Replies

Because of the length of DU’s last two posts, I will have to break my replys over three posts. But for the lurkers out there, this series will show the absolute emptyness of the mormon apologetic regarding actual physical data with which one can evaluate the claims of the bom. Additionally, it will showcase the low threshold and sources of evidences in comparison to independent scientific studies.

Tell you what, you admit that Hugh Nibley was always right, and I'll go with your interpretation... I didn't think you would go with that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to insist that he was wrong on many other things, and insist that I say he was right on this one?

Nice how you try to isolate him from FARMS/Maxwell inst who also apparently view this irrefutable artifact as a fraud too. If los lunas proof cannot get over their low bar – perhaps you should take notice. In my search today, FARMS/Maxwell search for the term “Los Lunas” still turns up empty

So? how many things have you actually source on this thread (pot ... Kettle...)

I have cited sources for the scientific studies and where possible the links. I believe the lurkers out there can tell the difference between my factual back up and your fictional backup.

You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places htat paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas.

Funny DUh, most of your sources that have been provided have conistently indicated it was Phonecian, not proto-Hebrew and there are no citations that either used greek characters mixed in.

You said that was no evidence, there is, it's not "mainstream" or the Book of Mormon would be "mainstream". But the evidence exists, if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence against, you can find that too.

Not all evidence is equal. Yes, even fraud could be considered evidence in your world. It has been found sorely lacking and if this were a court trial, it would be dismissed for lacking authenticity. Nib’s knew that, so do FARMS/Maxwell, so does the smithsonian, so do all legitimate archaeologists.

So you finally have two objections that are not just smoke and mirrors, the dots to separate words have been found in other period documents you might want to review The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

Right, Kerry Shirts, a wonderful self proclaimed expert, I can see why you would cite him. No it is not the ‘dots’ but the carets used, not present in hebrew until the middle ages and not earlier. Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.

It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread. Unfortunately, while the Lachish ostraca do provide great historic data, they do not prove the bom to be correct in the slightest. First, the ostraca only deal with pre-exile information. Secondly, during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah Lehi prays (1 Nephi) and receives visions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of its Jewish residents. Well that is a very easy prophecy to make, considering that the first year of the reign of Zedekiah is after those very same events. Why did Lehi, having heard Jeremiah’ warnings for so long as a life-long resident of Jerusalem, wait until after the deportation and destruction to start warning the residents of deportation and the destruction of Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . Only a non-existant writer would have made that tale up.

please note the Lachish letters also speak of a prophet of God who was sought by the military having left his home and fled into the wilderness (sound familiar? It should)

As indicated above, they alledgedly left in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign. Now take a deep breath, Lachish is before the deportation and before they alledgedly left. In this case this prophet was someone other than Lehi.

A) I said Probably and alter (the speculation was clear) B) The pyramids are not a "controlled site" and you don't seem to deny they exist.

Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).

What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

Reduces the chance of fraud.

GZ: There is also no evidence that he did either, but Phoenician was known at the time, and that is the language most of your links in the past have attributed it to, not to Hebrews.
That's what I said, there is no evidence that he did... Wait, you agreed with me in an argumentative fashion,that means you left out the word not, got it... Proof read man proof read!

There is no evidence he (or any other) didn’t know hebrew or have access to the Phonecian script. You yourself have stated he damaged the site – hardly a credable witness as to what was there to begin with.

Please explain why when it's read in~~Hebrew~~ Phoenician (palo of course) it's the ten commandments...

There, fixed it for you. Please explain why it is read line sequence 1, 3 then 2? Such an error is likely that of someone copying and not some one with any fluency in the language.

GZ How do you know they are from the same period. Have archaeologist gone out there and excavated to show that those holes and rock piles actually constitute fortifications
Because the people examining the site said they "appeared to be from the same period" I have not actually seen the sit myself, you?

Oh, these same non-archaeologists DU? Or just people with a lot of imagination. And since you don’t bother to cite it. . . . .

Hugh Nibley is not God. I think he's wrong. Hibben was not there long enough to have refaced and re-carved the stone, he did some really stupid things, but he just didn't have time to forge the inscription.

Again, how do you know this to be true DU, since you admit to not being there. Evidence shows that the writer didn’t know methods of engraving or know the phraselogy accurately to do it freehand. Nib’ster may be goofy, but at least he did at times place a measure on scientific reality on a study, and with much more to be gained by a verifiable artifact, he still used his professional judgement to call it a fraud – a decision that remains that of FARMS/Maxwell today.

let's get a bit of information about the site: From Some background information on the history of the Inscription Rock

Lurkers will note that this link sends on to a website that is not affiliated with any credable scientific/archaeological organization. There is no indication of who the author of the site is, but there is a book offered for sale by Barry Fell (America BC,1976), an amateur epigraphist. His claims for scientific rigour might hold for marine biology, but when it came to archaeological interpretation, he ignored the usual rules of evidence. Moreover, his publications were largely aimed at non specialists; instead of submitting his papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals (the usual procedure), he preferred to publish either in popular books or through the Epigraphic Society of North America, a society that can be characterised, not altogether unfairly, as being composed of his disciples. In other words, he shows all the characteristics of a Bad Archaeologist. Again hearsay. May be true, may be false or trumped up reporting. As such it is worthless as a citation or source.

and according to one story I read, Franz took a rubbing and sent it to the Smithsonian, the link I had is no longer working, and I am unable to find another source, so... Either which way he knew about it and owned the land, so that places a definitive date for the rock's carving to exist then, if not before (since the Indians claimed it was there before they came to the area.

There are more than one way to document a citation DU, I don’t care if a link doesn’t work, there are more than one way to get to the information, so either put what you have up or withdraw the claim

And Godlike productions has the following on it's site:

LOL, you never cease to amaze me. For the lurkers out there, DU’s link has in its title graphic
UFO
Conspiracy Theorists
Lunatic Fringe

Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life in this apology. In two consecutive posts you send me to a UFO related website. You really have my pitty that you rely upon MUFON for you evidence to support the bom. We are trying to evaluate real, legitimate facts, not tinfoil.

Sadly anti Mormons who think there is something there have also been at work:

Already one can see that this is not going to be an unbiased review.

When his Grandson first saw the stone in 1930 as he reported later at a very old age; "It was 2/3rds covered in Lichen and half buried in a drift of concreted dirt"

Wow, half buried, no evidence of that in Hibben’s report. If an object is 2/3ds covered in lichen, it would be impossible to get any kind of decent rubbing of any kind, so the sooner you find that reference the quicker you can think straight again. Of course you can go to the link of the contributor of DU’s quote and Every contributor of over $1,000 receives a reproduction Los Lunas Decalogue text in the same script and stone! Anyone with half a functioning brain can see where this irrefutable source of information is going.

Some anti Mormons don't fall ideologically far from Mark Hoffman,. . . . . . In this case someone doesn't want the stone to be identified as Hebrew so badly they are willing to destroy it as if that will change the truth.

Oh this is rich, no wonder you seek out Conspiracy Theorists websites for your documentation LOL. So now someone is out to get the Los Lunas stone, ROTFLAICGU!!!!!! After you posted the UFO site again, I thought your credabilty couldn’t go any lower – you continue to surprise me. Your apologetic is a mile wide and half an inch deep and remarkably, you are drowning in it.

An abridgment almost identical to the one on the Tel Dan Stone? ROTFLOL! Right,I almost forgot to add in that support, thanks!

Again, stick to your script. For starters, the Tel Dan Stele does not contain an abridgement of the Decalogue, nor is the Decalogue to be found on it at all (you really should read your references). Yawn, look here it is at your level of understanding. Pay attention to the part called “Inscription narrative”. Do your home work and show me how they have the same abridgement.

There is plenty of evidence against many true things if you look hard enough, so?

The authencity of the evidence is at issue here. Again, you make your self out to be a 911 truther with that line of reasoning.

If it was perfect Hebrew, it would support the Book of Momron even less. Hebrew Scholars think it is almost blasphemy for someone to alter the spelling of the law, but if that was how you wrote everything... Even the flaws back it up.

If these claims about the inscription are correct, then it shows extraordinary carelessness. The Decalogue is one of the best known passages of the Bible and for anyone whose native tongue was Hebrew, it ought to have been all but impossible for the inscriber to make elementary errors. They did, though. In some places, the text is abbreviated; this is not unusual in ancient inscriptions, but in something so important as the Decalogue, it is surprising. The writer also changed the word order from the original Hebrew, something a person who believed in the inspired and unchangeable nature of the supposed words of Moses would never have done. . If he was a Jew, "lashon hakodesh" [the holy tongue] would have been a priority) regardless of whether he mixed his language as Nephi pretends. Therefore, it is the mistakes that indicate it to be a fraud and the creator likely that he thought his audience would not know the difference.

Further evidence of a Hellenistic or Byzantine influence on Los Lunas is provided by Skupin (1989). He analyzes the orthographic errors of the Los Lunas text itself, and concludes that it appears to have been written by a person whose primary language was Greek, who had a secondary, but verbal, comprehension of Hebrew. He writes of the inscriber, He used the consonant [aleph] as if it were a vowel, like the Greek alpha, even though this clashes with the Hebrew orthographic system .... He confounded [qoph] and [caph] as a Philhellene who only knew kappa might do, and was sufficiently removed from Hebrew to be unaware that he had made an irreverent slip thereby. Most amazingly, he 'heard' macrons, the drawling long vowels that are structurally and semantically important in Greek ... and felt compelled to indicate them even if he was not exactly sure of how it's done (and rightly so, since in Hebrew they're insignificant).... His word order suggests a scriptural tradition related to a Greek version produced in Alexandria, Egypt, as does his spelling; and finally, he gives inordinate prominence to the words 'brought you out of Egypt.'

So it has something that resembles paleo-Hebrew. As the above quotes indicate, that is far from an authenticating feature.

Is it possible Godzilla, that Hugh Nibley realizing that the stone weighing 80 tons (and therefore unmovable to a museum)) would be a target if he "authenticated" it? As it has gained in notoriety, it has been vandalized...

Not in the slightest. Archaeological evidence of the sort could have been protected in many ways. That is simply mindreading DU and Nib’s statements say nothing of the sort. Again, the gain for a authenticated artifact would far outweigh all else. It wasn’t authentic.

I have testified that I received a witness from God, but putting the Book of Mormon to The Test. You claim I am wrong, and are supposed to be proving me wrong.

I have prayed about the bom and God witnessed to me that it was false. Your own prophets challenge all to test the bom. So far it is failing miserably. Lurkers will note that this is a common tactic to deflect the reader from the truth of the evidence against mormonism.

The only unimpeachable evidence in this world comes from God.

Once again, subjectivism versus reality. Is the wall you are hitting your head against real DU? Did God reveal if it was real or not?

That I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to reasonable people.

LOL, right, by sending the lurker to an presentation made at a UFO convention – that passes beyond a shadow of my doubt. Reasonable people don’t look to ET and reasonable people, such as the fine lurkers here, can see through smoke screens and weigh the evidence, which is clearly against the authencity of the los lunas stone.

Please explain to us again how Moroni meant he had no Lamanite Blood when the said he was a "pure descendant of Lehi" Even though Nephi and Laman were full brothers.

Come on DUh, I’ve already addressed it twice. Its that old race card mormonism had in place until 1978. Lamanites were turned “dark and loathesom”, and to intermarry by Nephites was forbidden. Thus he was stating the purity in being white and delightsome. Still doesn’t matter, same hebraic/ middle eastern genetics.

Mormons have never dissed the Bible, it's one of our canonized standard works.

as far as correctly translated Still have yet to see which parts have not been correctly translated. But then one must resort to misleading the lurkers that mormonism has never dissed the bible (would that be considered a lie?). Lurkers – a quick hint, DU will later attempt to diss the bible via the same Smithsonian Inst. that condems the bom’s accuracy for archaeology.

Sometimes, sometimes the answer comes in other ways, God is not limited and his answers are always perfectly delivered. If you had read my testimony, you would know that my witness was not a warm and fuzzy experience, but much more specific than that.

You can always tell when a mormon’s apologetic is crumbling, they have to recite their testimony for moral support. You’re drowning in that half inch deep apologetic DU.

How do you know Hugh Nibley would have had anything else available to him? How do you know he wasn't saying that and the church does not talk about the stone to protect it? How do you know I am not truthful when you accuse me of a lie?

Go back and read his quote again DU. There is absolutely nothing there to indicate the mormon church is lying to protect it (lying for the Lord). With all the LDS’s money, they could easily bought up the site – just like they did at Mountain Meadows. Argument from ignorance.

Please present your credentials as an archeologist, or we'll all just have to take you for an internet braggart on the "I know more than you do" comment.

The age claims were based upon a WAG (do you know what those letters stand for DU?) made by a geologist – not an archaeologist, so stay focused. But then you probably still think I’m a paid minister LOL.

I don't have to prove the dates, the inscription was there (as witness by Indians and people who had seen it before 1850,

Therefore, by Occams razor, the rock is no younger than 1850

the man who bought the land knew it was there 1871 no-one could have read or written the script before about 1940

The Phoenician script was available before Hibbens discovery as early as the 1800’s

(I have seen an estimate for the, it would take about a year with the tools Hibben had) then it is genuine. Can you prove that he did that?

Again, I never said he did, never said he didn’t, only his professional judgement is lacking in the interpretation. However, how do you know what tools he had with him? Which story is correct.

This ends Part 1 of 3

GZ Because of the length of DU’s last two posts, I will have to break my replys over three posts.

Golly Gee, your posts are so short, how on earth did this happen?

Oh wait, you keep throwing things in (because you can't support your arguments) and this kitchen sink approach leads to large posts that no-one reads. LOL!

GZ But for the lurkers out there, this series will show the absolute emptyness of the mormon apologetic regarding actual physical data with which one can evaluate the claims of the bom. Additionally, it will showcase the low threshold and sources of evidences in comparison to independent scientific studies.

And he'll do this while spinning a plate on his nose, LOL!

Can we just stick to DNA and how the heck you get a valid result from a corrupted sample?

I'm a programmer, remember? Garbage in Garbage out! Words to live by my FRiend, words to live by.

DU Tell you what, you admit that Hugh Nibley was always right, and I'll go with your interpretation... I didn't think you would go with that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to insist that he was wrong on many other things, and insist that I say he was right on this one?

GZ Nice how you try to isolate him from FARMS/Maxwell inst who also apparently view this irrefutable artifact as a fraud too. If los lunas proof cannot get over their low bar – perhaps you should take notice. In my search today, FARMS/Maxwell search for the term “Los Lunas” still turns up empty

You are the one who brought up Nibley as if he was infallible and I just "Had to accept anything he said as Authoritative", I searched for Godzilla in the Bible and didn't find you there... So?

DU So? how many things have you actually sourced on this thread (pot ... Kettle...)

GZ I have cited sources for the scientific studies and where possible the links. I believe the lurkers out there can tell the difference between my factual back up and your fictional backup.

LOL! I think they can too, and it isn't going well for you from the FMs I'm getting...

DU You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places that paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas.

GZ Funny DUh, most of your sources that have been provided have conistently indicated it was Phonecian, not proto-Hebrew and there are no citations that either used greek characters mixed in.

Paleo Hebrew and Phonetician are very close, but there are differences, call it what ever you want, they couldn't read it when the stone was discovered, or when the Indians say they first discovered it (when they moved into the area), then that goof Higgen came in an messed up the site, and now you want to say he forged it, say what you want, it's your opinion, but it's just not fact. You can no more get proof for or against the Book of Mormon from a "corrupted" site then you can get an accurate result from a DNA sample that is corrupted. (Hey, I actually brought us back on topic!)

The one argument invalidates the other, and that is why I went with the Los Lunas stone, I knew you'd go there.

DU You said that was no evidence, there is, it's not "mainstream" or the Book of Mormon would be "mainstream". But the evidence exists, if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence against, you can find that too.

GZ Not all evidence is equal.

Boy you can say that again. The DNA evidence by a guy who's a plant Biologist which started this whole thing is certainly not equal to the evidence of a Population Geneticist who pioneered the science, who finds the plant biologist's work to be in error.

GZ Yes, even fraud could be considered evidence in your world.

Um, don't you have that backwards? I have already invoked Mark Hoffmann, the forger, who's documents have not all been tracked down.

GZ It has been found sorely lacking and if this were a court trial, it would be dismissed for lacking authenticity.

If this were a court trial your DNA evidence would be bounced for the same reason (which was my point!)

GZ Nib’s knew that, so do FARMS/Maxwell, so does the smithsonian, so do all legitimate archaeologists.

So do all legitimate DNA Experts...

DU So you finally have two objections that are not just smoke and mirrors, the dots to separate words have been found in other period documents you might want to review The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

GZ is still talking about the Los Lunas Stone...)

GZ Right, Kerry Shirts, a wonderful self proclaimed expert, I can see why you would cite him. No it is not the ‘dots’ but the carets used, not present in hebrew until the middle ages and not earlier. Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.

Kind of like a wonderful self proclaimed expert on DNA... and as for the Sources, Lurkers note, Godzilla has not yet quoted any source... (Point set match, would you care to play again? LOL!)

DU Quoted It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

GZ I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.

I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!

GZ Unfortunately, while the Lachish ostraca do provide great historic data, they do not prove the bom to be correct in the slightest.

Lurkers note that Godzilla cut the link to the quote and I added it back in, nad I'll include it here: The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

The Lachish Letters agree with the Book of Mormon about so many things that used to be places where anti's would attack us for being outrageously wrong (Godzilla kept trying to say Nephi and his brothers would have been dragged to Babylon before Lehi left Jerusalem in this thread), the Lachish letters set the time and the period perfectly, in that the deportation had not happened yet!

LOL! This is huge! This is either the hugest collections of the luckiest guesses in the history of the world, or it's absolute support for the Book of Mormon. Godzilla, I assume you will not accept it, I know it will not prove to anyone who is not a Mormon that Book of Mormon is true, but if you have read the Book of Mormon, and received an answer, this will just POP in front of your eyes!

GZ First, the ostraca only deal with pre-exile information.

Which is when the Book of Mormon exodus was taking place... (people kept telling us we had the time wrong, this moved that time archeologists used to use to match our time line...)

From The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we're clearly in the same time frame and same place. The two sets of documents (BofM and the LL) ought to match up pretty good. (see also, Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah" in *Journal of Near Eastern Studies*, Vol. 15, 1956, p. 229-230)

They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.

LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).

So, the Time frame of the destruction was wrong and is corrected by the Lachish Letters to now agree with the Book of Mormon, which had the date right first and was criticized for it.

GZ Secondly, during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah Lehi prays (1 Nephi) and receives visions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of its Jewish residents. Well that is a very easy prophecy to make, considering that the first year of the reign of Zedekiah is after those very same events.

Actually, that's the old Archeological information, See the Lachish Letters, they talk about Prophets still prophesying this in the last year of the reign of Zedikiah (the sixth year)...

I'm gonna cut your continuing wail about this non issue for Brevity, and mercy <--Snip-->

GZ Only a non-existant writer would have made that tale up.

Or told the truth and waited for Archeology to catch up...

GZ As indicated above, they alledgedly left in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign. Now take a deep breath, Lachish is before the deportation and before they alledgedly left. In this case this prophet was someone other than Lehi.

BZZT! Wrong! Go back to Remedial reading 101. The Lachish Letters are in the Sixth year of the reign of Zedikia, and therefore the "deportation" had not happened yet (because they talk about the war leading up to it...

From The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we re clearly in the same time frame and same place.

Read slowly, you 'll get it eventually. (Now we jump back to Los Lunas again)

DU A) I said Probably an alter (the speculation was clear) B) The pyramids are not a "controlled site" and you don't seem to deny they exist.

GZ Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).

LOL! Clearly for you, Experts make the evidence "real" except for when those experts are now Mormons, or agree with Mormons, or... (Keith Crandall Vs What's his name Southerton for example).

DU What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

GZ Reduces the chance of fraud.

Do you know how many Frauds have been perpetrated in Archeology on the "experts", LOL! Google Archeology Fraud, for some fun.

I'm gonna cut the rest of your "tit for tat" on the Los Lunas stone, My points have been made:

A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enought to invalidate it by any means, you can.
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you.

you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.

<--Snip-->

I will address your comment that I am Dissing the Bible by pointing out that the Smithsonian does not consider it a Historical guide. This note was offered as a direct comparison to the Book of Mormon not being recognized by the Smithsonian that way either. The point was not to "diss" the Bible, but to point out that Archeology is not Religion and Vice Versa.

I submit that anyone who believes in the Bible only because of archeological evidence has a weak testimony and needs to spend more time in prayer and with the Bible and less time with the Smithsonian.

Similarly, anyone who disbelieves the Book of Mormon because they have not seen a peer reviewed paper saying it is true needs to spend more time on their knees and with the Book of Mormon and less time with the Smithsonian.

Archeology will never teach you eternal truth because it comes from man. The Gospel teaches eternal truths because it comes from God. I promote people putting the trust in God, not man.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.