Doctrine

This web site is about scientific, theological, historical and philisophical doctrine. According to Webster's Dictionary doctrine is defined as "A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group. The doctrines of many different disciplines will be presented within the pages of this site and will therefore be accepted by some and rejected by others. Unfortunately this will not be because they agree or disagree with the evidence presented, but because it opposes their own set of doctrinal beliefs.

After a great deal of debating with others of differnent scientific and religious views, I have found that they will not even consider a doctrine that is opposed to their own. To do so would throw doubt on what they have always believed and most are not willing to admit that they are wrong. It appears that in most cases where one has a strong adherence to a doctrine, the doctrine becomes a part of themselves and when another attacks that doctrine it appears to the individual as an attack on themself.

Another interesting character of a doctrinal system is that one will always interpret new facts according to the doctrine. The facts are made to fit the doctrine rather than adapting the doctrines to fit with the facts. This is simply another method of doctrinal preservation.

Some of the material here is going to strain your doctrinal system. You will have to decide if you are going to examine the facts and adjust your doctrines as necessary or reject or reinterpret the facts to fit with your doctrine.

Education

For many of us our scientific knowledge was limited to what we learned in school while our religious knowledge was limited to what we learned at Church or Synagogue. The only other informational medias available at that time was the television, magazines and books. These forms of media only published doctrines accepted by the established scientists and theologians.

Within the last few years we have seen the advent of the Internet which has been instrumental in shaping many peoples doctrines as it provides an opportunity to explore areas that were hidden from us only a few short years ago. We can now go on line and read about any subject from any perspective.

With all of the information available on the internet how are we going to know what is fact and what is fantasy? For those of us who do not have a doctorate we will have to do our own research in order to sort through the material. Some of the material will be written by highly educated people and some will be written by uneducated people. There are many uneducated people who have succesfully researched an area of discipline and became leaders within that discipline. I never judge a persons doctrines by their credentials but by their research.

Higher educational institutions tend to teach their students "what to think" rather than "how to think". Doctrines are taught and expected to be followed and there is no room for free-thinkers or open minds. Often it is the ones who have not been indoctrinated by a higher educational facility that have proposed new ideas and theories which later are found to be fact.

Facts

This web site is a search for facts and truth. Truth is by definition a belief system whether it is a faith in God or a faith in evolution. Truth is subjective and each discipline follows a set of truths as outlined within the doctrines of that discipline. Facts are physical evidences, something that can be seen, studied and tested. Truth lies in how that evidence is interpreted.

Here we will examine the factual evidence of man's history then attempt to interpret it. In order to do this we will need to examine the evidence as well as the reviewer of that evidence.

Most of us are not scientist or theologians and do not have access to much of the evidence presented here, let alone be able to study and test it. We are then at the mercy of those who are and do have the access. Anyone who has studied any controversial evidence knows that there are "experts" on both sides of the controversy which will attest to its validy or fabrication.

Our job here is to examine the evidence through the various experts eyes on both sides as well as the doctrines and motives of the experts. In this way we can spot doctrinal bias on the part of the expert which will help to understand his interpretation of the evidence.

About Me

By profession I am an Engineer but for many years my passion has been the Hebrew language of the Tenach/Old Testament. When I began learning Hebrew I found that the translators of the Bible often interjected their own belief system into the translation. Because of this, the English reader was reading the translators opionion of what the Hebrew text said rather than reading the text itself for what the original author intended. In 1999 I began the "Ancient Hebrew Research Center" in order to disseminate what I had learned about the Hebrew Bible, language and culture. This web site is not without controversy as well. Some of the theories that I have presented there are contrary to the established beliefs of theologians and linguists and are therefore considered "fringe".

Another area of "fringe" sciences that I have taken an interest in is the area of the ancient history of man. A number of years ago I stumbled on a web site that presented ancient anomalies that did not fit with the established scientific community. These anomalies included human bones and artifacts in rocks and strata that predated man. Coming from a Christian view this intrigued me as it proved, if found to be true, that humans did not evolve and had existed from the beginning as stated in Genesis one.

As my research continued in the subject I found that some of the evidence did not fit with the established Theological beliefs either. This left me with a perplexing dilemma. I had believed that there were only two theories to the origins of man, evolution or creation. I discovered that some of the evidence did not fit with either theory. Therefore, I knew that I needed to examine this evidence closer in order to determine what theory the evidence did fit. I determined that I was going to examine the facts asisde from any scientific or religious bias and allow those facts to dictate what scientific or religious theory I would hold to.

For more about me please see my web site.