Is President Trump Really Breaking Up Families?

A 2-year-old Honduran stands with her mother after being detained by U.S. Border Patrol agents near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12 in McAllen, Texas.
Getty Images

Is President Trump Really Breaking Up Families?

Don’t want to be separated from your kids? Then don’t try to cross the border illegally.

A 2-year-old girl cries as her mother is searched and detained. Children sob for their parents in an audio recording from a detention center. Media sources describe children in cages, inhumane conditions and human rights abuses. News outlets, media personalities, politicians, celebrities and ordinary citizens are joining together to condemn one person for breaking up families: United States President Donald Trump.

Is it that simple? Does President Trump hate these families, so he’s breaking them up? What are the facts?

First, the president is implementing laws that have existed for years. In the past, border laws have not been enforced consistently. In fact, even though he was the chief law enforcement official in the country, former President Barack Obama instructed border security agents not to enforce the laws. President Trump sees an open border as dangerous and decided in May to enact a zero-tolerance policy. Now anyone who crosses the border illegally will be prosecuted according to the existing law. This applies to everyone, whether they bring children with them or not.

Second, this is not the first time that a president has established a policy of applying the existing law to every person who crosses the border illegally. President George W. Bush set the precedent. And during the worst of the migration crisis in 2014, President Obama himself ordered zero tolerance.

Third, these are not concentration camps. Attorney General Jeff Sessions commented on immigration on June 14 in a speech in Indiana and emphasized that coming into America illegally is illegal and that lawbreakers should be prosecuted. In order to do so, the government does separate illegal immigrant families. But for how long? Years? For the rest of their lives like in World War ii? No; the separation generally lasts less than three weeks. Since their parents broke the law and are therefore held in jails, their children are put into special facilities rather than in jail with their parents. Sessions said (emphasis added throughout):

Many of the criticisms raised in recent days are not fair, not logical, and some are contrary to plain law.

Our policies that can result in short-term separation are not unjustified. American citizens that are jailed do not take their children to jail with them. Non-citizens who cross our borders unlawfully between our ports of entry with children are no exception to this principle. They are the ones who broke the law. They are the ones who endangered their own children with this trek. The United States, on the other hand, goes to extraordinary lengths to protect these children while their parents go through the detention period.

Fourth, the media uproar over these children is not a sympathetic reaction—it is part of an agenda. Leftists in the media, entertainment and politics are not as concerned as you might think about children staying in special facilities for a few weeks. If they were, they would have set off an uproar during the Obama administration when some of the exact same things were taking place. In fact, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau widely circulated an image of detained immigrants sleeping on the floor, which sparked outrage from leftists. What they and Favreau didn’t realize is that the image was from 2014, right in the middle of Obama’s second term.

Leftists identified another photo of a young boy standing behind a wire enclosure as a child in the custody of immigration law enforcement; they labeled it “kids in cages.” It turned out that the boy was not in custody at all but was at a protest in Texas with his mother and brother and wandered over to the opposite side of a temporary barrier set up for the protest. His mother came and fetched him in about 30 seconds. But leftists have been quick to flood newscasts and social media with images, whether accurate or not, of families being “broken up.”

Supporting strong families is not exactly a hallmark of liberal leftists. These are the same reporters, anchors, entertainers and politicians who advocate abortion, homosexual “marriage,” transgenderism, promiscuity, easy divorce, and labeling just about any arrangement of human beings in a house as a “family.” This is not about families. This is about an opportunity to paint conservatives and especially President Trump as Nazis. And that is not an exaggeration.

Michael Hayden, the former National Security Agency director who also directed the Central Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, literally compared what is happening at America’s southern border to Nazi death camps.

His tweet from June 16 includes a photo of the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland, where Nazis shot, starved, gassed, burned and experimented on Jews and other victims, killing more than 1 million men, women and children.

Former President Bill Clinton said, “These children should not be a negotiating tool. And reuniting them with their families would reaffirm America’s belief in & support for all parents who love their children.”

Clinton’s commentary is especially confounding. He was partly responsible for the laws that he is now complaining about. In 1996, Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law is the basis of today’s policies on illegal immigration and deportation.

The actual issues, including the safety of the immigrants and their children (and children who are with traffickers and kidnappers claiming to be their parents), are not as important to leftists as the opportunity to smear as fiendishly evil the idea of secure, orderly borders—as well as the people who support them.

Fifth, millions of Americans recognize that illegal immigration is a huge problem. Donald Trump promised to secure the border during his presidential campaign. Tens of millions of Americans voted in support of that promise, in favor of enforcing immigration laws. This is the movement that liberal leftists are attacking. They favor wide-open borders and rampant lawlessness. Some Americans still have the sanity and logic to realize that leaving the border open encourages criminals, endangers immigrants, corrupts justice, and endangers the entire society.

As American Thinker correctly noted, “Family separation is entirely preventable if you don’t break immigration law. How hard is that to understand? Like your kids? Don’t break the law with them.” This, the article continued, is a completely avoidable dilemma.

The Women’s March organization tweeted on June 16: “Over 2,000 children have been taken from their families by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ice & Border Patrol—and that’s just in April and May. Children should not be separated from their parents against their will.”

But as the acting director of ice told journalists on June 5: “Children and parents get separated every day across this country when a parent is charged with a criminal offense. It’s sad to see children cry when you take a parent out of a home, but because it’s sad, doesn’t mean that we ignore the law.” It does not mean that you put children in jail with their parents or that parents get to break the law and avoid punishment simply because they have children.

Sessions connected the immigration issue with Romans 13 in his speech. This chapter exhorts true Christians to obey the government of the land, as long as it aligns with God’s law. Verse 1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” God allows the leaders in this world to have power. He allows them to make laws. And as long as those laws don’t conflict with God’s laws, we should obey them. Especially if people’s lives and the future of the nation is on the line.

God ordained the institutions of marriage and family. Obedience to His laws is what keeps families together—not lawlessness! The Bible teaches that when we sin against God’s law, there is a penalty for the transgression. Removing the penalty in the name of compassion and family togetherness will only make matters worse.

If you would like to read more about the importance of laws in an organized society, please read my father’s free booklet No Freedom Without Law. It gives precious insight into the importance of law-keeping and explains why our lawless society is crumbling before our eyes.

New Cover .jpg

Are You Observing the Right Day of Worship?

Most Christians have never studied why Sunday is their day of worship. If you are one of them, you are denying yourself special blessings from God!

Read More

Why Did the Nazis Want a European Union?

Soldiers in combat gear stand at attention in Nuremberg, Germany, listening to a speech by Adolf Hitler during a Nazi Party rally in 1936.
Getty Images

Why Did the Nazis Want a European Union?

Listen to the June 21, 2018, episode of the Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

Today Europe is divided. It is impotent. But it is also dangerous. How is this possible? The history of European unification provides the answers. Europe’s founding fathers were not the first to plan a European Union. Trumpet contributing editor Richard Palmer examines the much earlier plans for a European Economic Community.

Listen on Stitcher.

Download the show on iTunes.

Cover - JAG - ColorizediStock-183049532.jpg

‘And the Sun Stood Still’

Was the miracle of Joshua’s long day just an eclipse?

Read More

Knighted: For Services to Prostitution

Knighted: For Services to Prostitution

An unlikely royal honor paid to the ‘world’s oldest profession’

“I always say I expect to be arrested at dawn,” jokes Catherine Healy, longtime sex worker and founder of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, an organization she has led since 1989. Originally having swapped her teaching job for prostitution in part to pay for holidays abroad, Healy was once arrested for sex work during the 1980s—the solicitation of which, back then, was illegal. After founding the Prostitutes Collective, Healy’s claim to fame began in 2003, when her campaigning led to the decriminalization of prostitution in New Zealand. And earlier this month, an unusual recognition was granted her for her services to the “world’s oldest profession.”

On June 4, the New Zealand Queen’s Birthday Honors List of recipients for the Order of Merit was announced. This is a conferral of knighthood for male recipients, damehood for female (to be addressed as “sir” and “dame”). The award is by order of the Queen “to recognize New Zealanders who have given meritorious service to the crown and nation, or have become distinguished by their contribution to their individual fields.” The 2018 Honor’s List began:

The Queen has been pleased, on the occasion of the celebration of Her Majesty’s Birthday, to make the following appointments to the New Zealand Order of Merit:

To be Dames Companion of the said Order:

Ms Catherine Alice Healy, of Lower Hutt. For services to the rights of sex workers.

The list continued through four other female appointees and three male, including the previous prime minister of New Zealand, Bill English.

Needless to say, it was a watershed moment. News of the radical appointment of damehood for services to the prostitution industry broke around the world. The news stunned Healy—and many others, especially those within the United Kingdom and Commonwealth who have some knowledge of the pomp, pageantry and traditional conservative tone of the royal administration.

What does this appointment mean? Nearly all reports are hailing it as exciting progress for the nation and the monarchy in legitimizing prostitution work and removing stigmas. There has been little to no backlash for the decision.

But there should be. This is a brazen endorsement of immorality and another significant step down the path of liberalism by the monarchy. (Among the four other women conferred damehood along with Healy, two are the twins Julie and Lynda Topp, famously provocative lesbian singers/activists.) This kind of “progressive” royal acts and endorsements is becoming more and more commonplace.

The Queen does not personally decide on the New Zealand Order of Merit. It is awarded “on ministerial advice,” which in practice means that the Queen decides nothing. Still, the governing body is under royal auspices and acts directly in the Queen’s name. The Order is conferred by the Governor General, who is the Queen’s representative.

The modern royal institution has been rebuffing the traditional, conservative, Bible-based morality it was built upon, and once staunchly upheld, for several decades now. As Prince Harry described it to Newsweek last year, “We are involved in modernizing the British monarchy. We are not doing this for ourselves but for the greater good of the people.” Over the course of this “modernization,” most of the Queen’s children have divorced, as well as her only sibling—an unthinkable act only decades ago. Together with the divorces have been a slew of adulterous scandals. Princesses have been photographed on two separate occasions sunbathing topless. Homosexual “marriage” has received the royal seal of approval. Prince Harry, since his widely publicized game of “strip billiards” in Vegas and his dressing as a Nazi for a costume party, recently married a divorcee actress and made his famous declaration to Newsweek—in answer to the question if any of the royal family wants the throne after the Queen dies—“I don’t think so.” Prince William joined forces with Lady Gaga to draw attention to mental issues, and proudly received the homosexual community’s “2017 Straight Ally of the Year.” This month also sees the first “royal” homosexual “marriage,” of Lord Mountbatten.

Knighting a New Zealand citizen for services to prostitution, along with lesbian activist compatriots, is just another brick in the wall.

This downward moral spiral by the institution supposed to be the leading light for millions of people in dozens of countries is leading to some awful consequences. There is a link between this pattern of behavior and the collapse of England, the British Empire and the modern British Commonwealth. Britain and its Commonwealth territories are going the way of ancient Rome, except that they are falling from a greater height and in a dangerous nuclear age of much more powerful, and still rising, hostile nations. Such behavior doesn’t last long without severe consequences.

As the Prophet Hosea wrote, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind …” (Hosea 8:7). This end-time prophecy is actually in direct reference to the peoples of the British Commonwealth and their leaders. Request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy for a full explanation.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has written several recent articles and a brand-new book explaining why, over the last several decades and since 2017 in particular, the nail has been driven into the coffin for the royal family. Read his article “The Fall of the British Royal Family.”

NEW 2- ARM001-20.jpg

God’s Miraculous Work and a Wonder

God wants your life to be full of wonder! This will energize and greatly motivate you. Here is how you can achieve it.

Read More

Will Nicaragua Be the New Venezuela?

A group of hooded people walk along the flaming facade of the state radio station.
Getty Images

Will Nicaragua Be the New Venezuela?

‘Nicaragua is in full cardiac arrest.’

Nicaraguan citizens began to protest against authoritarian President Daniel Ortega on April 18. Since then, Ortega has lost control over much of the small Central American country. Protesters have taken over cities, set up roadblocks, and attacked pro-government forces. Now Nicaragua is falling apart. A Time magazine correspondent living in Nicaragua wrote, “While the world watches Venezuela’s slow, cancerous death, Nicaragua is in full cardiac arrest.”

The protests began when Ortega tried to reduce pension benefits to fund the country’s struggling social security program. When some citizens protested, pro-government groups violently ended the demonstration, killing several people. This triggered the last two months of violence.

Although Ortega later dropped the planned pension cuts, that didn’t stop the protesters from demanding his resignation. Ortega reacted swiftly, sending police and armed forces to stop the protests. Since then, almost 200 people have been killed in continued conflicts between the protesters and Ortega’s forces. Many more have been wounded. Others are missing. The country is descending into anarchy as its leader desperately tries to maintain his hold on power.

Even before the protests began, Ortega had abolished term limits and given himself almost unlimited power. He was widely unpopular in his own country, as was his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo. The pension cuts were the last straw for an already disgruntled citizenry. Now the demonstrators want reform and a more democratic government. The government says that the protesters are trying to stage a coup.

Prior to 1979, Nicaragua was a dictatorship led by the Somoza family. But in 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front overthrew the Somoza government. Ortega was president from 1984 to 1990. He returned to power in 2007 and has ruled ever since, after abolishing presidential term limits.

Since the protests began, demonstrators have set up more than 120 roadblocks throughout Nicaragua, hamstringing transportation. Some cities are completely closed off to pro-government forces. One of these cities, Masaya, was the heart of the Sandinista movement. Now this city is at the front of the rebellion against Ortega. They think that Ortega has “betrayed his revolutionary roots,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The demonstrators are not planning to give up without a fight. A Masaya shopkeeper told the Wall Street Journal, “They will need 150,000 coffins if they want to defeat us.”

Nicaragua is not a huge player on the international scene; it is about the same size as the state of Florida but with a much smaller population and economy. However, Central American nations are strategically important, especially because of their proximity to the United States. More than that, instability in nations like Nicaragua has ripple effects elsewhere—whether from an increase in illegal immigrants fleeing a crisis in the country, or from the pressure that a collapsing government puts on surrounding nations.

Nicaragua is also unique because of its connections with both Russia and Iran—and the fact that China is hoping to build a canal through the country to rival the Panama Canal. If the canal is finished, it will give China an immense advantage. China wants an exclusive naval foothold in this vital area, which America previously dominated.

The Catholic Church’s influence in Nicaragua is also interesting. Nicaragua is more than 70 percent Catholic. Mediators from the Catholic Church have tried to end the crisis, encouraging Ortega to hold early elections. However, the church suspended its negotiations with Ortega this week because he refused to invite United Nations observers in to examine the situation for human rights violations. The fact that the Catholic Church is so involved in this conflict shows the importance of these South and Central American nations.

Our free booklet He Was Right says:

The headquarters of the Catholic Church is in Europe. Yet it is not Europe but Latin America—incorporating Mexico, the Central American isthmus and the continent of South America—that constitutes the most catholicized landmass in the world. The region’s largest country, Brazil, has more Roman Catholics than any nation on the planet, and Mexico is a close second. No continent is more aligned with the Vatican than Latin America.

The Plain Truth recognized the deep importance of the religious roots Europeans and Latin Americans share. In October 1957, it said, “Latin American nations will join in with the European revival of the old Roman Empire ….” Throughout history, that empire has been guided by the Vatican.

Europe is also deeply interested in Central and South America—and for a reason. Many of these nations are strapped for cash, and they welcome investment and stability from any source. Europe is one of the largest investors in Latin America. A foothold in one of these countries is also valuable for any nation seeking to oppose America. Both prophecy and recent events indicate that Europe may try to do that very soon. The Bible indicates that Europe will briefly form an economic alliance with most of the rest of the world in an attempt to freeze out the U.S. America will be “besieged,” and that will destroy it economically. The May 1962 Plain Truth said that “the United States is going to be left out in the cold as two gigantic trade blocs, Europe and Latin America, mesh together and begin calling the shots in world commerce.”

Whether or not Ortega manages to hold on to his control of Nicaragua, this crisis shows how unstable his country is. And Nicaragua isn’t the only one—other Latin American countries like Venezuela and Mexico are barely holding up. Nicaragua’s protests highlight the fractured state of many Central and South American governments—an instability that other powers are happy to take advantage of.

To understand more about what the Bible says will happen to Latin America, read “Europe’s Inroads Into Latin America” in our booklet He Was Right.

NEw cover - Untitled-1.jpg

The Inspiring Truth Abortionists Should Know

It’s a fundamental question of what a human life is worth.

Read More

We Found All Kinds of Bias; Therefore, There Was No Bias

Justice Dept. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz testifies to the House Committee on June 19 in Washington, D.C.
Getty Images

We Found All Kinds of Bias; Therefore, There Was No Bias

Listen to the June 20, 2018, episode of the Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

On today’s show, we discuss how the Inspector General’s Report on the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal exposes the blatant, left-wing bias of the “deep state.” And yet, even as more and more bias is uncovered, we are simultaneously told that bias in no way affected the investigation! It just shows how easily contradictions and false narratives are reported and repeated by the mainstream media. As the Prophet Isaiah foretold, truth fails. All this and more on today’s Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

Listen on Stitcher.

Download the show on iTunes.

NEW - JAG-Putin and Xi NEW.jpg

Axis of Authoritarians

The Russia-China alliance is reshaping the world.

Read More

A Carbon Dating Conundrum for the Holy Land

View of the “Solomonic Gate” from inside the city of Gezer, looking toward Jerusalem.
Watch Jerusalem

A Carbon Dating Conundrum for the Holy Land

The latest foolhardy attack to take down biblical kings David and Solomon

Last month, Cornell University released a provocative paper innocuously titled “Fluctuating Radiocarbon Offsets Observed in the Southern Levant and Implications for Archaeological Chronological Debates.” Don’t let the mundane title or topic fool you; the paper had some stinging potential conclusions that would undermine the archaeological discoveries that historically have supported the biblical narrative—specifically the period related to the greatest kings of Israel, David and Solomon.

Here is why (and please bear with me).

In archaeological study, being able to accurately date an artifact is equally as important as the discovery itself. In fact, the painstaking process of systematic archaeological investigation is largely designed to aid archaeologists in accurately dating layers, rather than actually finding rare and important artifacts.

Historically, and still so today, the most important tool for archaeologists in assigning a date to a layer is pottery. The fact that the humble pottery vessel changes over time and is found everywhere over the ancient world makes it the perfect candidate for determining the date of a layer. By knowing the age of each of the different styles of pottery, archaeologists are able to deduce the age of the layers. And if you can date the layers, you have a good idea of the other artifacts found within that strata and, by process of deduction, the walls or buildings associated with those layers.

Until the last few decades, the dates associated with the different pottery types were largely fixed. Certain pottery types would belong to the period of the judges, others to the start of the united monarchy, others to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Instead of describing the biblical personality associated with those types, or even a specific date, the changing pottery types are classified into ages: the Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc. Traditionally, archaeologists have believed that the beginning of David’s reign marks the start of the archaeological period called Iron IIA. This period covers a massive increase in building throughout Israel. Traditionally, this building program was associated with David and Solomon.

But in the past two decades, a hypothesis known as low chronology was developed whereby the pottery styles that were associated with the start of Iron IIA (as well as the monumental building program) no longer belonged to David or Solomon, but rather to later kings. Proponents of this view said that David and Solomon belonged to the simpler, far less-advanced civilization of Iron I, a period normally associated with the judges—and with decentralized, weak, unimpressive Israelite trade, institutions, government and construction.

Essentially, believers of low chronology disagree fundamentally with the Bible’s description of the kingdom of David and Solomon.

Just as the low chronology camp was gathering more disciples, however, evidence of more monumental buildings was unearthed. These were dated increasingly through the use of carbon dating (also known as Carbon 14 dating) rather than just pottery analysis.

Khirbet Qeiyafa fortress
Creative Commons

Excavations under the direction of Prof. Josef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a site located on the border of ancient Israelite territory against Philistine land, yielded remains of a hefty city wall, gates and a large public building. A series of carbon samples were taken from within early Iron IIA strata. These samples date at the latest to 969 b.c., a date associated by all archaeologists to the time around King David’s death.

Around the same time, Dr. Eilat Mazar of Hebrew University was excavating in the northern part of the City of David in Jerusalem. She discovered a massive structure with associated Iron IIA pottery, and again, she found numerous carbon samples to support the traditional dating to King David’s time.

Earlier this year, excavations at Tel Eton on the outskirts of Beersheva revealed more carbon samples that dated a massive Israelite house to the very time period of King David.

Tel Eton, Israel
Griffin Higher Photography

At these three excavations carbon samples, and not just pottery, were used to accurately date the large structures to dates associated with the United Monarchy, before the nation of Israel split in two.

Now consider the provocative paper from Cornell.

Just as low chronology stated that the pottery associated with David and Solomon was off-track, Cornell is now going after the carbon samples, saying that they can no longer be trusted.

Using data collected from tree rings in the Southern Levant from the past 400 years, the Cornell study argues that the standard calibration curve for Carbon 14 is off by about 20 years, and that carbon samples taken in the holy land should be calibrated by a separate system. From their data set, they deduce that the dates associated to the carbon samples in this region are, on average, about 20 years younger.

Just as low chronology stated that the pottery associated with David and Solomon was off-track, Cornell is now going after the carbon samples, saying that they can no longer be trusted.

Thus, the latest Khirbet Qeiyafa sample is not from 969 b.c., but rather from 20 years (or more) later.

Twenty years doesn’t seem to be a lot; it still puts that sample inside the dates of the United Monarchy. However, the contention that all future and past carbon samples are 20 years too old will further muddy the waters in terms of using carbon samples to accurately date discoveries.

Where carbon samples could be used as good evidence for dating, now, at least to Cornell, we really can’t be sure.

Extrapolation Upon Extrapolation

Reading through the Cornell paper, it becomes obvious that for scientists, they haven’t tried very hard to hide their bias.

The data collected is wonderful and seems to be accurate, but conclusions are hastily extrapolated back to biblical times from a very limited data set.

For example, the study itself was conducted by a study of tree rings from the Southern Levant that go back only 400 years. In that time period, they do see variations that indicate that the traditional dates were off by an average of 19 years, but in many cases, only as much as five years. Furthermore, they deduce, that possibly, warmer weather tends to make samples appear older than colder weather. Then, they deduce that since it seems that it was warmer during 1200–600 b.c., we should assume that the dates for the biblical period are likely younger as well.

It seems the authors are in part aware of just how much they are guessing by extrapolating the findings back to biblical times when they write sentences like this (emphasis added throughout):

Where such calibration time series are not yet available (namely, before a.d. 1610 for the Southern Levant case at present), our data set better indicates the circumstances under which a likely potential range of error may apply for earlier periods—assuming that similar conditions and processes apply in earlier periods and accepting some possible variations—rather than offering any specific average correction factor.

They even realize that they might not even know if it was warmer during the biblical period:

Available paleoclimatic data for the Southern Levant for the earlier Iron Age are inconclusive, but, after indications of cooler and arid conditions in the period around the close or the Late Bronze Age through initial Iron Age, there are some (though not always consistent) suggestions of wetter and/or warming conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

Based on just the above two quotes, the study could have been summarized this way:

Based on tree ring data from the past 400 years, and that we think it might possibly have been warmer in the Iron Age than at other times, we believe that the carbon samples from 3,000 years ago may possibly be, on average, 20 years younger than previously thought.

I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me there is a lot of guesswork going on here. So much guesswork that it is borderline dishonest, and definitely premature, to even bring up how this data set affects carbon dating from the biblical period.

Still, Cornell decides to frame its whole discussion, including the title and abstract, around how this might “potentially undermine” the traditional position in the chronological debate regarding David and Solomon. And then, when it is reported in the press, editors take the study and run with it stating, “Cornell University professor shows how archaeologists’ data could be skewed by decades—potentially disproving the narrative of David and Solomon’s United Monarchy.”

Potentially yes, but looking at the actual study itself, probably not!

Nevertheless, simply muddying the waters with hasty extrapolations damages both sides of the argument, whether for low chronology or traditional dating. It promulgates the notion that we can never know one way or the other. Furthermore, it sows unnecessary doubt in the minds of the unsuspecting who do not have the time to read the study itself.

If you would like to educate yourself on what exactly has been found so far in the field of biblical archaeology, spend some time on our sister site Click on the archaeology tab and read a few articles or watch some of the videos. You can also click on the exhibit tab and read about some of the latest biblical artifacts that have been unearthed in Jerusalem, now on display at our headquarters in Edmond, Oklahoma. Furthermore, for those with open minds, be sure to request our free booklet The Proof of the Bible.