Ed Hindson and others. AS I said you are a child of the Devil. You deny anthropological, historical proof and eye witness proof . The truth is you are trying to destroy the truth of the Bbile and your efforts are puny. It seems you hate being told the truth about yourself. I do not believe you are a student of truth I do not even believe you are any form of scholar. You are a Googler.

          • Jim H

            Dr Harold Willimgton, Dr Elmer Towns, and Dr Ed Hindson are all associated with Liberty University. So. obviously their opinions are all quite conservative and represent little diversity in their views.

            By scholarship I am referring to Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, which is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand “the world behind the text”.

            It includes people like Raymond Brown who was an American Roman Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent Biblical scholar of his era. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical ‘Johannine community’, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Roman Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.
            The rest of your comment is more of your typical emotional ranting, which I won’t grace with a reply.

          • fair play

            Thanks, Jim H for your informative post, I have ordered R Brown’s books, I didn’t know of him.

          • Jim H

            I have his book on the New Testament, which is a pretty extensive work, The Community of the Beloved Disciple about the Gospel of John and a couple others, including a small book he wrote on the virgin birth and resurrection. I think you will enjoy them. I certainly did.

          • fair play

            Thanks, Jim H. I have so much enjoyed the last hours spent reading your thoughtful and informed comments. Thanks. The books are coming from the US, so can’t read them for a week or two. Goodnight (10.15pm) from Glasgow.

          • Bacchus

            Just a simple question since you refute EVERYTHING I say. Do you believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. A simple Yes or No will do. Thank you.

          • Jim H

            Why do you care what I believe? It certainly isn’t because you care about me and want to make sure I’m saved, since in almost every exchange, you lose it and attack my personal integrity, calling me a damned liar, among other things.

            My personal beliefs are just that—personal. Why would I share them with you? You have obviously already made up your narrow little mind about me and I don’t care enough to try to change your mind.

            I don’t promote, attack, or defend an idea because I chose to believe it. I promote, attack or defend beliefs based on evidence and facts. A lot of what you say strikes me as merely blind doctrinal statements that can’t be reasonably defended. Consequently, I challenge you and give you a chance to do so and convince me otherwise. I refute what you say because I think the reasoning is flawed, but I’m open to you proving me wrong.

            If you want to discuss the trinity, we can do that. However, I would ask you to define what you mean by your terms. For example, “only begotten Son of God” is a doctrinal assertion that you are merely repeating. To discuss that I would need you to explain what you mean by “begotten”. To “beget” a son refers to procreation and, as we now understand, transmission of your DNA to your son. To be truly begotten God had to provide Jesus with his DNA. As a purely spiritual being He has no DNA. So how exactly did that work.

            As far as being equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit I would also ask you to explain that. The Council at Nicaea determined Jesus was homoousios–of the same “substance” as the father. The term substance is Aristotelian in origin and I find it rather useless for discussion. I would need to ask you what that means in concrete down to earth English. Likewise, the topic of the Holy Spirit didn’t really even come up until the First Council of Constantinople when His the divinity as the third person of the Trinity became a topic of debate.

            Then there is the Filioque (Latin for “and (from) the Son”) issue, which is a phrase included in some later forms of the Nicene Creed but not others, not appearing in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western churches. The controversial phrase is shown here in caps:

            And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father AND THE SON,who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.

            The Filioque is now included in the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed used in most Western Christian churches, first appearing in the 6th century. It was accepted by the popes only in 1014, and is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches. It was not in the Greek text of this Creed, attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Constantinople), which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father”, without additions of any kind, such as “and the Son” or “alone”.

            From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the Filioque denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-Arianism. In the East, the interpolation of the Filioque seemed to many to be an indication that the West was teaching a “substantially different faith”.

            The nature of Jesus’ and the holy Spirit divinity as it relates to the trinity itself isn’t even discussed in the Bible.

            I see these as complicated issues that you try to reduce to a simple yes/no. To my way of thinking that is kind of ludicrous.

          • Bacchus

            I knew you would not answer my simple question. If I didn’t care I would not have wasted my time with you. Think on this Jesus said “Mat_10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. ” But since you call Jesus a liar it makes no difference. Good by.

          • Jim H

            Prove to me Jesus himself said anything you claim about him.

          • Jim H

            I knew you would not answer my simple question.

            I knew you would not take my challenge and show your “simple question” was not merely a blind doctrinal statement that you couldn’t reasonably defend. You can’t, because can’t actually explain what terms like hose claims mean.

            For example Jesus himself denied being equal to God:

            “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
            -Matthew 24:36

            “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
            -Mark 13:32

          • Bacchus

            You have NOT answered this question “How do you explain that Jesus spoke to Zachariah and Malachi and told them about himself (597-538 BC) and both prophesies came true from 29 AD to 30 AD ?” How can these prophesies be written after the fact?????? You are a liar.

          • Jim H

            To start with you say that Jesus spoke to Zachariah and Malachi and told them about himself. Could you show me where those to books say that Jesus spoke to its authors or, as an alternative, a comment by an orthodox Jewish scholar (in case you were unaware the Old Testament was actually written by Jews) who supports that view.

            I specifically asked you to clarify exactly what prophesies in Zachariah and Malachi you wished me to explain. You did not do so, and still haven’t. So, I told you which prophesies I assumed you were talking about and responded and I did answer your question.

            However, you apparently are unable to understand my answer. I’ll try one more time with Matthew’s stated fulfillment of Zechariah’s 30 pieces of silver. Since you will likely just call me a liar, that is all the effort I plan to expend on you. You seem unwilling, or unable to think critically on this issue, so even this effort is likely a waste of time.

            The writer of the gospel of Matthew obviously looks for prophesy he can claim Jesus fulfilled. He makes every attempt to find prophesies that he can have Jesus fulfill.

            For example, the gospel of Matthew portrays Judas as selling out for a 30 pieces of silver, but he becomes remorseful and gives it back. He hangs himself and the money is used to buy the field, which was called potter’s field, The supposed tie-in with Zechariah is supposed to be being paid thirty pieces of silver and the word “potter”.

            Point number one: I find that the context in which those two phrases are used in Matthew versus the context they are used in Zechariah are so different you have to be biased towards wanting Zechariah to be a prophesy fulfilled in Matthew, which, of course, you obviously are.

            Point number two: a good historian doesn’t simply accept a document as fact, but rather probes it, searching for bias and perspective: Who wrote the document? To what end? When? Where?

            Matthew was likely writing to for Greek-speaking Christians of Jewish descent. He often concludes a passage by introducing a Jewish Scripture and claiming Jesus has now fulfilled it. His gospel does this more than any other. This is because it was something he intentionally did in order to convince the Jewish people to embrace Jesus as their messiah.

            Verses in the Hebrew Scriptures were altered, misquoted, taken out of context, and mistranslated by the author of the Book of Matthew in order to try to make Jesus’ life fit traditional Jewish messianic parameters, and to make traditional Jewish messianic parameters fit the life of Jesus.

            The Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John enjoyed overwhelming success among their gentile audiences, the Gospel of Matthew ultimately was a miserable failure at its mission to effectively convert the Jews to Christianity. Knowledgeable Jews just didn’t did it.

            Point number three: There is also the criteria of “multiple independent sources” which refers to two or more unconnected sources which provide the same information..

            The only other reference to Judas getting paid to turn Jesus over. Is in acts, and it is says Judas himself bought “a field” with the money he received, but no amount is specified. Instead of hanging himself he fell and “burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out”. The field was not called “Potter’s Field” it was called “Hakeldama”, that is, “Field of Blood”.

            Based on these points, one can hardly say critical analysis of the passage indicates that it is prophetic in any real sense of the word. Matthew seems to simply “fill in” the story details in such a way as to make them fit his theme of Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophesy.

            By the way I didn’t say that all prophesies were written after the fact. I also said that:

            “(2) they were written vaguely, and/or incompletely, or inaccurately quoted. Nostradamus did just that with his quatrains and people find ways to fit current events into them quatrains all the time. Someone writing a narrative to show how a prediction/prophesy was fulfilled usually doesn’t need to work that hard do so.”

            Matthew did with the Old Testament what modern readers do with Nostradamus. As I said: “Someone writing a narrative to show how a prediction/prophesy was fulfilled usually doesn’t need to work that hard do so.”

            …:

          • dennis

            Can you spell circular reasoning?

          • Bacchus

            You make a single comment without any backing or proof. PROVE ME WRONG!

          • dennis

            Not too bright eh. I asked you a question which you did not answer. Do you not understand that when you make an false claim based on itself that it is a fools errand.

          • Bacchus

            I am so sorry, I must have missed the question would you mind repeating the question?

          • dennis

            No need, go back and read it
            .

          • Bacchus

            Just some points. Emmanuel is God with us. Jesus was with us. The Hebrew word “alma” according to Strong’s (H 5959) states “lass (as private or veiled) :- Damsel, maid, virgin”

          • Jim H

            Joseph and Mary were to told by an angel to give to their son the name “Jesus”, not “Emmanuel” (Matt. 1:21, Luke 1:31). Did someone forget to tell the angel about the prophesy?

            Strong also states that “alma” is the feminine of “elem”. It defines “elem” as simply a young man.

            Isaiah used the Hebrew word “almah” (young woman) only one time in the book that bears his name. It occurs in 7:14. However, he uses the word “betulah” (virgin) five times throughout the book in 23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5.

            I understand that Isaiah’s original Hebrew reads: “Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel”. This was translated into English as: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, “conceived,” which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. It does not speak of a future event. Honestly translated, the verse reads: “Behold, the young woman has conceived-[is with child)-and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel.”

          • bowie1

            Both names mean “God with Us” so in that sense that prophesy was fulfilled. It’s like a synonym where different words mean the same thing.

          • Jim H

            They don’t both mean “God with us”. Jesus’ name was Yashua (or Yahushua). It means “Yahweh (or Yahuwah) saves” Immanuel means “with us (is) El”.

      • crusader51

        Jim, Did you watch the movie? 100% Archaeological proof that the Biblical narrative is accurate. You can deny it but the facts are clear…..we have a Creator and the more we dig the more proof of the accuracy of the Bible id found.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Amen.

    • Becky

      Amen. Sola scriptura.

  • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

    As someone who has done some archaeological work in Israel (via study abroad program), I’m very interested in seeing this documentary 🙂

  • bowie1

    For skeptics no matter how much evidence is presented they will always find a way to deny it. It is like this video clip I watched earlier of a neighbour (real estate agent) from “hell”. No matter how much video was shown of him vandalizing his neighbours home he denied it was him on the video even though it was clear as day! And so sketpics could see God face to face and yet deny His existence – or so it might seem! Will hell’s residents repent even after they know God exists?

  • MamaBear

    I never have understood why scholars have ignored the passage about building of Solomon’s temple at a certain date past the Exodus, which places the Exodus a couple hundred years earlier than scholars have been claiming. Glad to see that when that 1200s BC date is challenged, that there is archaeological evidence when the Bible says the Exodus and Conquest happened.

  • crusader51

    The wonderful news is the prophesy that is about to unfold…My Savior returns!

  • sammy13

    Either one believes or or does not. No amount of evidence will be sufficient. Have faith and live in the light or have none and live in the dark.