Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Subodh Pandit

Ancient Words

Subodh Pandit


Subodh Pandit

Physician in North Carolina


  • July 22, 2018
    9:00 AM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2018 AudioVerse.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.


Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

Good afternoon. The person at the podium is Bonnie Rogers. So just a short question Bonnie what was happening a few months ago in your mind, in your emotions and the how did your daughter help you and what happened?

“Well actually it started about 4 years ago.  The experience happened 4 years ago that almost caused me to lose my faith entirely, something I thought would never ever happen. And I went through some extreme depression, despondency. The Devil in a new spiritualism and superstition, something I dabbled in years ago before I was ever a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.  And I was coming to many wrong conclusions about innumerable things and the depression got so great that I was even having trouble functioning from day to day. My family was greatly concerned about me. And they didn't know what to do, my daughter is on staff  here at Hartland and she had remembered that Doctor Pandit had come here and given us some D.V.D.'s that she was quite impressed with and so she shared those with me.  And through that and creation the thin chord of faith that I had, started to increase. And. I'm so thankful, so thankful to the Lord that I can stand here before you and that I'm alive.  God is good, He is great God, He is a wonderful God and this is just a short version of a longer testimony that if any of you would like to hear I can share with you later and I just want to say one thing, don't ever ever lay your Bible aside, stay connected to your Bible and to Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior.”

Stay connected to the Bible and we will also praise the Lord, for the people outside don't say that.

Why do you believe in the Bible? We usually start giving religious answers. But out there like I said yesterday the language is different so let's look at a little different language that you might be able to use, so let's get into the topic right now

First of all the Bible, Well it's a piece of literature so let's classify literature of the ancient days. Ancient Literature is classified into basically four areas:  folk tale,  legend,  myth and historical.   Out of these 4 which is the most reliable and credible?   Historical. 

Number 1:  All right, what's a Folk Tale: there's no attempt to state a real true story the main intent is to be interesting and bring out a lesson or moral. So everybody knows that a folk tale doesn't have to be real.

Number 2: a Legend: it's probably based on a true story but changes keep coming in,  exaggerations, embellishments make the ordinary story into a real superhuman one. And when do the changes begin? Generations after the event.   Legends are not made in the same generation as the event.   We use the word legend very loosely like say in a basketball legend or of football legend,  he's not a legend,  he just good at it.   A legend is somebody who after a few generations they say he could kick the ball 50-100 yards and then later on he could kick it right out of the stadium. And later on maybe he could kick to the moon, because you know look at all the stuff that we see on moon.  That is what a legend is. It started out OK. But it changes over time.   How long does it take?  Centuries.   

Here's an example:  This medallion which was an example of how many years it takes, this dates back certainly to the 2nd century B.C. If we put the book that has Nirvana or death during the 5th century B.C. Now that's 300 years, then the artist who carved the medallion must have lived at a time when the memory of the blessed one “Buba”?  was still very fresh in the mind of the people in other words 300 years, still very fresh? You can change, in other words what we're saying is that a legend takes a long time to form, it doesn't form just right away.

Here is another one,  of the written literature was compiled by faithful devoted followers centuries after the event. (Remember that word we will come across it later on).  Though these records are separated from one another by a few 100 years, they are in fundamental agreement and we have every reason to accept them as reliable accounts.  (Maybe this document was shown on the screen)

Number 3:  How about a Myth? That is so far back in history there are generally accepted as somebody’s imagination, somebody wrote it out, it's probably not true and it usually involves the supernatural of gods and goddesses and all supernatural activities, this is a myth.  And the time period from where we get them it is usually many centuries and even millennia or thousands of years.

Number 4: Historical:  here the attempt by the author to state a real true story. There are no significant additions or deletions and no core changes, all writings have changes. Yes all. But the question is does it affect the story or are they better for changes?  That's the question. And the closer it is written to the event the greater the credibility. You see on the screen some letters and Dashes.   Ev is the event. Whenever there's an unusual event people make it into a story and they're passed down from generation to generation. Unusual, I mean really nice and then some people say “well that's called the O.T. oral tradition pass it on”.   And then after a few generations we might forget some details so let's write it down so somebody decides to write down the story so the O.T. which is the oral tradition becomes now the written tradition W.T. and we do not have today any original manuscript of any of these writings so what we have is the earliest manuscript, the earliest copy.   Those dashes that you have between those letters these are the gaps.  What is the gap between the event and the time it became a well established oral tradition? What is the gap between the older tradition and the time it was written so it becomes the written tradition? And what is the gap between the written tradition and the earliest manuscript we have?  So one question,  if the gaps are wide how credible is the writing?  Up or down?  Down.   And if the gaps are really small then the credibility goes up.

So that's the classification of ancient literature.

Let us look at these 5 great world religious literatures and see how they fare. The 5 great world religions are Hinduism, Islam,  Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity.

So here goes.

In Hinduism the Rig Veda is the earliest text,  followed by the next 3 Veda texts,  the next is an anthology which is the Upanishads and then the Epic meaning a great big story, then Ramayana and then the another Epic big long story ????  which is found the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita is the Kernal of Hindu thought, and it is also the baby of this list. But look at when it was given.   Lord Krishna 1st bought Bhagavad Gita to the Sun God, how long ago?  Hundreds of millions of years ago now, so how many of us can go back and check? We can't.  And so the Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology states this “the Krishna  According to Hindu” what's the word?  “mythology is another power or an incarnate of Vishnu the god Vishnu the preserver of the universe.”

The Hindu’s also have 3 or Triune God: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.   Vishnu is one of them who became incarnate.  So what is it saying?  That the Hindu stories are mythological because there is just so far back. The story of the Bhagavad Gita where it came to us, it was millions of years ago and then came back to the human race. It was lost and came back, but when it came back also is 5000 years ago, the starting of the present age of the Hindus and that's about 3102 B.C. Even that is too far,  so we have to acknowledge and I have spoken to many of these Scholars we all acknowledge that the Hindu scriptures are writing the stories are mythological, not wrong, mythological.


Buddhism: there are 4 statements in chronological order. The humanity of the Buddha is also expressed by the ????  monk. Who is the ???? monk?  He who lived at the time of Gautam Buddha,  a contemporary of Gautam Buddha and this is what he said: “ he got there but they're not born and ?????? and did not complete existence at ???? or the like anybody else born here died here.  

Sentence 2 “soon after the passing of the master a change began to set in” We are wondering whether he was really born here and really died there,  not sure.

How about the 3rd statement “At the beginning of the Christian era” (do you know how many years that is about 450 to 500 years later) “the transcendental nature of the book became more and more pronounced” (What was the transcendental nature? Let's just call it supernatural features) “now he is no longer just an ordinary man but then supernatural features are being pushed into it”  

And number 4: In one of the most important pieces of mihaya?? literature mihaya  Buddhism came on the scene about 700 to a 1000 years later and by the time that came there's not much of the man left in the book. He is now an exalted being who has lived for countless ages in the past and will continue to live forever. So what is happened, a real true story he was born here and he died here. 700 years later, no not exactly born he'll always existed before that and he really didn't die here he will be in existence forever. What is that of the classification? Legend, because it started out OK, yeah like an ordinary human being but changed again not wrong, but the credibility will always be hmmm, what if it is legendary then what about the doctrines, they also might have changed, I don't know but the story is legendary.

Judaism: I did not classify it you can try the Talmud and the Old Testament. People have done it,  I just left it unclassified and I don't mind it being unclassified because there are so many authors. Some are very accurate and some are questionable, but questionable does not mean wrong. Question means just, oh I don't know.   The way you approach the Old Testament Judaic scriptures not by this study so if you have a question we might have a Q. and A time I hope we do You can ask for it.

 How about Islam?. The Qur'an was put together in writing by 650 CE, Common Era same as A.D. within 20 years of Mohamed’s life.  The writing is confined to one generation but Mohamed did not write it and most Muslims do not know even this part. They feel that Mohamed wrote it, no he didn't write it in fact, the word Koran,  anybody know what the meaning of the word Koran is an Arabic? It is a word that means recitation. And the why did they state as a recitation? Because Mohamed could not read or write. He would recite and that's why it's called the Koran. But he did not write it and the only person who was inspired in Islamic tradition is Mohamed, nobody else was inspired.   So if he did not write it then we have to deduce that uninspired individuals wrote it. It was compiled twice within a span of 18 years and after the 2nd time it was compiled and put together in what we have today, it's called that Qur’anic ascension, all the manuscripts were ordered destroyed by the 3rd Caliph whose name is Uthman.  So today no scholar can actually vouch that this is what Mohamed told us. Because all the manuscripts are destroyed what we have is a ????? copy of what they said should be there. It's not too bad, but there's questions.

 When you come to the Christian writing which is the New Testament, the earliest manuscript is between 114 – 134AD. It's a part of John, Book of John in the John Rollins library in Manchester UK.  The original manuscripts were within 20 to 50 years of the life of Jesus confined to one generation and no core change. Most of us think that the earliest writings were the gospels. But no, the earliest writings the New Testament are the writings of Paul. Paul's letters  predate the Gospels. So by the time Paul came to write it out, the story was already set because he came later into the movement than the others. So when he wrote his writings the story was already set. In other words the older tradition is already done, but really there is one more point, What is the earliest writing that we know on Earth? Earliest Christian writing? It's not in the Bible, it is here. Eliezer Keinan?? professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem found 2 ossuaries.  What are ossuaries?  It is receptacles like pots in which you put the dead men's bones and then bury it. That's how they buried the people those days. So on those ossuaries they found the earliest known Christian writing. They looked at the coins and some of the artefacts around it and they dated those ossuaries is to be AD41  within 10 years of the life of Jesus. One of them reads “Jesus God” etched on that ossuary  and the other one reads “Jesus ascended one”.

So let's take note it took 700 to a 1000 years to change Gautam Buddha into a god from an ordinary human being. Here in 10 years we have gone from the event to the oral tradition to the written traditional earliest manuscript this is the actual writing on an ossuary. In other words there was no change. In the 1st statement about Jesus was His God There is no change of this person and therefore the earliest writing refers to who he really was, there is not legendary, this is not mythological and in the historians eyes there is no gap at all, this is the only writing that has no gap. We can always say emphatically there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD80 except probably for the book of Revelation.  

So William Albright, who's an American archaeologist,  one of the greatest American archaeologist. The next one is a Jewish archaeologist again one of the top guys, listen to what he said “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference”. That's very unusual for ancient writings, because when you write something on your own you are bound to make a little mistake somewhere, so this gives us some credibility to the writing itself.   

The third Archaeologist that I'm going to quote is Sir William Ramsay  a British archaeologist and arguably the greatest that was in the last generation. He was doing his work in the same level as the 1st century A.D. And that's where he was doing his digs and archaeological finds. He was one who did not believe that the New Testament was written as the New Testament in the time period. He had serious doubts, so he didn't bother about the New Testament. He was doing his digs and then suddenly it comes across something that perplexed him and he wondered what the explanation of what he had found. So he asked this document and that document and this authority and that authority and finally somebody said to him “you left aside one, Luke has written the book of Acts and it's in the same period, look at that”. So they said but the book of the New Testament is not all that credible  no just look at it, and lo and behold when he read the book of Acts that solved his perplexity. Oh all right and some more digging got caught again unable to explain it look at this document and that and finally the book of Acts. Luke’s Acts helped him solve that mystery. This went on for a period of 30 years. How many years? 30 years and after that this is what William Ramsay said “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians, not religious historians the very greatest of historians”.

And look at what Norman Guys a Christian apologist said “in all, Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands without a single error, in other words, when he mentions a country or a area and he mentions the sea or a lake or an island, if you go down there it's exactly as he said”. There is no difference between the truth of what we see today in geography and what Luke had written in history, they match. So when I was doing the study I was doing that as an inquiry so I said as an  Inquirer the New Testament appears to be solidly historical, don't you think so? We have this with what the arguments we had made before.

So we've come to a point where we're looking at New Testament and looks like it's got some backing over there. So here's what I did next. I looked at what everybody acknowledges as historical writings of that period: Caesar's Gallic Wars, Herodotus History, Tacitus Annals and once you're looking at historical pieces of literature then we look at 3 features that give it credibility more than just saying it's historical.

Number one is the gaps, number 2 are the number of manuscripts, we will come to it. Number 3 where was the author in relationship to the story that he or she wrote.

So number one: See those Gaelic Wars it was written 100 B.C. earliest manuscript we have is 980AD,  the gap is how much 1000 years.  Herodotus history gap is 1300 years, Tacitus annals 1000 years in other words what we are saying and what is there before us is there is a gap in which nobody can vouch that anything was deleted added or modified for 1000 years and yet we call it historical. Can you see that? You can go and get MA’s and Ph D.'s in any university today and quote these authors Caesar's Gallic Wars and Tacitus and you're OK because you're quoting a historical piece of literature. Everybody acknowledges it but look at the Gap 1000 years in which nobody can vouch for it. And look at the gap in the New Testament is 20 to 50 years  and actually what we just saw with Eliezers findings it's less than 10 years. What a difference 10 years and a 1000 years. So this is what I sometimes say if you can swallow a thousand in years why you gagging at 20. Isn’t that fair, as an inquirer I'm asking that. So 20 years by all means yes sir it's historical, it is not legendary, It is not mythological

That's number one

Number 2 the number of manuscripts. Why do we look at the number of manuscripts because if there are just 3 manuscripts one here and one there.  Maybe one in Santa Ana and one  in Orange.   Then one night a few of us could get together and say we don't like that paragraph. So that night we go to each of those 3 and change it and the since all 3 are changed nobody knows it has been changed but the text has been corrupted. But if there are 50 manuscripts one here one there one in Washington D.C. one in some other place Frederick and one and in a spread all around you can't do that in one night you can do it maybe in a week because somebody will find out that this manuscript says this but this says something else then they will  start investigating and then you find out that has been corrupted and once you know it's been corrupted then we try to figure out which one it is therefore if we have many manuscripts saying the same thing it can vouch or point towards the credibility of the text. Are we OK with that? Yes.   Many spread out saying the same thing then the text is probably reasonable. Look at the number of manuscripts of these on the screen Caesar's Gallic Wars has 10 manuscripts worldwide, Herodotus History 8, Tacitus Annals 20, by the way one of the things I tell people when I present this is; you've got to be honest. what's honesty. I call it the wow factor. In other words if something is impressive what are you supposed to say?  Wow.  And don't say wow just because you got your point ????? well, even if they get their point you say wow, that's being honest, because you're asking them to say wow to you only then will be fair and square, but honesty is the wow factor here it is. 8,10, 20 Herodotus History is said 8, the champion of Greek literature is Homer's Iliad, Homer’s Iliad is backed by 643 manuscripts. Oh somebody said Wow. There will of course you have your writing have been more manuscripts backed 640, now it's a lot compared to 8 in 10 and 20. What if I told you that the New Testament is backed by 686 manuscripts. It is backed by 5686 manuscripts Greek manuscripts. If you add the Armenian and there the Latin and all those you know how many manuscripts back to New Testament 24,900.  Or did we say gaps no gaps, number of manuscripts wow! how many of you can go in or changing everything in one night a one year and 10 years even you can't do that so the credibility of the text appears to be fair.

The 3rd point we said was “Where were these authors? Were they're close to the story?” If they are close then there credibility goes up, if they're far away then we can question it. Maybe the distance is not geographical, maybe the distance isn't generations maybe 2 or 3 generations later on he wrote the text. Look at where these authors were.

“We did not follow fables, but were eyewitnesses”.  Do you know that this book, The New Testament is the only ancient historical book written by eyewitnesses. There's not another on the face of the earth.

“From that hour that disciple” (who is that disciple? John) “took Mary to his house”.   So where is John, he is right there. How about Luke “when we sailed over the sea we came to Myra” .  Were these authors near the story or far away? near, not just near, inside the story. They are participants in the story and you cannot get any closer than inside, because if you try to get it any closer you will go outside.  If you don't know that you are in this conference room and you want to get into the conference room then you will get out. So you can't get any closer than this. So what are we saying? In real terms the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document and the variety of documents available to sustain a contradiction. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity. No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful text testimony to its text and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound. In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably among ancient proofs writings, not just ancient religious prose writings, among all writings!

 We begin with the Mayans and the Sumerians and the Assyrians the Babylonians and the Caledonians and the Indian and the Chinese and the Egypt and the Roman and the Greek. Put all the writings of the ancient world on a flat table like this, given the same chance and this little book called The New Testament will rise up among them as the best attested historical piece of literature in the world.

“We have not followed cunningly devised fables”, so I don't tell them first that Jesus Saved you from sin, I tell them first look at the literature, you think it is worth reading and when they look at it they say “Oh I don’t know”. So here's the next statement: to be sceptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity for no document of the ancient period are as well attested Bibliographically as the New Testament. In other words you don't like, is it historical? I will  put it aside. What will you have? if you set it aside, you can't say a single word about any pharaoh or the Chinese dynasty about Babylon or Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus,  Julius Caesar, nothing. You set this aside you set the whole of antiquity aside. Everything is inferior to the New Testament, many times people say “oh, I don't know whether we need to check this New Testament verse against some of the secular historical writings. You know it's exactly the opposite, this is the best, this is the reference point. This has qualities that have the highest level of historicity. So if you want to check one with the other you check those against this. This is the top, this has all the features that have it, so while the Qur'an and the New Testament are to be considered historical, the New Testament has the highest credibility and integrity of text among literature of the entire ancient world. There are questions but don't discard it because of the questions, because if you do discard it you will choose another one that has more questions. So which one would you prefer? the best. Fair enough OK

All right that was one question, I'm going to only do 2 and then we will ask for your question after that.

The 2nd question I asked was this: all the writings are actually quite impressive if you read them and most of us don't do that, I was searching so I did it.  I went to the writing, then read, then read, then asked. And then I had a question and this was the question, these writings describe a message that came down from that other realm from the other dimension I can’t go there to check if it came from there. So how do I know it came from there? So that was my question. Is there anything in the writing that tells me to check it out?  Check it out like this, if you check it out like this, it might have come from there. That was the question. Tested for authenticity. So when we went to the Hindu scripture this is what it said: we have to accept it as it is otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad Gita and ?????  lord  Krishna. In other words don't test it out, there's nothing to test in the writing.   You like it you take it, you don't like it spit it out. But there's no test there. However, they have a test and I will tell it to you after the Buddhist one.

 The Buddhism is the same. The 2nd statement on the screen is absolute truth is unconditional and determinate and beyond thought and word. So it's completely beyond thought and word. How can it test it? You can't.  So these 2 scriptures the Hindu and the Buddhist do not describe a test in the writing. However they do describe a test, and the test is this, check it out in your experience. Yeah, take it up, live it and then you will know, it really is something good. Now is it not a good test? I think it's good, fair enough you just make it like a real test.
So I got tested out in my life, fine, the only problem with that test is not that it is good or bad test, every religion has that as a test. If every religion has it as a test, it's not a test. If I gave you directions to my house and I say hey when you come to this point turn right at the tree that has green leaves. Exactly, so that's not a sign. When you give a test it should be something that  I can recognize. Don't tell me that it's your experience that must do it because every religion says that’s it.  None of the religions ever say just read it and you'll go to have heaven or Nirvana or paradise. Everyone says you read it and put it into practice. Then you'll get it there. So it's a good test, but not really a test because all of them have it.

Islam there is a test. If men and Jin, (Jin  are creatures who are in between in angels and humans) combined to produce a book or came to this Koran they would surely fail to produce like ten chapters or even one chapter. So this is the challenge that the Koran gives us: please can you anyone produce a book like the Koran or 10 chapters like there or one chapter like it's inside there. Well it is a test and I was quite happy that there was a test because I was doing a search in a study Oh! good let me check it out, because it's describing a test but the moment I started there were 4 things that were snags, that stop me from doing the test. Here are the 4:  It does not tell what aspect to be equaled. If you tell me to equal one of you the 1st thing I'll ask you, how? Shall  I call it dress, shall I call it height, shall I call it physical ability, shall I call it mental ability. Good grades, or looks? What shall I equal? if you do not tell me what the feature that should be equal it is not a test because I am quite sure I can find a book that is bigger than the Koran. Suppose we are doing it only what is bigger then I won. So if you don't tell me what the feature to be tested it's not a test.

Number 2: what is its method of comparison? Will it be a subjective measure of comparison or an objective of method and if it's an objective what is the way in which you give marks to this and the marks to that, this one got 20 maybe 25 or 25 wins. If you don't tell me the method of comparison you're not telling me a test.

Number 3: who will be the judge? Who will judge whether I have brought our Another writing that is equal, better or worse. So if you don't tell me who the judge is then by default who is the judge? The person who is doing the test, and I was doing the test so then I'm the judge, if I'm the judge the case is finished.  Why because I have read so many Arabic works (of course they are translated into English) they are beautiful (Arabic authors) beautiful Arabic words that will amaze anyone.

 Shakespeare in English.   I want my own country I come from India I come from the state of Bengal. The state of Bengal produced the only Nobel laureate that we have from India and his Nobel Laureate in literature. His name is Rabindranath Tagor and he wrote a little book called Gitanjali, even today if I go back to my own state and I hear my relatives read that ?????  my jaw just drops open because it is so beautiful. I can't imagine any other writing that would beat, it might be equal, I don't how many of you have read the Koran anyone? So I can't think of any other writing that can beat that. Like I said has anyone read the Koran?  I feel, my personal opinion now I'm the judge because it did not tell me who the judge is So I will be the judge.  Even the Book of Isaiah will be better.  By the way in prose Isaiah is my favourite. I just love the way he describes things.

But the 4th one is really the one that clinches the whole thing.
In Islamic tradition this Koran that came down to the human race through Mohammad, is actually from a another book kept in heaven, it's a golden book and it's written in Arabic. That is why it came to the human race in Arabic. In the Koran it says:  “I Allah have given you a book in Arabic” And it's the 4th book that Allah sent down, not the 1st. The 1st one the Tawrat, Torah given to Musa, Moses. The 2nd book that Allah sent down to the human race is the Zabur, the Psalms given to Dawud, David. And the 3rd book that Allah sent down to the human race is the ʾInjīl, the Gospel given to ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, Jesus the son of Mary.

And the 4th book is the Koran, but the Koran that came down is only in the Arabic language and that's why if you see people reading the Koran in orthodox style they go this way. Why? Because it is written in rhythmic style. So you cannot really translate the Koran, because the message in the Koran is not just the words, it is the rhythm and the sound of Arabic. That is the message so how can you translate it? So if I must really equal the Koran I must write in Arabic and the Arabic that is in the Qur'an is not the regular Arabic people speak in the Arab Peninsulas today. Those people who speak Arabic will not be able to really understand the Koran. The Koran is a special type of Arabic that only those scholars can read and tell you what it is.  So how many people in the world can do the test?  I calculated about point 0.05 percent. So 99.95 people on earth cannot do the test, then how can you call it a test?  These 4 things knocked it off.   I cannot  do your test and if I cannot do it,( how many of us know Arabic here?)  then none of you can do the test, then it's not a test. Sorry, to you if there's any Muslim, I am not against you, I'm just stating that if you say Arabic I can do it and most likely even you cannot  do it  in Arabic, because all my Muslim friends don't know Arabic. Most of them don't, Not that Arabic.

When it comes to the Christian I put the Judeo-Christian together, because the test is just that but to get to the test I would like to read a statement by a very brilliant scientist from France his name is Pierre-Simon Laplace. He was then known as the Sir Isaac Newton of France and he lived soon after Isaac Newton.   Isaac Newton was a church going Christian.  Pierre-Simon Laplace was an avowed atheist. Now atheists do not describe any mind apart from human minds, they don't, but in this statement he does. And we will use that as a test. He called it the scientific determinism. There is a little long sentence and a few sentences together, I will read the whole thing out and I'll tell you what he's saying scientific determinism is this: “we regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past in the cause of its future and intellect mind which at a certain moment would know all the forces that set nature in motion and all position of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect this mind were also vast enough to submit these data for analysis it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those in the tiniest atom, for such an intellect for such a mind nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”

 It's called scientific determinism and that's what it means to say: if there is a central command, a mind an intellect that knows every particle in the universe and knows every characteristic and every property of every particle in the universe and also knows every governing law that governs every particle in the universe, then to that intellect nothing would be uncertain, he could look at this pointer and you could look at every  little thing that made up the pointer and go back 200 years and tell exactly where every atom was. Yep, because he knows everything he knows every atom he knows all the properties he knows all the laws that govern every particle. He could also do another thing he could look at this and he could go forward 200 years and say exactly where any atom will be 200 years from now. Why? Because he knows everything, he knows all the movements, he knows all the laws. Are you with me? Got it, that's what he said. In other words Scientific determinism is saying this, that if there is an intellect that knows everything in the universe then nothing would be uncertain to that intellect past, present, future is just the same. That's what he was saying.

So in other words they saying this that only this kind of an intellect can break the time barrier. No human can do that. In fact when you look at physics, the science of physics everything symmetrical. In fact the scientists who do real science in physics, they stand back and they're amazed at what they call the elegance of physics. Why? Because they're so symmetrical if it goes up it can also go down it, went to the east it can also go to the west. It's symmetrical, except for one thing, the only observational entity that is not symmetrical is time.

Time moves only one direction, it can’t go backwards, that's not symmetrical. So the question is, if that's the case, then if anybody can break the barrier of time that person or that mind is supernatural. That's exactly the test in the Judeo Christian scriptures.

“Present your case says the Lord, let them bring forth and show us what will happen, declare to us things to come, show the things that are to come hereafter that we may know that you are gods”  (and Isaiah  word is God,  Pierre-Simon Laplace word is that may know that you have that intellect).

Tell us, so if I'm sitting here and say I am the intellect: How are you going to check me out? Well you can't, except for one thing, you could ask me to predict what will happen next week, and you could ask me to predict what will happen next month and next year, and 5 years from now, and they've all come exactly as predicted then you might have identified the intellect of determinism Pierre-Simon Laplace, fair enough that is the only way you can do it. But that is the test, tell us beforehand, what's it called, Predictive Prophecy. Before it happens, tell us. You must know predictive prophecy has at least 2 caveats to it, number one is: Once you predict you must not go and do it yourself. Because in the writings there are predictions, for example in the Koran Mohamed did write that Mecca would be destroyed and burned, and Abu Lahab  who lived there will be killed. And then he took his own army and did it. That's not predictive prophecy. You must be away from it, fair enough.

Yes another one is that it should be testable, you should be able to check it out. The Hindus do have a prophecy, we have cycles, ages, we are today in what is called the Kali Yuga age, Yugas age, it started in 3102 B.C. and the prediction is that it will come to an end when the 10th incarnate of the god Vishnu comes to this earth, and that will signal the start of the next age, this is the worst of all the ages, the 4th one is actually the 1st one and is the Golden Age. That's the prediction but when will that occur 427000 years hence. Now who's going to check that out. That's why I said they have caveat, they have conditions, a prediction just don't make a prediction.

First of all don't do it yourself and let it be testable.

Let's look at one prediction this afternoon, in the book of Jeremiah 51:36 he says  “that I will make her a Springs dry” (her is Babylon) and verse 37 “Babylon shall become a heap without any inhabitant”. He wrote this about 595-596 B.C. at that time Babylon was the greatest most fortified city in the world. You know our walls are about say 18 inches thick, this wall 18 inches thick, you know take the walls of Babylon it was a double wall and today when you look at the foundations you can go and measure 87 feet thick at the bottom. Go up like this but at the top also broad enough for 2 chariots to run side by side, on the entire perimeter of 25 miles, big wall.   How can you bang it down? you can't.  How high are the walls of Babylon, this is about 12 feet,  the walls of Babylon went 175 to 300 feet, so how are you going to climb over that wall, well you've got to have a long ladder. But if you have the long ladder you have got to bring it close to the wall, but you can't come close to the wall because Babylon is a surrounded by a moat and the moats is as big as the wall or the volume or you come anywhere close they can’t  come anywhere close by. The only way you can defeat Babylon then is to lay siege, in other words surround it basically at the gate and don't let anybody go in and out, sooner or later your food which is from the farmlands outside will cease to come in and then you have no food you'll starve and you'll come out with a white flag. That's laying a siege.  Give up, but you've got to keep your soldiers at the gate no fighting just look at that stare. And how are you going to pay your soldiers then, from your own coffers or your bank account so you got to be quite a king, quite an emperor, quite a military general to lay a siege because all you do is pay your soldiers to sit and look and stare. The soldiers salary is actually by fighting, the booty you get that you share but here don't fight just look. So sieges don't last endlessly, 6 months, one year , one half years, 2 years just paying your soldiers for doing nothing, 3 years would be a I'd say maximum.  Why would anybody in Babylon laugh at you trying to lay siege because in the storehouses in Babylon there was enough food for everyone for a period of 20 years.

Now even with that kind of a city it was beaten by Cyrus the Great. He was winning all his wars until he came to Babylon and he said “Man if I get Babylon I'll be world Emperor”. How to get that? While scouting around (by the way Babylon was supplied by River in fact Babylon sat on a river the river Euphrates, it went in one end of a it and came out the other. So it got some water supply right there in the city).  While Cyrus, and this is now we refer to traditional writings, Herodotus does mention this that while Cyrus was going around the scouting to find out how he could get Babylon, his horse on which he was riding died in one of the tributaries of the year of the river Euphrates. Generals in those days, kings and monarchs of those days were quite eccentric, So he got angry with the river. This river killed my horse I want this river dry and he told his generals I want it dry, it killed my horse. So history tells us that the generals got together and they dug anywhere from 80 to 300 small aqueducts beside the river Euphrates and drained it dry, and when they drained it Cyrus saw his way into the city on the river bed. And Babylon fell in one night. Without a single blood or drop of blood shed. As soon as he came in the people accepted him because we didn’t want our king we want you. But sooner or later it deteriorated and it fell apart. Today few words evoke as many images of ancient decadence glory and prophetic doom as there does  Babylon and yet the actual place 50 miles south of Baghdad is flat, desolate.

Let's go back to what it said “Babylon shall become a heap without an inhabitant”. 2500 years later Babylon is still without an inhabitant. How did it fall? “I will make her Springs dry”.  

How many such predictions do you want fulfilled before you can say, we might have identified the intellect of Pierre-Simon Laplace?   5, 6,  10. Anyone venture a number that will impress you, that we can check out. we can say it was done here and was prophesied here, it was fulfilled here, we saw it beforehand. I'll give my number mine, I thought of 12, were there 12 really good ones?  I’d say hey, we might have found that intellect, that mind. Do you know how many there are? No, I didn't do the counting myself and these scholars who do it  with a good nit picking in the little little ones.  I don't know the big ones, but when they counted all the little ones and the big ones, you know me there are 600 prophecies that have been fulfilled in the Judeo Christian scriptures.  322 refer to one individual. 24 to 25 (that's twice what I wanted) came to pass in one weekend. Wow!! Nobody said wow. So what are we saying? 

Here are some statistics, Peter Stoner he is writing about this question of what are the chances that it could happen by itself.  48 prophecies about one man. If one man fulfil all 48 prophecies it gives you only one chance in 10 to the power of 157 = 10157, that's a huge number. So I put some numbers on the screen to tell you what that number is like. The elementary particles in the entire universe comes to about 1084. The total time in seconds of the universe if it was 5 billion years old is 1018 seconds.  The estimated interactions 1020 .  So the total chance that our universe of Ford's???  is 1084 times 1018 times 1020 or total of 10122. That the total chance that the  entire universe of fords??? But we need more than that for just 48 prophecies.  So how many universes do we need? 1035 See all those zeros you can see on the screen, that many universes we need for one person to fulfil 48 prophecies by himself, without anything. Therefore it is statistically impossible and if it is statistically impossible and it happened then it didn't happen by itself, it was orchestrated. That's why it happened, and it was orchestrated.  Now we know somebody who could break the barrier of time because he said it before it happened. So he can break the barrier of time, we might have identified intellect, the mind of Pierre-Simon Laplace, whom Isaiah  called God.

2 statements on the screen. I want you to see the similarity of the statements, one Pierre-Simon Laplace, an atheist, the other by E.G. White who happens to be a believer and some people even call her  prophetess.  But look at the identical ways in which it is described Pierre-Simon Laplace

“for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain in the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”

And the prophetess a believer:

He that ruleth in the heavens (same as the Intellect) is the one who sees (the same as eyes)  the end from the beginning—the one before whom the mysteries of the past (same word)  and the future (same word) are alike (same word)  PP43.1

Can you see those five words are the exactly the same, from a complete hardnosed, atheistic scientist and a full fledged believer in God. So if multiple sources are saying the same thing a brilliant atheistic scientists saying the same thing as a respected believer in God and it's found in ancient literature and verifiable secular history, then we have to give credit where credit is due. In other words, the Judeo Christian scriptures is this: it is the best attested historical piece of literature, least gaps in time and actually no gaps. Greatest manuscript of evidence and authors were part of the story itself and it is the only writing that permits an open test anybody can check this out you don't have to have any special characteristics, a little bit of money, you can buy a ticket to Bagdad.  You can see the ruins even today. By the way both Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets acclaimed prophets, and both of them said those who ruins will not be inhabited by humans, but they will be inhabited by wild animals and they mention one specific wild animal the jackal.

 Captain Thomas Mary   was one of the captains in the American army that went into Iraq in the Iraq War.   He was also an archaeologist. So he had studied all this stuff and he was well acquainted with this prophecy, he was also well acquainted with the fact that in Iraq you would find the ruins of Babylon. So when he went in with the Army he asked his general permission to visit the ruins of Babylon and there's a lull in the fighting so the general said OK you can go but only by night not In the daytime. So he chose a full moon light night, so they could at least see, and he told his platoon of soldiers we're going to go to the ruins of Babylon and one of the predictions is there you'll not find any humans there and number 2 they are the animals that live there. So they all went on a moonlight night and they found bricks broken down and some bricks where the original ones way down there. Now look at Miller's bricks and they found another set of bricks stamped by some Suddam Hussein, he was trying to rebuild Babylon, but everything is in ruins, big gaps and holes and while they were standing that in full moonlight night out from those holes runs a family of jackals. That platoon of soldiers looked at those jackals when they almost saluted the jackal they were so amazed because Captain Thomas Mary had only told them about this prediction.  They wouldn’t live there in ruins, no human, only jackal. What do you say to this? You know what I'd say yeah, I'd say give me the Bible. Thank you.


Embed Code

Short URL