Sunday, August 21, 2016


Courtesy of Answers in Genesis


Good day mates! 

And how did you all fare this week? We had lots of pouring monsoon rains. So good to have after the drought here in the mountains. My kids and grandkids are all doing well and two of my daughters are pregnant with babies due three months apart. And my oldest son has just purchased his first house. I guess I’m getting old! Ha ha!

Speaking of mountains and old, does anyone know where Noah’s Ark really landed? Is there evidence of the remains of the Ark? Let’s find out…

Basically there are five most popular and most potential sites. Four of the locations are on or very near Mount Ararat; The Durupinar Site, The Ahora Gorge, The Ararat Anomaly, and the Ararat—NAMI Expedition. The fifth site is on Mount Suleiman.

The Durupinar Site became popular in the 1980’s when Ron Wyatt and others claimed to have found Noah’s Ark and
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis

Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
The Ahora Gorge site was first discovered by George Hagopian and his uncle. George claimed that in 1905 or ’08 when he was eight or ten years old his uncle brought him to the Ahora Gorge area of Mount Ararat. He claimed they found a large ship partially buried under the snow and ice. Hagopian said his uncle hoisted him up so he could walk on the roof! “At least a dozen expeditions have explored the Ahora Gorge since Hagopian reportedly walked on the Ark’s roof. However to date, none of these adventurers has been able to find the remains of
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
Noah’s Ark at the Ahora Gorge, even though they have used satellite imagery, and explorers have searched the gorge when the glacier in it has melted back. It is very tempting to dismiss Hagopian’s incredible claims as the imaginations of a young child. Consider the following complications with his story. Hagopian offered conflicting reports of his adventure. Was he eight years old or ten years old at the time? Was it in 1905 or 1908? Also, it is hard to imagine a youngster making this very difficult and dangerous journey without proper training.”

Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
The Ararat Anomaly is just that— an anomaly. “In 1949, photographs of the northwest side of Mount Ararat were taken by a United States intelligence agency. A large structure can be seen jutting out of the ice and snow near the middle of the photograph above. This object has captured the imagination of Ark hunters because it resembles a portion of a large ship. Of course, this ‘anomaly’ may simply be a rock outcropping with just the right amount of ice and snow melted away to give the illusion of a boat-shaped object.”3 A 2003 satellite image, presumed to be taken at the same spot, shows an overhead shot depicting a long, boat-like structure. The object roughly has the dimensions of Noah’s ark. But it also closely resembles a natural rock formation. That
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
certainly could not be called proof. This is the only proposed Ark location in which, as far as I know, no expedition has been explored on site, thus the anomaly. 

The Ararat—NAMI Expedition was made up of a team of evangelical Christian explorers from a Hong Kong-based Media for evangelism. They claim to use the media to promote the message of Jesus Christ. NAMI (Noah’s Ark Ministries International) went on an expedition to an area high up a prominent canyon on the south face of Mount Ararat. This group claimed to have found or were told about seven wooden compartments buried on Mount Ararat, which they believe were part of Noah’s Ark. They even produced a video showing team members presumably inside one of these wooden structures. Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
‘discovery’ is likely a hoax. This is not to accuse NAMI of perpetrating the hoax, but there is a real possibility that they were victims of a fraud enacted by a Kurdish man called Paraşut. Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Don Patton were the experts invited to be part of the expedition, but they were never permitted to see the site and were soon dropped from the team. They have documented many of the inconsistencies between what was reported and what they found in their research. For example, pictures of an alleged room in the Ark provided by Paraşut show straw, cobwebs, and a feed bowl, each in very good condition. The problem with these images is that Paraşut has claimed that the site is frequently flooded, which was his reason for not taking the expedition there in the summer months. Would a site that endured regular flooding remain in good shape for millennia? They also interviewed a Kurdish worker who claimed to have been one of several people hired by Paraşut to construct “movie sets” on the mountain.”4 
Little Ararat on the left; Mount Ararat on the Right. Courtesy of Answers in Genesis

There is one other significant problem. “Despite so many supposed sightings and evidences from Mount Ararat, it seems unlikely that Noah’s Ark has been found in recent times. And even though we would be ecstatic if the Ark were discovered, we have reason to doubt that it will be found in the future. Nor would it convince the skeptics who would simply claim it is a replica monument to a mythical boat. Certainly, it is hard to imagine a large wooden structure surviving the elements for more than 4000 years. Also, if Mount Ararat truly were the landing place, how could the Ark have survived this volcano’s numerous eruptions, which continued until 1840?”5

The last site we will discuss has been claimed by military veteran Ed Davis. During WWII while he was stationed in Iran he believes he found large petrified planks of wood on Mount Suleiman (also called the Throne of Solomon). Though the Bible states the Ark landed on the Ararat Mount Range, this is far beyond that. However, in 2005/06 Bob Cornuke of BASE Institute led expeditions up this mountain to explore an alternative site for the landing of the Ark.
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
“Cornuke provided several details about the site that he believes is a candidate for the remains of Noah’s Ark. His team found rocks that were “uncannily beam like in appearance” over 13,000 feet up the mountain, ‘a worship shrine,’ and fossilized clams in abundance on the top of an adjoining peak. Cornuke also points to the wide variety of ecosystems in the region and the 1965 rediscovery of the Caspian horse, believed by some to be the most ancient variety of domestic horse.
Despite these assertions, there are multiple problems with the notion that the Ark came to rest on Mount Suleiman. For example, the beam-like rocks are likely a geologic formation, the eroded edge of upended, finely bedded rock layers, according to geologists who have only been able to examine pictures. Also, it is improbable that Ed Davis’s reported sighting took place on Mount Suleiman. But the biggest problem is that Mount Suleiman lies 250 miles east of the farthest-known reaches of the ancient Urartu region. As such, this mountain doesn’t match the biblical description that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4).”6 

In conclusion, it is highly doubtful that the Ark will ever be found almost entirely due to environmental conditions and time. But even if the Ark were found, those who don’t want to believe that the Creator, Jesus is real, and that our history is recorded without change in the Bible, won’t believe. 

Until next time, God bless, take care and lots of prayers to the lost.
Willow Dressel


Monday, August 15, 2016





The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended  


Hello all you fine people out there! And did everyone fare well this past week? I certainly had several dramatic events happen. But from it all, my son-in-law has given his life to Jesus! So all the hardship and spent emotions were worth it.

Speaking about a series of events, what does Sir Isaac Newton have to do with the chronology of human history? Wasn’t he a scientist? Well, yes he was a great scientist and a great and faithful  Christian. And he was a historian as well. How many of you knew he wrote a book called The
Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended  in 1728, and was published a year after he passed away.

Newton, however, did have an advantage over most modern scientists in that he “…was so well  read in the classical Greek and Latin writers that he was able to detect serious problems in the dating of ancient records before 700 BC. 

His basic claims are solid:
God’s Word is correct in every detail, including its history, so it must be our starting point (par. 410–415).
Except for the Bible itself, the other histories of early nations were not recorded until well after the events had passed (par. 483–484). For example, the first historian to write about ancient Egypt (apart from Moses) was Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC).
Most records of early history were lost or distorted as a result of repeated foreign invasions (par. 517).
Ancient peoples were not averse to making big assumptions to fill in the gaps (par. 193).

For example, Newton speaks about the Persian invasion of Egypt in 525-523 BC.   Cambyses, the king of Persia at that time, invaded Egypt and destroyed the vast majority of the
King Cambyses
Egyptian historical records that earlier invaders (the Assyrians and others) had missed during their conquests. So it was up to the Egyptian scholars to try to reconstruct their history. “Newton explains, ‘After Cambyses had carried away the records of Egypt, the priests were daily feigning new kings, to make their gods and nation look more ancient’ (par. 517).”

Herodotus (c. 484-425/413 BC) was an early writer who traveled extensively in Egypt, Africa and Asia Minor. He recorded in detail his experiences and observations which provided later historians a detailed account of important historical events and of everyday life. He was known as the Father of History by the Romans, but has also been called the Father of Lies by critics. “When Herodotus visited Egypt in the mid-fifth century BC, the priests had constructed a list of 341 Egyptian kings reigning some 11,340 years! Even Herodotus was dubious.”3  

“Newton points out that except for biblical history, early historians did not use absolute dates until around 250 BC. Before that time, they usually marked time by the reign of kings. The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians assumed that an average of three kings reigned for every century, and they pigeonholed dates accordingly (par. 204). Newton asked himself, ‘Is this reasonable?’ He then analyzed the dynasties of a dozen other known
kingdoms, such as the English monarchs. To his surprise the average reign was only eighteen to twenty years, about half of what ancient pagan historians had claimed…Applying what he learned about the average length of a king’s reign, half of Greece’s recorded history before 700 BC evaporated! For example, the Trojan War and Argonaut expedition were much more recent than is usually assumed, Newton argued. He also found that other king lists, such as the list of Roman kings, had exaggerated the length of their reigns, and so the lists should be cut in half. Newton then proceeded to look at
the histories of other nations, such as Egypt, rejecting any fictitious names or mythological eras. By his reckoning, based on the information available in his day, he calculated that only twenty-two names reflected real kings in ancient Egypt (par. 486).”4

Manetho, a well known Egyptian historian from the third century BC, recorded Egyptian dynasties that priests had told him about. Manetho seemed to have missed the fact that there was more than one region therefore more than one dynasty ruling at one time. He numbered all the dynasties in a straight order rather
than an overlapping order. In addition he ignored the documents that Herodotus had recorded two hundred years earlier and Manetho’s timeline had little in common with them.

Even today in our modern world with so much information at our fingertips, historians choose to either ignore it or don’t bother to research it. “Modern secular historians have a deep bias against Scripture, and they interpret history with a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion,’ as Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier writes.

James K. Hoffmeier
“Isaac Newton had the right approach. Nothing in ancient history (when properly understood) can possibly conflict with biblical history. As archaeologists continue to make exciting new discoveries, we have nothing to worry about. God’s eyewitness record is 100% true and reliable, the only sure starting point for studying the timeline of human history.”

I love to learn about our ancient history and love even more to learn more information about ancient people. We should all be very grateful for Sir Isaac Newton’s faith and tenacious desire to record the truth and only the truth. 

Until next time, God bless and take care!
Willow Dressel 



Monday, August 8, 2016



Hi guys! 

I first and foremost wanted to thank my readers out there who take the time to write comments. There has been some very interesting comments and questions which I try to answer as soon as possible. (Though sometimes it takes me a few weeks! lol!). To see what people have written I’m afraid you will have to scroll through the blogs looking at the comment section at the end. It will say how many comments are there then click on it to pull them up. So with that said, how are all you fine people out there? I do pray for you all and my hopes are that the blogs I write will bring you closer to our Lord Jesus and see how much of a wonderful Creator He is.

So speaking of the Creator, did He leave us an imprint of Himself in the cloths that wrapped him in the grave. There is controversy over a single shroud, the Shroud of Turin, in which that very thing may have happened. Let’s take a closer look…

Is the shroud real? Could the we really have a record of how Jesus looked in this simple cloth? There are several factors to consider:

1) What is the Shroud of Turin? The Shroud of Turin is a single cloth approximately 14.3 feet (4 m) long and 3.7 feet (1 m) wide that contains an image or imprint of a man, both the front and the back sides. The first known appearance of the shroud occurred in 1357 in France but did not receive world wide exposure until 1898 when it first was photographed. Along with the imprint there is blood stains around the head, wrists and feet, on the front in what would be the man’s side and on the imprint’s back supposedly from the scourging. 

2) How old is the cloth? Carbon dating in 1988 came to the conclusion that the material the shroud dated back to as early as 1260 AD. More recently however, a nondestructive vibrational spectroscopy along with several other tests identified the shroud’s fabric to be between 300 BC and 400 AD. Giulio Fanti, a professor from the University of Padua, ran the tests and states that in addition, his tests also confirmed the presence of pollen and dusts from a Middle Eastern origin. 

3) Is there really blood on the cloth?  “Believers in the Shroud’s authenticity have never adequately explained how the blood on the sheet has remained red for millennia or how the purported stigmata-on-fabric came to leave their marks. Fanti suggests some sort of ‘exceptional radiation’ rendered the marks indelible and red.”1  Blood when it dries turns black. Could Christ have kept His blood red. Certainly by supernatural means. But the question is, is this what happen here?

4) Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus’ burial cloth?  The best place to get an answer is to look at scripture itself as it is the unaltered truth. “Scriptures says: ‘So when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen’ (Mark 14:45-6). It would be grossly incorrect to think they would leave the body in the bloody cloth used on Him right away. First this was a Jewish culture that believed in cleanliness, and second, this was the Lord—care was going to be used from the moment the body was taken down…Looking at the Scriptures, it distinguished against strips of linen and single linen cloths. The Greek word (used for a single linen cloth as in Matthew 27:59) is sindon, whereas the strips of linen used on Jesus in the grave (as in John 20:7) is othonion. Othonion does not mean a single linen cloth—it is plural. If a single linen was being described, they would have used othone or sindon…Keep in mind the strictness of what Moses wrote: Numbers 19:11-13; He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him. Because of John’s account (John 19:40; 20:5-7), we are certain that strips of linen were used in the grave as well as a handkerchief, but nothing else is mentioned.”2

5) Head Imprint It seems to me like there is one major problem that has been overlooked in all the writings and inspections about the shroud: Where the imprint comes together at the top area of the head there is a just a small connection between the front and back of the head. Now if the shroud had been wrapped around the Lord’s head there would have been a wide imprint to include the sides of the head. I Just finished a quick experiment where I wet the front, side and back of my head then pressed a light linen cloth around my head. I patted all around to get an “image”. And an image I did get! One that is very broad on the sides with an elongated connection between the front and back as wide as the head itself. To me, it seems the imprint was taken from a flat object, hence the narrow connection between front and back head!

Conclusion: “Let Scripture speak. God reveals what He wants us to know, and since He does not mention a shroud in the grave with Christ, this should settle the issue for Christians.”3

Science should not be utilized to try to make a point or proof for God. If the Ark were found, or the covenant of the ark, those who do not want to listen would still not be convinced. "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," Luke 16:31b.

I truly believe that scripture is God-breathed scientific and historical evidence. I believe the Bible word for word, cover to cover.

Until next time, God bless and take care!
Willow Dressel



Monday, August 1, 2016



Hello all my fine friends out there! Another beautiful but hot day here in the U.S.A. I hope and pray all is well with you readers. All i swell here in my little life too, just very busy with friends and family. We all do things together as well as separately. Often we leave hand written notes or text messages. Those texts are so handy, I love it!

Speaking of messages, have you ever heard of the Voynich Manuscript? The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated hand-written book in an unknown language. The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century. The manuscript is named after Wilfred Voynich, a Polish book dealer who purchased the book in 1912. Though some of the pages are missing, around 240 remain. The text is written from left to right, and most of the pages have illustrations or diagrams. The majority of the illustrations are of plants and it seems the book was made as a recording of their medicinal uses. The back of the book however, does contain star charts and zodiacs. Some pages are foldable sheets and expand to double or quadruple in size. The most interesting thing about this book is that the language it is written in has, to date, been undecipherable. 

There are several theories about this book writings. Some believe that the “words” are actually codes to be looked up in a dictionary or other such type of codebook. However the length of the book makes this theory doubtful.

Others believe that the text is mostly meaningless but contains meaningful information hidden in inconspicuous details—e.g., the second letter of every word, or the number of letters in each line. This theory is called steganography

Still other researchers believe that the book contains constructed language. They believe that the basis of the script was a very primitive form of synthetic universal language. But such a thing is more systematic thus this theory is doubtful as well.

Researchers also believe the book was written in a natural language. “The linguistJ acques Guy once suggested that the Voynich manuscript text could be some little-known natural language, written in the plain with an invented alphabet. The word structure is similar to that of many language families of East and Central Asia, mainly Sino-Tibetan (Chinese, Tebetan, and Burmese), Austroasiatic (Vietnamese, Khmer, etc) and possibly Tai (Tai, Lao, etc.). In many of these languages, the words have only one syllable; and syllables have a rather rich structure, including tonal patterns.This theory has some historical plausibility. While those languages generally had native scripts, these were notoriously difficult for Western visitors. This difficulty motivated the invention of several phonetic scripts, mostly with Latin letters but sometimes with invented alphabets. Although the known examples are much later than the Voynich manuscript, history records hundreds of explorers and missionaries who could have done it—even before
a place where the manuscript has been retouched
Marco Polo’s thirteenth century journey, but especially after Vasci da Gama sailed the sea route to the Orient in 1499. The first page includes two large red symbols, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book titleThe main argument for this theory is that it is consistent with all statistical properties of the Voynich manuscript text which have been tested so far, including doubled and tripled words (which have been found to occur in Chinese and Vietnamese texts at roughly the same frequency as in the Voynich manuscript). It also explains the apparent lack of numerals and Western syntactic features (such as articles and 

copulas), and the general inscrutability of the illustrations. Another possible hint is two large red symbols on the first page, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book title, inverted and badly copied. Also, the apparent division of the year into 360 days (rather than 365 days), in groups of 15 and starting with Pisces, are features of the Chinese agriculture calendar (jie qi, 節氣). The main argument against the theory is the fact that no one (including scholars at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing) has been able to find any clear examples of Asian symbolism or Asian science in the illustrations.”1

Another natural language was proposed by linguist James R Child, expert in Indo-European languages. He believes “…the manuscript was written in a ‘hitherto unknown North Germanic dialect’. He identified in the manuscript a ‘skeletal syntax several elements of which are reminiscent of certain Germanic languages’, while the content itself is expressed using ‘a great deal of obscurity’.”Other natural languages researchers think the manuscript may have come from are; New Spain, Latin and Aztec.

Still other researchers believe the manuscript is a hoax but due to its detailed work, this is not a very popular belief. 

And then there are those who believe the manuscript was written by aliens and that the plants that are detailed are from their planet. This is almost laughable because the parchment is made out of goat skin and the outer covering out of calf skin. Drawing of many of the plants are recognizable as from the sunflower or thistle families. And  the zodiacs in the back of the book feature animals that are familiar such as fish, snakes, sheep and even a dragon, not to mention a castle!
Also there are a lot of people in the book, some even clothed in medieval garments. And there are lots of naked women and stars.

Now if you recall from previous blogs written about the advance technology of ancient man, these people are talented and smart. There were approximately 78 languages after the split and many more developed after that. It is only logical that of the 78 some went extinct and some became altered to drastically different tongues. The most reasonable explanation for the book is that it was written in an archaic form of literature and language from our very own ancestors. 

The people that want to believe this manuscript is from an alien society are blind and lost. And promote the whole alien theory. Anything to bring aliens into the picture, like my friend David said, so when the rapture occurs, they will be justified that aliens did it.

Until next week, God bless and take care,
Willow Dressel


Sunday, July 24, 2016



Good day everyone! How have you all fared this past week? Here across North America we are still in a heat wave. I am looking very much forward to autumn as I am sure some of you readers living below the equator are looking forward to warmer weather. It’s amazing how us humans have spread all over the world and can now keep in touch with a simple keystroke.

But what about centuries or even millennials ago? Did people travel all around the globe? What about ancient artifacts that are found out of place? Where did they come from? Many think they are messages or parts left by aliens.

Let’s take a look at two; the Phaistos Disk and the Coso Artifact. The Phaistos disk is an interesting “circular clay disc covered with inscribed symbols on both sides that are unlike any signs in any writing system. It was discovered in the ancient city of Phaistos in Southern Crete in 1908. It is thought to date to around 1700 BC (from associated archaeological context), roughly contemporary with. This object has been the subject of many studies. Steven Fischer has claimed to have deciphered it and that it was a document in an archaic form of Greek. Because no other similar artifacts have ever been found anywhere in the Crete, it is thought that the object was foreign and brought in from another place. The place of its origin is extremely speculative, although subtle clues may exist in the highly pictorial signs on the disc. A sign depicts a helmet with crest, which was used later by Philistines. Another sign depicts a structure similar to sarcophagus used by the Lycians of Asia Minor.”1 

Believe it or not, there are those people who think this disk was left by aliens from a different planet. This is partly due to the fact that “no one seems to have been able to translate the mysterious language inscribed on the disk, which dates back to 1700 B.C. and the height of the Minoan civilization — until now…The disk can be read in a spiral direction from the outside rim to the inside. Using what previous studies have shown about Cretan hieroglyphics, and the scripts Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B from ancient Greece, the researcher was able to identify three key words: IQEKURJA, which may mean ‘pregnant mother’ and/or ‘goddess.’ IQE, which may mean ‘mother’ and/or ‘goddess’ and which appears repeatedly on the disk. IQEPAJE or IQE-PHAE, which may mean ‘shining mother’ or ‘goddess.’ ”2  Now that part of the code has been broken, you would think there wouldn’t be any more talk about the disk being of alien origin. But there is! For example states “It was made of fired clay. Whoever or whatever (some theories involve alien intelligence) made it by pressing hieroglyphic seals into a soft disc of clay to form symbols spiraling from the disk's center.”3 Wikipedia even says the hieroglyphics tell of a date the aliens will return and attack the earth. Wow, really? Why would they (if they existed) do that? That surely wouldn’t give them the advantage. Not to bright for a supposed scientifically advanced culture. 

What I am trying to point out is how un-factual the whole alien  theory is. Even when evidence is provided to the contrary, there are those who refuse to believe it. They would rather stick with weak, un-factual theories. 

After the language split at the Tower of Babel, many languages came into being. Linguists believe there were seventy-eight. Out of those original seventy-eight more languages developed and changed as people changed from generation to generation and moved around the earth. It is quite natural that some tongues would become outdated and unrecognizable altogether after a while. And that would go for the written language as well. 
After all, in the USA and other places in the world, there are many words that have different meaning that they did one hundred years ago. Bad does not necessarily mean bad any more!

But one thing never changes and that is God and His word. We can always rely on it and Jesus is always true to it.

Until next time, take care and God bless,
Willow Dressel