Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
At our house, all Good News Magazines and other sensitive Church literature were kept in a box in my parent's bedroom closet. I made the mistake of leaving one on the kitchen table and got a sound spanking for it. Protect that Magazine at all cost but tactfully.
"Should You Welcome Visitors at Church?"
"...First of all, it is better if you do nothing to advertise the fact that you keep God's Sabbath. I do not mean that you should ever deny it. But, for example, if you women make Sunday your wash day and hang out clothes for neighbors to see—or, if you men do work around the house on Sunday, mowing the lawn, or pounding nails or sawing or something that makes noise. Whether this really causes your neighbors any discomfort or not, some of them may claim you are annoying them --creating a NUISANCE on their Sunday. That only shouts loudly at them that you are a hated "Sabbath-keeper." "
"You who meet a visitor at church service, just be friendly, smile, but do not start a conversation about the sermon, about religion, or about the Bible."
"Never do this!!! To the one who does this, let me say candidly, this is one strong reason why YOU are not the minister! It is the minister's place to do any explaining. He has been trained to know how. God has called him, and therefore the Holy Spirit leads and guides him. DON'T TRY TO MAKE YOURSELF THE MINISTER, or the minister may rebuke you very strongly!"
"If the visitor asks about such things, call the minister or assistant or a deacon at once, with a smile, introduce him and mention the question—then let him take over, and excuse yourself to go meet and shake hands with others. And when introduced to—or introducing yourself to—a visitor, NEVER—and I mean NEVER take it on yourself to either say "Don't you ever come again!"—or, the opposite extreme, "I want to invite you to come again.""
"REMEMBER—it is not your place—but the minister's—to invite visitors either to come again, or to forbid them to come. Don't try to be a self-appointed minister when God has never called you! God may deal with you through the minister, if you do!"
"Try to prevent non-members from seeing, or knowing about, The Good News. But NEVER do as one member untactfully did. This woman had read in The Good News that this paper is for Church members ONLY. The paper was left out in plain sight in her living room. A neighbor picked it up, started reading it. She grabbed the copy out of her neighbor's hand, saying—"Oh, we've been told not to let outsiders read this. You're not converted. You're not allowed to read this." Naturally the friend was insulted, offended, and decided she didn't want any of OUR religion!
If a non-member accidentally does see a copy of this paper, DON'T offend by telling them non-members are not allowed to read it. It is then too late for that. Let them go on reading it, but if they want on the list, tell them they can write and ask, but it is just our own Church paper for members, and not generally sent to non-members. But NEVER cause offense. Better just keep it out of sight in the first place...."
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. "
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”
Back in the Seventies, the views of Herman Hoeh and Dean Blackwell were the Worldwide Church of God’s answer to anthropology. From Hoeh and Blackwell I learned that Adam was a Caucasian and non-Caucasian races seemed to be unanticipated mutations and not a part of God’s original intention. The latter idea was eventually dropped. The former has always remained in place. Since those days anthropology has been revolutionized by the rising field of Genetics. In this article, I am going to use the findings of Genetics as an exegetical tool to interpret the account of Adam as it relates to human origins.
A Word on Haplogroups
In greatly simplified terms, haplogoups are genetic configurations that may be used as traceable markers. Haplogroups are contained within the DNA of our cells. The rules of the tracing game are that Y-haplogroups are inherited only through the masculine line and mitochondrial haplogroups are inherited only through the female line. These haplogroups are related to one another in a tree structure that encompasses all of mankind. The overwhelmingly prevalent Y-haplogroup in the British Isles is R1b, for instance. My Y-haplogroup is R1b1a2a1a1b4. The additional characters in the string after R1b reflect finer genetic detail.
The Man Adam
If Adam was the first man and a Caucasian, where did all the varied races come from? Herman Hoeh explained the racial diversity of mankind by positing the idea that Ham married a Black woman and Japheth married an Asian woman and this was followed by some kind of genetic drift among their offspring that produced all the races. Genetics will lead us to a much different conclusion.
The Biblical Adam was Y-haplogroup J. As Spencer Wells (geneticist, anthropologist) has pointed out, both the Jews and the Adnanite Arabs claim descent from Abraham. Both groups are Y-haplogroup J. (No population is pure. Intermarriage will always introduce some “foreign” haplogroups into populations.) The Bible, by including genealogies, conveniently gives us the ability to trace genetic descent. Tracing Abraham’s Y-haplogroup backward through the masculine line, we can know that Adam was Y-haplogroup J. If Adam of Genesis lived within the last 6,000 years (or even if he lived much earlier) there has been insufficient time for Adam to be different from Abraham in haplogroup based on mutational rates of change. Haplogroups diversify very slowly – 6,000 years is just a small duration on that timescale.
Noah, as a descendent of Adam in the masculine line, was also Y-haplogroup J, as were Shem, Ham and Japheth. If the Flood were global and only the riders on the Ark survived, all the human males in the world now would be uniformly Y-haplogroup J. Instead we have a broad range of other Y-haplogroups. And these other Y haplogroups did not originate after the Flood (if we accept the typical dates for the Flood). This is established through both mutational rate studies and the excavation of ancient DNA. Y-haplogroup R, predominant now in Europe, for instance, was found in a skeleton in Siberia dating from 24,000 years ago, millennia before the putative date of the Flood. The earliest haplogroup, A00, originated about 270,000 years ago.
Though the material above is briefly presented, a number of conclusions may be drawn.
1. Adam was not the progenitor of all mankind. Human Y-haplogroups predate Adam significantly. Adam was the progenitor of the Jews and the Bible is about the Jews. Genesis 10 does not reflect the races of man but, as the passage states, the “clans of Noah’s sons.” (It is interesting that the Hebrew term “goyim” used for Gentile nations may mean something like “a bunch of animals.”)
2. The descendants of Adam were a collection of Middle Eastern peoples, surrounded by other tribes and nations, who all carried Adam’s Y-haplogroup. Some apparently dispersed among other peoples; hence, we may read about their migrations in classical literature.
3. The Flood was not global. Had the Flood been global, all of the Y-haplogroups we have now would have vanished and been replaced by just Y-haplogroup J carried by Noah and his sons.
4. The people of Britain, Ireland and Northwest Europe are predominantly Y-haplogroup R1b and are not descended from Jacob of the Bible because Jacob was Y-haplogroup J as we have seen. Their genetic status incontrovertibly places them in the Gentile category. Further, Adam is not the father of these Gentiles “physically” though one could effectively defend the idea that Adam is their father “spiritually”.
In this article, I did not present a model of human origins that reconciles the Bible with Genetics in any detail. I just sketched out a macro perspective. And any such detailed model developed will always be contestable, but it is clear that, for a model to be credible, it must conform to the science of Genetics. Even though there is much yet to be understood about this, what we can now most certainly conclude is that Herbert W. Armstrong and Herman Hoeh were wrong in their ideas about the origin and races of mankind.
If the evidence for God is so abundant, then why are there atheists?
"A lot of ink has been spilled over whether God exists. Within this context, some theists like to point out that “God has made it plain” that he exists, that “God’s invisible qualities … have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). They urge us to remember that the “heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1). In a recent Christianity Today article, Jim Spiegel cites these passages and writes: “This naturally prompts the question: If the evidence for God is so abundant, then why are there atheists?”
Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism. For example, Spiegel points to research suggesting that some prominent atheists had broken, defective relationships with their fathers. Others live in perpetual disobedience and rebellion—resisting lifestyle changes required upon adopting theism. And still others confess that they just don’t want there to be a God. Spiegel contends that immorality has cognitive consequences—it impedes one’s ability to recognize that theism is true."
"Now, actually one of the reasons that there are evolutionary atheists is, believe it or not, in the 19th century various male “intellectual” were looking for excuses to not have to abide by biblical standards of sexual morality. And back then, some of them even admitted that is why they embraced the concept that life randomly evolved without a creator God.
I would also add hypocrisy to the list. The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public, despite biblical admonitions against it, turns people off. Most who claim Christianity, do not really live as a Christian
War is another factor. Many non-believers point to religions such as Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism as major causes of war, which turns many people off to the idea that there is a truly loving God. But of course, all scholars realize that early Christians would not participate in carnal warfare. And in my opinion, this is still true of faithful Christians today
There are also scholars, for example, like Bart Ehrman, who started out as Protestant but when they learned more about church history, realized that Protestantism simply did not fit with much of the Bible nor church history. And while he may be more of an agnostic than an atheist, the fact that most of what is considered by the world to be Christianity, is not Christianity, and this turns many off of religion (though it does not necessarily make them atheists).
But I would like to add that it is illogical to be an atheist. While there may be many reasons that people may doubt the existence of a personal God, such as the one that the Bible teaches about, the reality is that any that conclude that there cannot be a creator/god are being foolish:
The fool has said in his heart, ”There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1, NKJV)
One of the reasons that it is foolish to conclude that there is no God is because humans should realize that we are finite beings. No human has been to every place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god of any type is illogical. Why? Because no human has enough possible proof that God cannot exist. Doing so with limited “evidence” is foolish."
(Note: Here Bobby wanders off into other dimensions and strays from the Biblically Mountain God of an insignificant people, on an insignificant planet in one solar system of trillions and galaxies unending in our own Universe. This would imply that Bobby's God has this plan running in billions of other places and dimensions which because we can't figure that out , we are foolish.
Let's stick to the Mountain God of Israel who couldn't defeat the people of the valley because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 :)
Aron Addresses "You deny God 'cuz you just wanna sin"
“We are born atheist and we remain so until someone lies to us.”
It appears that even among very conservative fundamental churches there is starting to be a movement away from believing that Adam and Eve were real people. Is it really of any great importance whether we believe it or not? Yes. Why is that? Because if they were not real people, the entire Bible, its message, Christ's death and resurrection are completely undone. There is no need for salvation, nor reason to believe the Bible, and Christ was a liar.
Those are strong statements to make, but they are the logical conclusion of saying that Adam and Eve were not real. Let's start with the New Testament and work backwards. Jesus genealogy was traced back to Adam in Luke 3:38 “ Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” How could Jesus genealogy be traced back to someone who did not exist? It could not. So we see that Jesus lineage is one verification that Adam was real and that Seth was his son. Luke gave us the first witness to that fact. Now Paul is going tell us that Adam was also very real. 1 Corinthians 15:45a, says that Adam was the first man that God created as a living soul. “ And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.” He also tells us this again in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Then in a verse in Corinthians Paul tells us the result of that transgression. 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Paul is saying that because of Adam's transgression all mankind is cursed to die, not only physically, but we are born spiritually dead, however in Christ we can have both spiritual life and eternal life. Paul also tells us in Romans 5:14 that death, which was brought about by Adam reigned from Adam to Moses even over people who had not sinned as Adam had. “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”
Jude, Jesus brother, tells us that Enoch, the first man to be “raptured” or translated, was the seventh patriarch after Adam. Jude 1:14 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Jude was saying that Adam was a real person.
Now returning to the Old Testament, we see that Job accepted Adam as a real person from whom his original sin nature came. Job 31:33 “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom.” Everyone believed Adam to be a real person.
Moses writes about Adam when he mentions that God divided the inheritance of the nations or sons of Adam. Deuteronomy 32:8 “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Moses is saying that all people are descended from Adam
Hebrews mentions two of Adam's sons, Abel and Cain. There can be no sons, if there is no father, so Adam had to have existed. Hebrews 11:4 “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” and Hebrews 12:24 “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that ofAbel.” Abel was real, and he was the son of Adam, so Adam had to have been real.
If Adam and his sons did not exist, then the writers of these verses are liars. Worse we have the testimony of Jesus Himself that Abel was a very real person, thereby verifying that his father Adam was real, as Abel could not exist without a father. Jesus is warning the Pharisees in these passages. Matthew 23:35 “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Luke 11:51 “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” If Adam did not exist to father Abel, then Jesus Christ was a liar
Setting aside all these verses for a moment, let us merely look at the logic of the situation. What is the Bible supposed to be? It is supposed to be a portrait of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation for man. But why does man need salvation? Because man is sinful. Why is man sinful? Because Adam sinned against God by eating the forbidden fruit. But wait, what if Adam wasn't real? What if he is just an allegory. Then....well, then death, which supposedly came through Adam's fall existed right from the beginning, not as a result of Adam sinning. If death was a part of creation, then when God said everything was good, He meant that everything dies as part of the natural order. Therefore, death is not a result of sin. But if death is not a result of sin, then there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no need for redemption. If there is no need for redemption, why would we need a redeemer? If there is no need for a redeemer, then Christ dying for our sins is a sad joke on Him. If Christ's dying was meaningless, then why believe in Christ for salvation. If we don't need Christ, and the Bible isn't true as to the whole story of sin and redemption, and death is natural and normal, then why not throw away the Bible and just live as we please? Without a real Adam, without a real fall from grace and sin, without death entering the world through Adam and mankind needing a redeemer, the whole reason for Christ and the entire Bible becomes pointless. So, was there a real Adam? Well, if you are reading this and you are a Christian, and you don't believe Adam and the entire creation account was real, your faith is useless. Christ will have been a liar, as were his apostles, and you are spending your life trying to live for something that doesn't exist, and then you will die and that will be the end. Or.....you believe that God was telling you the truth about things exactly the way they happened. He created a world in six literal 24 hour days that looked as if it had been here for millennia. And He created a man called Adam in perfection, who then disobeyed bringing sin and death into the world. He then promised and gave us a redeemer to pay for our sins and restore us to a relationship with God giving us eternal life. Those are your choices. You choose what you will believe."
Recently, Banned by HWA posted an article about an artist from our Common Heritage who had the honor of painting the Official Portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama. The portrait itself - when discussed by members of the COG Community past and present - was not received without criticism - because of the proportions, tones, and - most importantly - realism of the artistic piece - for some, made the piece "terrible".
I have always been a creative and artistic person. A lot of my time is absorbed in photography and the digital arts - which includes digital painting. This stems from my childhood when I learned during my toddler years that I had a knack for artistic creativity. This was not by any means an exclusion from the ramming head of Armstrong's influence. As a child, I was told to avoid any artistic creativity that was not reflective of "realism" because it would become a lie if I used artistic creativity. In other words, if the sky is blue, you have to paint it blue. You cannot imagine it any other way, either in your head or on media. Doing so would then be "sin".
Of course, the wages of sin is death - so we were told by the Church sermon after sermon. No, It wasn't threatened that I would somehow die if I used Burnt Umber instead of Orange. But the implication was clear: Obey what the Church says, and what your parents tell you, or the consequences could be enormously severe in just 3 to 5 years. Your parents would be taken to the place of safety, you would be left behind, to feel the full force of the Great Tribulation and World War III. Oh, yes, the fear was real, genuine - and it invaded every part of your life. In my case, even using artistic creativity wrongly which would become sin. Pretending and Imagination were intentionally cut off.
Was this extreme? Yes. However, in this light, one can understand in a sense (Perhaps not nearly as extreme as the scenario I was a part of) some of the problem that some people (artists included, both in and out of the Church) have when artistic creativity is expressed. One of the commentators stated in the thread mentioned on this forum the many things that were incorrectly presented in the piece of artwork - arm length, hands, skin tone - "unnatural" form and without realism. The same commentator made a very astute observation: "The WCG demanded uniformity of thought".
It is not about the painting. In truth, there is a reason why this painting was selected as the Official Portrait of Mrs. Obama. It is the exact reason why the portrait has been selected, in my opinion, to be held in such high esteem - to the chagrin and controversy of many. The reason? Artistic Expression, a personal voice, and allegorical image. The very concepts that our religion of Absolute Literalism strongly discouraged.
When I look at the painting, I do not look at this painting with a literal eye. If I do, I will never understand it. I see long arms that are intended to show strength and compassion - holding many children. I see neutral pastels, conveying softness and contemplation. I see a skin tone that is pleasing when juxtaposed with the background. In short, without going into great detail, I believe this artist used her creativity and expression to shape Michelle not only how "she" sees her, but in a way that allegorically defines her legacy in a clearly artistic and powerful - yet subliminally pleasing manner.
If you decide to look at this painting literally, you will find all sorts of things wrong with it. That's what happens when you go by the literal letter of anything. You will find and be searching for flaws. You will be inspecting every detail. You will want every aspect to be perfect. You will want every portion to be proper. You will demand absolute conformity. You will intentionally demand proper compliance with expectations. This is the result of literal-ism, and the law of legalism at work.
If you decide to look at this painting with the mindset of imagination, creativity, and an open mind, you will see this work in a whole new light. You will not see the inaccuracies of failing to comply with realistic interpretations, but the message of creativity expressed on canvas. You will not see a gray, unrealistic skin tone, but a deeper countenance instilled with reflection. You will not see too short of a neck - your eyes will be drawn to her face. This is what excellent art does - it conveys the thoughts, emotions, feelings, and reflections of the artist. This is what makes art great. And this, in my opinion, is why this piece was selected as the Official Portrait of Michelle Obama. The artist - coming from the strict legalistic background of the Armstrong Influence - shoved all of that outside to let her creative energies flow. She painted using her expression, not a paint by number - which is, in itself, the difference between Legalism and Freedom. Legalists will debate, ridicule, dissect, and tear down this painting in every detail. Those who understand Artistic Freedom will look beyond the rules and the lines and the colors and see what the artist is attempting to convey. And this fine artist understands she has the Freedom In Art to do so - and has been rewarded justly for her spirit of artistic expression - the spirit of the paintbrush. It's the difference between a Portrait Artist - and Bob Ross.
A Lesson many COG - types would be well to ponder in allegory and in principle, indeed, on much more spiritual issues.
Where does the Bible mention the 6,000-year rule of man?
The Restored Church of God says...
"he vast majority of the people in the world today have never heard about the Plan of God. God has put into place a 7,000-year Master Plan, which began at the re-creation of the earth, almost 6,000 years ago. This plan is pictured in type by the seven-day week. Genesis 1:3-31 shows us that God re-created the earth in six days and then created the seventh-day Sabbath by resting on it (Gen. 2:2-3). God is allowing man to work six days (six thousand years), followed with the seventh-day rest (a 1,000-year Sabbath rest).
The apostle Peter wrote, “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (II Pet. 3:8, NKJV). No doubt, he understood that the seven-day week pictured the 7,000-year plan of God. Paul also had this in mind when he instructed that the seventh day of the week pictures the millennial rule of Christ that will follow this present evil age of human misrule (Heb. 4:3-11). This “day” will occur after Christ’s intervention and it will last a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-4). References to this principle are also found in Psalms 90:4 and Hosea 6:2.
The seventh day of the week symbolizes the 1,000-year rulership of Jesus Christ; thus, the first six days of the week picture 6,000 years of man governing himself to work out his own ideas and plans. Each day of the week represents a 1,000-year period."
"If you want to assert a truth first make sure it's not just an opinion you desperately want to be true"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Jul 15, 2018 · A large Neolithic community that dates back 9,000 years has been discovered by archaeologists beside two streams in Motza, which can be found sitting in a comfortable spot beneath the Jerusalem hills. The remains of skeletons, stone houses, and magnificent temples were all discovered during the planning stages of the construction of a new road.
9,000-year-old Neolithic settlement unearthed west of Jerusalem
Biggest of its kind in Israel, and one of the biggest in Mideast, a unique Neolithic site is unearthed in Motza, boasting the all the splendors of the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, including burials, jewelry, ritual figurines and testimony to ancient trade routes
A huge settlement from the Neolithic Period, the largest known in Israel from that period and one of the largest of its kind in the region, has been discovered during archaeological excavations near Motza Junction, west of Jerusalem.
The unique site boasts architecture, arrow heads, jewelry and figurines crafted by the peoples who domesticated plants and animals during the Agricultural Revolution and shaped the Middle East into what we know it to be to this day.
The Motza site is located some five kilometers west of Jerusalem, near several springs and on the banks of Wadi Sorek, within a fertile valley thought which people have been hiking up to Jerusalem from the Shfela region since ancient times.
These optimal conditions are a central reason for long-term settlement in this site, from the Epipaleolithic Period, around 20,000 years ago, to the present day.
According to Dr. Hamoudi Khalaily and Dr. Jacob Vardi, excavation directors at Motza on behalf of the Antiquities Authority, "this is the first time that such a large-scale settlement from the Neolithic Period – 9,000 years ago – is discovered in Israel. At least 2,000 – 3,000 residents lived here – an order of magnitude that parallels a present-day city!"
The excavations revealed large buildings, including rooms that were used for living, as well as public facilities and places of ritual.
Between the buildings, alleys bearing evidence of the settlement's advanced level of planning were unearthed. In the buildings, plaster was sometimes used for creating floors and for sealing various facilities
In a place where people live, there are dead people as well," said archaeologists. Burial places have been exposed in and amongst the houses, into which various burial offerings have been placed – either useful or precious objects, believed to serve the deceased in the next world. These gifts testify that during this ancient period, the residents of the site had relationships with faraway places for exchange purposes.
Unique stone-made objects were found in the tombs, made of an unknown type of stone, as well as items made of obsidian (volcanic glass) from Anatolia, and seashells, some of which were brought from the Mediterranean Sea and some from the Red Sea.
During the excavations, archaeologists revealed artistic hand-made stone bracelets designed in several styles. "Due to the size of the bracelets, we estimate that they were mainly worn by children", said researchers. "We also found carefully crafted alabaster beads, as well as medallions and bracelets made of mother of pearl".
Many flint tools manufactured on the site were unearthed, including thousands of arrowheads that were used for hunting, and possibly for fighting as well, axes used for tree-felling, and sickle blades and knives.
Another exciting discovery was stone storage sheds, which contained a huge quantity of legumes, especially lentils, preserved despite the 9,000 years that had passed. "
New Fossil Found In Israel Suggests A Much Earlier Human Migration Out Of Africa
" detailed analysis of the jawbone and the teeth confirmed that it indeed belonged to someone of our species, Homo sapiens. And when they dated the fossil, it turned out to be between 177,000 and 194,000 years old, making it the oldest known such fossil outside the African continent."