News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!
Thursday, June 25, 2020
One of most significant messages I've heard in recent times -- "The time for detachment is now" Addition: Activist demands that images of Jesus come down! It's happening!
Only ONE particular individual Catholic posted offensive comments here over the past few days.
Anyone with a brain can tell by a person's writing style (+ misspellings, grammar, etc.) that those offensive comments came from the very SAME single individual.
He has been reprimanded by two other Catholic posters (who are regulars on this blog)... and also by Constance.
But, copying & pasting and posting this TWICE today makes two prominent ANTI-Catholics on this blog feel very SMUG, self-righteous, and comfortable... as if they have been given a green light to continue their bigotry.
Thanks for feet held to the fire comments, paul. And I do not think you are malicious when you do. I do not see that in your posts over a lot of time gone by. I appreciate that you are not coming against persons to go after them personally, but after an institution that has gotten away with whole eras of egregious things. The truth is the truth is the truth, and if ever there was a time to tell it, it's now.
Thanks 7:18 By the way I actually miss Susanna, who always had a civilized and well informed reply to any of my criticisms. Also, I am aware that some of the worst examples of Christianity in the world are some of these protestant mega church lukewarm frauds. And I'll say this again for the umpteenth time: I believe that there are many many sincere God-fearing, Jesus Christ loving, Roman Catholics. They just don't know or don't want to know how corrupt the Vatican is and has been for a long time. After all, the Apostles Creed is the same in my church as it is in RC churches. But that's where I hear Jesus, in Matthew 23, saying "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to do, that do, but do not as the Pharisees do, for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. So I will continue to say; "Come out of her my people, and do not partake in her sins. I'd tell the members of the Saddleback Church and the Crystal Cathedral, and the The Joel Osteen mob the same thing.
"I am not the first to spot an unkind tone in what you convey in your posts about the Jews, RayB. Constance herself recently asked you that very thing. Others have mentioned this too."
NOTE: In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," one of the tactics in dealing with the "enemy" is to accuse them of something, whether true or not, in order to put them on the defensive. As long as the ACCUSATION is made, it is enough to cause many people to "suspect" that the accusation "just might be true." This puts your enemy in a weak position and is "very effective."
This is PRECISELY what you are doing. I've had this utterly false accusation thrown at me before, and I have met the challenge with "show your proof ... copy and paste" what I have posted in order to prove your position.
Just as I thought .... you posted nothing.
Your false accusations are not going unnoticed by the Lord.
Constance should also be ashamed of herself for asking such a loaded, completely unfounded question as well. Particularly, since I have NEVER posted ANYTHING on here that could in any way be construed to be "anti-Semetic."
What's next? Is someone going to ask me if I'm a Nazi? It really is a tactic right out of Rules for Radicals. SHAME !!!
Come out of her my people and do not partake of her sins crosses the many denominational lines. I have said the like myself a number of times here and other places too, because it is just true. When we see Jesus all denominational lines will be erased. We all have truth to hold on to from the Lord but none of us is complete yet as God continues to build His spiritual house awaiting the day when He is before us. We will know then won't we? We all have pieces and parts right now since none of us has "arrived" but each believer can be so thankful for that day that is coming. Jesus is coming back sooner than we realize.
1 Corinthians 13 spells this out or us so well. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror [e]dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the [f]greatest of these is love.
Actually would be good for me to read the entire Love chapter again.
Yes, I can't wait until you BIGOTS confront my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on Judgement Day and tell HIM that you told Catholics (who belong to the church that HE founded in 33 AD) to 'come out of her' . . .
Re: 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things. ???
And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
"Only ONE particular individual Catholic posted offensive comments here over the past few days.
"Anyone with a brain can tell by a person's writing style (+ misspellings, grammar, etc.) that those offensive comments came from the very SAME single individual."
NICE TRY.
The writing style of the first one is VERY different from the other(s). The 2nd and 3rd have enough similarities to each other to say: maybe the same single poster, maybe two.
And, by the way, YOU wouldn't happen to BE (if 2 total) the OTHER venomous 'Catholic' poster, trying to shift blame by any chance now, would you? The person who had a visceral reaction when the mention of what constitutes a FEDERAL CRIME as defined in the Anti-Stalking law was posted, perhaps suddenly anxious that he or she might now be looking at finding themself in VERY serious trouble?
Re: "I believe that there are many many sincere God-fearing, Jesus Christ loving, Roman Catholics. They just don't know or don't want to know how corrupt the Vatican is and has been for a long time."
And, as Constance has pointed out many, many times... the New Age Movement has infiltrated ALL of the religions (Protestant AND Catholic). YOUR churches are no exception!!!
But, to demand that we Catholics abandon our traditional Catholic FAITH when we have the PROMISE of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD that "... the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)... that is something that you will have to 'answer for' on Judgement Day.
It means that, in the year 33 AD, Jesus KNEW what was going to happen less than 2,000 years later... and He wanted to let us know that we have HIS WORD THAT EVIL WILL NOT WIN!!!
I’m on Team Christian, not Team Protestant or Team Catholic. I look at historical facts and evidence, from original sources (to the extent we assume they are uncorrupted, of course). I agree that ca. AD 33 Jesus founded His church (His ekklēsia, which in the NT era most generally meant “congregation/assembly of people”, not a physical structure or a hierarchical authority structure; see its use in Acts 19:32, 39, 40 for non-Christian application). But where do we go from there?
According to Eusebius of Caesarea—whom the Catholic website New Advent affirms (as does the Wikipedia entry) as a “Father of Church History”—is a bit ambiguous regarding the first bishop (not “Pope”) of Rome. The Greek πάππας (pappas), “pope” (according to the Wikipedia entry), does not seem to appear at all in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. (Nor does this term appear in 1st-2nd century Greek texts, including the NT, as far as I’ve seen—it is absent in the BDAG lexicon, e.g.) The similar πάππος (pappos), “grandfather”, is found myriad times in Philo.
James the Just, Jesus’ half-brother appears to be the very first bishop chosen, and he was chosen to be the Bishop of Jerusalem. Each use of the “bishop” or “episcopate” in C. F. Cruse’s translation of Ecclesiastical History below is from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer/bishop/guardian”. This term is found five times in the NT (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25):
(2.1.2)…This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem. (2.1.3) Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus : “Peter, and James, and John, after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem" (Eccl. Hist. 2.1.2-3 [Book 2, Chapter 1, Sections 2-3])
Later in Eusebius’ work, the first Bishop of Rome is mentioned:
(3.1.1) …But the holy apostles and disciples of our Savior were scattered over the whole world… (2) Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews who were scattered abroad, he finally came to Rome and was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way… (3.2.1) After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received the episcopate at Rome… (3.4.8) …Linus, whom [Paul] mentions in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been before shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome. (3.4.9) Clement also, who was appointed the third bishop of this church was proved by him to be a fellow laborer with him.
How can we disambiguate? In the back of Cruse’s translation is a list of “Bishops of Rome”. The list is prefaced with these words:
According to Eusebius, Peter and Paul died as martyrs at Rome; after these followed:
1. Linus 2. Anencletus [ED: this is Eusebius’ spelling] 3. Clement
…and the list continues on. Note that not only is Peter not mentioned in the list, Clement is third, in agreement with 3.4.9 above.
As for Irenaeus, the recognized Church Father, here’s the relevant section, as from the New Advent site (Against Heresies 3.3.2-3):
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.
Like in Eusebius, Peter and Paul are both mentioned, and both are either called “holy apostles and disciples” (Eusebius) or “apostles” (Irenaeus). The first Bishop of Rome is Linus, the third is Clement.
I should also add, the new word papas was used by Bishop Dionysius of Alexander (232-248) as an apparent term of respect in addressing his predecessor Heracles, according to Eusebius (7.7.4). The accompanying footnote to this neologism (new word) reads:
"The word πάπας [papas] here used, and applied by Dionysius to his predecessor at Alexandria was, as we see in this instance, applied to the more aged and venerable prelates. We thus see the origin of the word pope, Latin papa, German pabst. This word is no doubt to be traced to the language of nature, as forming the first syllables that the infant lisps. It is explained by a scholiast on Juvenal, Senex veneratione dignus, pater (See Juv. Sat. vi. 632)."
I see my weblink in the first comment did not work; here it is:
So Scripture is contradicting Scripture 9:20PM? That is not possible. God cannot contradict Himself. What Jesus said while He was speaking to adults in Matthew 18, refers to a humble childlike heart, like a child trusts it's father in a simple expression of childlike faith for salvation, for being converted.
But the context in 1 Corinthians 13 is about growth in the graces, in sanctification, of the inner man who has become a believer, is born again a spiritual man, who now needs to be growing more loving and kind, growing more discerning in conduct, growing more wise in the truth God's Spirit teaches....growing as Jesus did as that 12 year old boy in the temple (though He was perfect), He grew in stature before God and men so He is our example in this context. So it is we believers who are told in the Bible to put off the old nature to put on the new nature afforded us by the Holy Spirit at conversion. If we believe Jesus don't we want to become like Him? And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:52
There are two phases of a believer's life. Becoming converted, and then becoming like Jesus by walking by faith. True faith wants to live out the true love of Jesus and the Love chapter shows us what that faith should look like.
Uh, 9:49 PM. I think you must have missed what Paul said in that 7:40 PM post..
"So I will continue to say; "Come out of her my people, and do not partake in her sins. I'd tell the members of the Saddleback Church and the Crystal Cathedral, and the The Joel Osteen mob the same thing." He did not exclude other denominations, he gave a few examples.
And you must have MISSED the last 15 years... when Paul was constantly telling Catholics to 'come out of her'.
By refusing to abandon our traditional Catholic FAITH that Jesus created in 33 AD... we are TRUSTING in the PROMISE of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who told us:
"... and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Do any of you DENY that Jesus wants us to come to Him like little children???
These are the words of Jesus . . . And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
Many have discovered when they entered college... that professors would try to convince them that all of that 'religious stuff' they learned as children was just to help them form their conscience... but, now that they were adults, they needed to abandon / deprogram themselves from that way of thinking... and begin to question everything!!! Sounds familiar . . .
I honestly do believe, and will remain in the belief, that if you are a Catholic that has come to a personal relationship with the Savior, Jesus Christ you should leave the Catholic institution. There is an evil, perverted, and violent spirit that resides in that institution, and I'm sure the Lord would have you chose to leave!
2 Peter 3:18 says...but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
Yes, come to Him as a child (childlike, humble) to be converted, saved, and grow in His love and grace to mature as His disciple.
Does a baby stay a baby? A good parent wants their child to grow in all good ways, good things. So does the Lord. Spiritual growth to become like His Son Jesus. Surely this is not complicated to understand...
From child to adult--a warning from the writer of Hebrews:
5:11 Of whom [Jesus] we have much to say, and hard to be intelligibly uttered: because you are become weak to hear.
12 For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that is a partaker of milk, is unskillful in the word of justice: for he is a little child.
14 But strong meat is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil.
11 There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen.
12 You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word. You are like babies who need milk and cannot eat solid food.
13 For someone who lives on milk is still an infant and doesn’t know how to do what is right.
14 Solid food is for those who are mature, who through training have the skill to recognize the difference between right and wrong. https://www.biblehub.com/nlt/hebrews/5.htm
We Catholics are neither 'spiritually dull' or incapable of listening. How DARE YOU!!!
What we are quite wide awake and alert enough to HEAR from you is that we should IGNORE and DISMISS the words of Jesus (to "become as little children")... and become 'masters'???
Uh, no thank you.
There is only ONE 'MASTER' in my life... and that is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Obviously, some of you need to ask God to forgive your SIN of PRIDE... and learn a lesson in HUMILITY.
The Roman Catholic Bishops conference of Italy published a prayer to Mother Earth in April 2019. The conference did this with a special focus on the Amazon synod which occurred in October 2019. This breakthrough is being equated with the Catholic Church's emerging acceptance of both indigenous people's and New Age spirituality.
The National Catholic Register and EWTN, an American-based, global television network, are, together, promoting a two-Bishops lead vile campaign against Pope Francis and the direction that the Amazon synod is taking the church. In a National Catholic Reporter article title Amazon synod has set Pope Francis' professional haters on edge ," its author, Michael Winters, wrote: Cardinal Raymond Burke and Kazakhstan Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider were leading a "campaign" against the pope and the Amazon synod's working document. Mr. Winters also wrote: In this internet age, an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan can make a splash, but the particular vehicle for Burke's and Schneider's vile insinuations is the National Catholic Register, an arm of EWTN.
Traditionalist Catholic, Michael Matt, editor of the conservative Catholic publication, The Remnant Newspaper, is a prominent member of the Burke and Schneider lead vile campaign. In a video by Mr. Matt titled "POPE SACHS CHURCH: Vatican Embraces United Nations Goals" there is a picture of John Lennon and Pope Francis together, with the words "Imagine THAT" displayed next to them, indicating that the Amazon synod (as Matt says in the video) helps the Church promote its global agenda to fulfill Lennon's (in general) vision, as presented in the lyrics of the Beatles' song Imagine. Matt also produced a video titled: Hippies in the Vatican: A Groovy Kind of Synod.
The leading Protestant opponents of the New Age are making the same -- hippie New Age spiritual philosophy -- connection as Matt is, to a prophesied "coming era," that will be ("if conservative Christians cannot stop it") ushered in by the pope and the United Nations.
Fr. Mitchael Pacwa, a renowned expert on the New Age, condemned what he believed to be idolatry at the Amazon synod on his weekly program on EWTN. He talked about the indigenous people's 'Pachamama' (Mother Earth) "idols" that were praised and blessed at the Synod on the Amazon. He also said: "The bishops conference of Italy published a prayer to Pachamama." Concerning the thinking that influenced the publication of this Inca prayer to Mother Earth, he said: "This is New Age like thinking that goes back to the 1970s."
Wikipedia says: "From a historical perspective, the New Age phenomenon is rooted in the counterculture of the 1960s." The Beatles' promotion of Hinduism, according to Wikipedia, "kick-started the Human Potential Movement that subsequently became New Age." The 1960s counterculture, as stated by Wikipedia, "used the terms New Age and Age of Aquarius to refer to a coming era."
the rest of this article is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/Pachamama.html
Constance KNOWS that we Catholics have read both of her best sellers, "The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow" and "A Planned Deception ~ The Staging of A New Age Messiah" back in the early 1980's. That is the reason why we came to this blog 15 years ago... even if we do have to put up with misinformed idiots like you.
If Constance still isn't sure exactly WHO the Antichrist is... how come a few of you ARROGANT know-it-all's assume that you know who it is. How many BOOKS have YOU written lately? (I hear crickets...)
What are you ANTI-Catholics going to do about all of the New Age INFILTRATION that is happening in your OWN churches??? Too busy judging Catholics on this blog to notice???
Obviously, some of that not-so-subtle New Age thinking has seeped deep into your brains though... if you REALLY BELIEVE that Jesus wants you to become 'MASTERS'. LOL
Anyway, thanks for the LAUGH this morning... I really NEEDED that!!!
P.S. We Catholics are at peace in the knowledge that Jesus has made a PROMISE to us: "... and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
(Therefore, we won't be needing ANYTHING from YOU.)
Out of 1.2 BILLION Catholics... MOST of us are traditional conservative Catholics who remain true to the FAITH as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ created it in the year 33 AD.
So, for ANYONE to assume that ALL Catholics are part of the New Age is SLANDER on your part.
8:28 AM 1) Didn't know I was talking to a Catholic in my 11:43 PM post. I wrote that to anyone because it is simply what the Bible says. 2) Growing in grace to become like Jesus poses a problem for you? Doesn't the world need to see the love of Christ in the lives of His disciples (now more than ever to me) 3) Why do you misuse the word master (from someone else's post that was quoting a proper text for context to go along with the original post) to make it mean something that what it was conveying. (maybe you are dull to miss the application because you should have not made that personal) 4) Why are you interjecting a overt defensiveness into this conversation where nothing is meant to be insulting but an encouragement and an admonition to appreciate how the Lord wants His children to become masterful at (for instance) rightly using His Word, able to grow themselves, able to teach others in the ways of Christ to strengthen them also, and be more and more able to overcome the challenges of life with a heart that is given to love--His love--that overcomes everything for the believer because even better than faith, even better than hope, even better, is love.. The love chapter 1 Corinthians 13 should humble people instead of taking those words and becoming offended. None of us has arrived so you did not need to take it personal.
Whatever offense and wounding you are carrying, whether real, or only imagining, (because I would have absolutely no way of knowing) needs to be brought to the feet of Jesus (it's what I have to do myself at those times). If you do, then perhaps you will see the wonderful encouragement from the passages quoted (by more posters than just me) intended in the posts for the Lord's people, that was made with no distinction of denomination whatsoever. (was actually trying to get away from that whole discussion and you took it there, anyway).
3) not conveying is what I meant. Please don't take offense at what has no intention of doing that. Those are questions and points above for any one. No one is singled out. :)
If we Catholics started copying and pasting paragraph after paragraph of disinformation and slander toward various Protestant sects (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.)... day in and day out (ad nauseum) for 15 years... I am sure that you Protestants would not be 'offended' by that ~ right???
Maybe you need to be reminded of the WORDS of Jesus Himself . . .
And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
Also 10:24 AM, There is a poster who is antagonizing you and I read those posts and think that is wrong. The very spirit of what is posted is wrong. Was not my posting though. I have called out all that considers itself the Church for things that go against the Bible and have seen for myself, first hand, what is to be considered terrible in other denominations besides Catholic. All that calls itself the Church has a lot to answer for so individuals need to stay out of that fray of playing the demeaning game of we do it better. That is awful...for only the Lord is Good, the rest of us who believe Him are merely sinners saved by His Grace. And the Lord will do the sorting. I think playing the "denomination card" (as playing the race card) is ugly, no matter who it is.
Have you ever done recess duty and watched children on a playground and the childish fighting that can go on 10:31 AM? There is a vast difference between childish and childlike.
When we can note the difference we will really know what Jesus the meant.
This blog comments section is like a big school yard fight. There are bullies coming from more than one corner (denomination or belief system) and all it takes is just a couple of bullies to ruin recess for everybody.
9:51 AM Re: "Whatever offense and wounding you are carrying, whether real, or only imagining, (because I would have absolutely no way of knowing)"
and this one...
3:56 AM Re: "There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen."
Obviously, it is NOT the Catholics here who are 'spiritually dull' or 'don't seem to listen'... you CLUELESS Protestant Evangelicals haven't been listening for 15 YEARS!!!
LOL!!!
Thanks for my THIRD laugh this morning. (Oh, my side hurts from laughing.)
"3:56 AM Re: "There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen."" Is a Scripture quote. If that shoe doesn't fit you don't wear it!
The other quote above it is another whatever, whomever, whenever, very broad statement you hone in on so you can feel targeted, and since you keep bringing up you, and keep bringing up your denomination, then it appears that you are one of the offended Jesus was taking about.. "ye know not what spirit ye are of".
Sorry, but that is your take..and your fight...with someone other than me.
This is more than just ONE person's fight on this blog.
There are a few of YOU (and you know who you are) who do need to ask God's forgiveness for UNFAIRLY and viciously slandering Catholic Christians on this blog for the past 15 years.
What contemporary and ancient meditators have always known, however, is that while the hype may be warranted, the practice is not all peace, love, and blissful glimpses of unreality. Sitting zazen, gazing at their third eye, a person can encounter extremely unpleasant emotions and physical or mental disturbances.
...[T]his demanding and sometimes intensely distressing side of meditation is rarely mentioned in scientific literature, says Jared Lindahl, a visiting professor of religious studies at Brown University, who has an interest in neuroscience and Buddhism. Along with Willoughby Britton, a psychologist and assistant professor of psychiatry at Brown, the two meditators have co-authored a study that documents and creates a taxonomy for the variant phenomenology of meditation. The paper, published in Plos One, is the beginning of an ongoing series of studies. “Just because something is positive and beneficial doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of the broader range of possible effects it might have,” Lindahl says.
The British socialite and Epstein confidante was arrested on charges that she conspired with the financier to sexually abuse minors, recruiting girls as young as 14. The indictment, reviewed by TheWrap and embedded below, specifically cited the years 1994 to 1997 as those when she “facilitated and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom and ultimately abuse victims known to Maxwell and Epstein to be under the age of 18.”
I have an important question that I'd really like to hear our Catholic friends answer. I'D ALSO LOVE TO HEAR CONSTANCE'S INPUT ON THIS.
First, we know that Official Catholic teaching holds that if a Catholic misses weekly Mass, and, or on a Holy Day, for "frivolous" reasons, and dies before this Mortal Sin is confessed and forgiven by a Priest, that that person will spend an eternity in Hell. This also applies, amongst a number of other "Mortal Sins," including willfully denying Official Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.
Here is my question:
Being that NON-CATHOLICS do not partake in the Mass, and subsequently, do not receive the "Eucharist," AND, that they also obviously deny a lot of Official Catholic Doctrine and Dogma, are these NON-CATHOLICS therefore held to be in Mortal Sin, AND, does that automatically send that offending NON-CATHOLIC to Eternal Hell, as it would an offending Catholic?
In other words, In the eyes of the RCC, if Catholics are not exempt from the Church's Official teachings, are NON-CATHOLICS somehow exempt from Official Catholic teachings, if so, how?
Your question reminds me of a somewhat similar question I asked you a while back responding to a statement you made—a question that remains unanswered. Since I’ve retained it, I’ll just copy and paste it here
----
RayB,
@ 11:52 AM, very early in this particular blog post [ED: one from quite a while back now], you wrote:
Satan cannot destroy God's word, because God has promised to protect it. However, Satan can, and does, provide counterfeits. This is exactly what the modern translations are.
Your statement asserts that all modern translations are Satanic “counterfeits”. What is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that modern Bible versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead? In short, can one find eternal security in these “counterfeits” of Satan?
Thank you for providing deflection from a very important question.
Why don't YOU provide an answer to my question and stay on topic, Craig?
I believe I addressed this topic before, because I distinctly recall relaying the particulars of my conversion, which involved, at that time, my use of the New American Standard Bible. At one time, I was an enthusiastic proponent of the NASB, until I was challenged to do a verse by verse comparison with the KJV. As to a person's preference, that is left to the individual. However, I have had, over the years, numerous people tell me while holding up their NIV "you need to get your hands on this. It's the best, etc." MANY speak disdainfully of the KJV. I've had any number even say to me; "did you know King James was a homosexual?" Of course, there is no proof of that slanderous assertion, and, the King had NOTHING to do with the actual TRANSLATING, but that doesn't matter; they love their MT, and hate the KJV. So be it.
On a side note regarding I John 5:7. Did you know that 1 John 5:7 in the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, in contrast to the Modern Translations, is almost identical to the KJV? From the DRA: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The NIV (and other Modern Translatons): 1 John 5:7 states: "For there are three that testify:" Is there a difference? You bet there is. And this is just ONE illustration.
So on this verse alone, one version of this text is correct, and the other is incorrect. I'm sure you will disagree, but I still hold to my use of "counterfeit." Counterfeits, just like in currencies, are "close" but they are not the real thing.
By stating that the Modern Translations are "counterfeits" does not mean that the ENTIRE text is counterfeit. It goes without saying that they certainly hold enough truth for God to use in converting those that He calls. However, as a means of GROWTH, they are inferior, IMO, due to the fact that the texts are often watered down. Over and over and over again, key words, sometimes even passages, are "missing." (Of course, you will argue that there is nothing missing, but you are basing your claim upon the works of Wescott & Hort).
Let's not get caught up in this again, which has been argued about at length before. I'm not going to change your way of thinking, and I'm not going to change yours.
PLEASE answer the question that I posted @ 12:31 PM ... I'd really like to hear your take.
Your 12:31 post was addressed to Catholics. I'm not Catholic. Therefore, I'm not taking your bait.
Now, as regards your response @ 1:34 PM, you sidestepped the question. Earlier (as I quoted @ 12:53 PM), you'd made an explicit statement that modern versions are "counterfeits", and these "counterfeits" are provided by Satan. Thus, I will ask the question yet again, awaiting a response to the main substance of my question:
Your statement asserts that all modern translations are Satanic “counterfeits”. What is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that modern Bible versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead? In short, can one find eternal security in these “counterfeits” of Satan?
I should change/rephrase my response @ 1:46 PM. While you didn’t address the main subject of my comment—the important qualifier of “counterfeit”, namely “Satan”—you did address the eternal security portion. This is new—something you’d not done before. But this concession appears to contradict your earlier statement (with the “Satan” qualifier). That is, you made a statement initially without any sort of limiting aspect as regards content. According to you, modern versions are ‘Satanic’ “counterfeits”.
In other words, your new statement backpedals a bit from the previous, allowing for eternal security, but how can a “counterfeit” provided by Satan furnish security in any sense? The modern versions are either ‘provided by Satan’ or they aren’t. Asserting they are deficient in some manner (as per your most recent comment) is not the same thing as calling them “counterfeits” of Satan.
Perhaps you want to back out the “Satan” part and admit that your earlier statement was in error, perhaps a hastily made comment?
It would stand to reason, RayB - that since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you would be under no obligation to follow the rules of the Catholic faith.
Your 12:31 post was addressed to Catholics. I'm not Catholic. Therefore, I'm not taking your bait.
NOTE: What "bait" are you referring to? It's a very legitimate question. Also, to the best of my knowledge, CONSTANCE is not a Catholic, and I also addressed it to her as well. Does that mean that you are now, as a "NON CATHOLIC," going to answer my question?
I already stated that I was converted using the NASB and I completely believe in "eternal security," or, "perseverance of the saints," if you will. I already said that IT IS THEIR CHOICE if they want to use Modern Translations. What part of that is it that you don't understand?
On a personal note; you and I are at cross purposes. You do not respect me, nor do you anything that I have to say. To be honest with you Craig, I typically DO NOT read your posts. IMO, you are a "chip on your shoulder" type that is always attempting to prove your superiority, as evidenced by your jumping into the "Trinity" debate that I referenced.
Again, I posed the question to Catholics as well as Constance, and asked you to answer it as well. Why wouldn't you, Craig?
It would stand to reason, RayB - that since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you would be under no obligation to follow the rules of the Catholic faith.
But, more specifically, are "NON-CATHOLICS" in a state of Mortal Sin for NOT following the RCC, or, does the penalty of committing the RCC definition of Mortal Sins only apply to Catholics? In the eyes of the RCC, are "NON-CATHOLICS" exempt?
But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 2 Timothy 2:23
RayB, that is something you need to consider. Take your questions to God and leave others to their own just as you should do yourself. God knows how to see to it we all get the right correction, and He is merciful doing that. You are not. Because you generate strife, you really do. For whatever odd reason (known only to you) you are really into me vs them scenarios. That is unproductive and can descend into the shameful. And who suffers most? The Lord's reputation, in such bad representation by His own. They do not heal, they fester and spoil what could otherwise be a good learning experience across the board.
We traditional Catholics always attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
Since the quarantine, we are only obligated to attend via an online Mass set up by our parish church... or, we many choose to watch one of four Masses a day, shown on the International Catholic television network EWTN.
In other words, even on the occasions when we are sick in bed (unless we are in a coma), we can still watch a Mass on EWTN.
If a Catholic were to willfully and intentionally miss Mass on Sunday... he or she would have to go to Confession before receiving Holy Communion at the next Mass that he or she attends.
You, as a NON-Catholic, would certainly be under no obligation whatsoever... because you are not a member of the Catholic Church.
Keep this blogspot going and let the constant fighting continue to their heart's content BUT start a SECOND blogspot same as this one EXCEPT it would be STRICTLY for DISCUSSIONS rather than FIGHTS. ANY violation gets immediately deleted and a policy of "3 Strikes And You're 'Out'!" (BANNED). It would be very nice to have a strife-freeMy perspective -- What Constance thinks to be able to go to rather than this strife-torn one!
The “bait” is your attempt at goading me to answer your question (@ 12:31 PM), and I’m still not taking it.
You wrote: I already stated that I was converted using the NASB and I completely believe in "eternal security," or, "perseverance of the saints," if you will. I already said that IT IS THEIR CHOICE if they want to use Modern Translations. What part of that is it that you don't understand?
How can you have been converted by using, as per your own words, a “counterfeit” modern translation “provided by Satan”? The obvious answer, then, is your earlier statement is inherently contradicted by your recent explanation of it. So, again, perhaps you want to admit your earlier statement was either in error or not fully thought through? Everyone occasionally makes unclear or not fully considered comments.
The irony here is that you wish to place your own high standards on others’ comments—such as your badgering of Constance in reference to her comment about the Torah—but you don’t like it when someone else applies similar standards to your comments.
You also wrote: On a personal note; you and I are at cross purposes. You do not respect me, nor do you anything that I have to say...
You sometimes offer information of value, some of which I was formerly totally unaware. In that aspect we are not, as you say, “at cross purposes”. But it’s your polemics that many times go over the top in some fashion that I don’t care for. THAT is what I don’t respect. And I will call you out on it. This is most evident in your loaded questions, framed in such a way as to trap others. It’s one thing to offer valid criticism in some form. And sometimes you do this quite well. But too many times you do not. And, unfortunately for you, your actions in this regard have resulted in an impaired reputation for you on this blog.
Isaiah 40:22 says, in the Douay-Rheims Bible: "It is He that sits upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts; he that stretches out the heavens as nothing, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."
The Hebrew word "chugh" denotes a circle, sphere, or arch, which is attested to by numerous translators, scholars, and speakers of of both Hebrew and Arabic.
That definition, being Dahlheimers sole reason and indictment of the veracity of the scriptures, (which is typical of anyone who doesn't really read the Bible except to try to find something wrong with it), gives me hope that he will perhaps quit repeating it over and over every time he attempts to discredit the Bible, like a man shooting at a giant battleship with a BB gun.
The only reason Ben Carson would say something like that is because Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization.
But just to finish what I wrote at 5:49 above, How in the world would Isaiah have known that the earth is a globe when all the modern science (Tom's favorite word) _tells us that mankind didn't know that the earth was a globe until less than a thousand years ago. Isaiah was writing his prophesy about two thousand seven hundred years ago. Hmmm.
Paul, Thomas has been shown repeatedly that favorite mantras of his are untrue but he keeps obstinately recycling them rather than admit his statements were erroneous and moving on.
The NFL reportedly plans to play a song titled, Lift Ev’ry Voice And Sing, also known as the Black National Anthem, prior to every season opening game this year.
This fits. We live in an age where nothing can be said or done, that might "offend" someone. Once Utopia is created, and everyone agrees on everything, no one will be upset or offended, and everyone will be happy.
Kind of like one big happy Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.
Dean of Nursing at U-Mass is fired for saying that, while she agrees with the Black Lives Matter movement, she believes that "Everyone's Life Matters."
When you want to silence someone because you are offended by what they are saying, eventually the thought/speech police will be knocking on your door. REMEMBER: once freedom is lost, it is lost, if not forever, for a very long time. Witness Russia. They lost their freedoms under the Bolsheviks, and it took over 70 years for the Russians to get it back.
I've been having multiple conversations recently, and I've pointed out how the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization is purposefully equivocated with the slogan "black lives matter" such that any disagreement with BLM as an organization is labeled as being against the slogan, which then is labeled racist. For example, pointing out that BLM is a Marxist organization (as Ben Carson has done) is labeled racist. Nuance is out the door. And folks are getting fired for it. It ain't right.
Let me preface the following with this statement: I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of being so (I'm not that petty). The song Lift Ev’ry Voice And Sing rang a bell with me (I probably recognize the title from jazz), so I looked it up. The Wikipedia entry has info on its history and includes the lyrics. From what I've viewed, it's not something that I couldn't get behind. It was penned after slavery was abolished, apparently in homage to Abraham Lincoln. That's more than OK by me!
This has been a test of the Emergency Parody Broadcast System. The Internet Providers of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an comedic emergency. ... This concludes this test of the Emergency Parody Broadcast System.
I have problems with the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and the Amplified Bible that I do not necessarily have with the King James and Douay Rheims Bibles. I also have no quarrels with the Living Bible that I believe was written in the proper spirit to make the Word understandable to his grandchildren.
For openers, all of the first three eliminated Lucifer as a suspect from the Bible by changing language in Isaiah 14. "Behold a Virgin shall conceive" was changed in several of the newer versions to "Behold a young woman shall conceive . . ." Quite a difference!
And, Daniel 11:38 was changed in most to read "A God of fortresses" from "A God of Forces, a God Whom his fathers knew not." Interestingly, they made the changes in that even in the King James Version as newly revised by Thomas Nelson Publishers just about the time that the New Age phrase "May the Force be with you" became popular. Did you ever hear anybody say "May the Fortress be with you?" That, alone kept many Christians from recognizing and identifying the New Age Movement for the threat that it was. Interestingly, the Aquarian Gospel has language that "One may enter fully in to the God of force . . ."
Changing those sections in modern bibles helped the New Age camouflage itself a great deal.
Bluntly, there are no perfect churches because there are no perfect people. We all "see through glass darkly." The "love of the truth" is a perfect factor. I think it probably comes down to who loves God and is truly trying to please him. A spirit of hypocritical pharaseeism and/or self-righteousness is always dangerous, IMHO.
New International Version Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
New Living Translation All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).
English Standard Version Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Berean Study Bible Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel.
New American Standard Bible "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
New King James Version Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
King James Bible Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christian Standard Bible Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: See, the virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
Contemporary English Version But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
Good News Translation Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'
Holman Christian Standard Bible Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
International Standard Version "Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.
NET Bible For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
New Heart English Bible Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.
GOD'S WORD® Translation So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us].
JPS Tanakh 1917 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
New American Standard 1977 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
King James 2000 Bible Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
American King James Version Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
American Standard Version Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Brenton Septuagint Translation Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
Douay-Rheims Bible Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Darby Bible Translation Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
English Revised Version Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Webster's Bible Translation Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
World English Bible Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Young's Literal Translation Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,
Lexicon
the virgin הָעַלְמָ֗ה (hā·‘al·māh)
Article | Noun - feminine singular Strong's Hebrew 5959: A young woman, a virgin
Pulpit Commentary
It is questioned whether the word translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has necessarily that meaning; but it is admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which the word occurs m the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8). The LXX., writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος. The rendering "virgin" has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless 'almah is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" The Hebrew, however, has not "a virgin," but "the virgin" (and so the Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος), which points to some special virgin, pro-eminent above all others.
New International Version Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
New Living Translation Instead of these, he will worship the god of fortresses—a god his ancestors never knew—and lavish on him gold, silver, precious stones, and expensive gifts.
English Standard Version He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
Berean Study Bible And in their place, he will honor a god of fortresses—a god his fathers did not know—with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
New American Standard Bible "But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures.
New King James Version But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.
King James Bible But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Christian Standard Bible Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not know--with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
Contemporary English Version and worship only the so-called god of fortresses, who was unknown to his ancestors. And he will honor it with gold, silver, precious stones, and other costly gifts.
Good News Translation Instead, he will honor the god who protects fortresses. He will offer gold, silver, jewels, and other rich gifts to a god his ancestors never worshiped.
Holman Christian Standard Bible Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not know--with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
International Standard Version He'll glorify the god of fortresses, a god whom his ancestors never knew, honoring him with gold, silver, valuable jewels, and treasures.
NET Bible What he will honor is a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not acknowledge he will honor with gold, silver, valuable stones, and treasured commodities.
New Heart English Bible But instead he shall honor the god of fortresses; a god whom his fathers did not know shall he honor with gold and silver, and with valuable stones, and costly gifts.
GOD'S WORD® Translation Instead, he will honor the god of fortresses. With gold, silver, precious stones, and other expensive things he will honor a god his ancestors never heard of.
JPS Tanakh 1917 But in his place shall he honour the god of strongholds; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and costly things.
New American Standard 1977 “But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones, and treasures.
King James 2000 Bible But in their place he shall honor the god of fortresses: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
American King James Version But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
American Standard Version But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Brenton Septuagint Translation And he shall honour the god of forces on his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and desirable things.
Douay-Rheims Bible But he shall worship the god Maozim in his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and things of great price.
Darby Bible Translation And in his place will he honour the +god of fortresses; and a +god whom his fathers knew not will he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.
English Revised Version But in his place shall he honour the god of fortresses: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Webster's Bible Translation But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
World English Bible But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers didn't know shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Young's Literal Translation And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things.
Lexicon
of fortresses— מָֽעֻזִּ֔ים (mā·‘uz·zîm)
Noun - masculine plural Strong's Hebrew 4581: A place or means of safety, protection.
Paul is a nut case. He is totally disconnected from reality. He once posted a statement here on this blog spot wherein he said he believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, and not four and a half billion years old as modern-day science has discovered. In a recent post he quotes Isaiah 40:22 which says, in every Bible except for the Douay-Rheims Bible, that the earth is a circle (flat disk shaped) and not a globe. Paul does not even known that Bible translators sometimes change what the scriptures actually say to what they DO NOT say, and do so, to make it look like the Bible is telling the truth because it is saying what modern-day science has discovered. Google "Bible cosmology" and look at the pictures of the many paintings of Bible cosmology in its biblical context. According to the Bible the earth has "foundations" that go down into water that it sits on. Psalm 104:5 "The earth is firmly fixed on foundations and shall never be moved." Christians often take the different cosmological scriptures out of the overall context that they are in to argue their stooped case, and do so, because they are like Paul. He is psychologically unable to accept and acknowledge that there are scriptures that do not tell the truth.
I never said the earth is 6000 years old Tommy. You are a liar. I said the WORLD is 6000 years old. If you knew anything about the Bible, you'd know that the world is a definition of time, dating from Adam and Eve. It is the timeline of the Hebrew calendar, not mine. Nor is the Douay-Rheims the only Bible to translate the Hebrew word "chugh" into our word globe or sphere. It is well known to refer to spheres by all and every speaker of Hebrew and Arabic. In fact the only one I know who always inserts a little parenthetic "flat disk shape" after every time he quotes it, is you, Thomas.
Come to think of it, a sphere is the ultimate expression of a circle. It is a three dimensional circle. It is a circle from every point of view. Are you saying that a sphere isn't a circle Thomas? Are you saying that you're a scientist? You keep invoking modern science, like you know what you're talking about. What are your scientific credentials Tom?
Well, I guess that I am also a 'nut case' because I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, too.
To accept the 'modern scientists' theory that the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old (wonder how they arrived at the one half part)... is to give credibility to the atheistic theory that the earth just 'evolved' naturally... and with no help from God whatsoever.
When you stop and think about it... Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of mankind less than 2,000 years ago (in 33 AD). Therefore, in the year 2033 (just 13 years from now), it will be exactly 2,000 years since Jesus died on the Cross... and then was risen from the dead.
Therefore it is not a stretch to believe and accept that only about 4,000 years transpired between the time of the creation (of the earth, the sun, moon, stars, etc.)... and the first man and woman: Adam and Eve... up until Jesus was born.
Dahlheimer is a putz, and I am being nice. His posts do not educate, they are plain, straight up, stupidity that he asssssummmmmesss he knows anything about the Bible. What he knows is what he just makes up out of his peyote fog.
His bogus"science" is only part of his errancy. His new age is vapor, his life is wasted on his so-called "calling" as a missionary (of all things) to save us all (well not Christians whom he cannot stand to begin with because we are not like-minded to his farcical facts). Mr. Frustrated Tommy has a problem with people who actually think and know the Bible spelled out all truth for all time long long long before we got here, because he cannot convince them his way. That's why he has to revise and retell us our beliefs and statements to fit his "facts".
Keep on smokin' Dahlheimer so you can run from reality. (You can run but you can't hide, it will catch up ...)
Dear 10:12am I would like to direct your attention to a Dr Gerald Schroeder, who is a PhD physicist as well as a Bible believer. He can be found in the Books "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God", as well as numerous UTUBE videos.
To be way too simplistic about it; the Big Bang was the beginning, when God created light, from nothing. At that point, and for the ensuing eons that followed, TIME ITSELF is understood to be on a much different (shifting) scale than we experience now. Einstein showed that time is, in fact a dimension of the universe. Dr Schroeder has actually calculated what that means to us from our perspective, this 15+ Billion years later. Again, this is way too brief, and I'm not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one, like Thomas Dahlheimer, but Dr Schroeders calculations reveal that the first five days of creation are in fact; five twenty-four hour days, to God, yet they would be billions of years to us now. After all Genesis doesn't mention the earth, (from which we perceive our twenty-four hour days) until day three, so obviously these first four days are God's days, not ours.
To quote Dr Schroeder; "As the universe expanded, it size (scale) and temperature, AND THEREFORE IT'S CLOCK, were becoming ever more similar to that of our current universe. Because of this the "duration" of each successive twenty-four hour Genesis day encompassed a span of time ever more similar to time as reckoned from our Earth-based perspective. Each doubling in size "slowed" the cosmic clock by a factor of two. Since the time required for the universe to double in size increased superlinearly as it's size increased, the fractional rate of change in the cosmic clock (relative to Earth time), decreased superlinearly."
Dr Schroeder shows a graph which I'll reduce to these few pertinent factoids: (Again, this is too simplistic but I'm trying to fit it into a comment)
Day one: 15,750,000,000 years of our time The creation of the universe; light separates from dark (Gen 1:1-5)
Day two: 7,750,000,000 " " " " The heavenly firmament forms (Gen 1:6-8)
Day three 3,750,000,000 " " " " Oceans and dry land appear; the first life; plants (Gen 1:9-13)
Day four 1,750,000,000 " " " " Sun, moon and stars become visible in the heavens (Gen 1:14-19)
Day five 750,000,000 " " " " First animal life swarms in the oceans ( Gen 1:20-23)
Day six 250,000,000 " " " " Land, animals: mammals, mankind (Gen 1:24-31)
You may find this a very interesting (short) read. Is the biography of Leopold Cohn born in Hungary in 1862 and came to the U.S. on his search to know the Messiah Jesus and he later became the founder of Chosen People Ministeries still ministering today, a wonderful outreach to the Jewish people.
Here is a small clip of what sent him on his search: "During my leisure, I had frequent recourse to my Talmud, in which I at one time read the following: “The world is to stand six thousand years, viz., two thousand confusion and void, two thousand with the law, and two thousand the time of Messiah."
He began to read what was the forbidden parts of prophecy in Daniel and Isaiah of the Old Testament and it led him to the feet of Jesus. I think this will bless anyone who reads it and since you both mentioned those 6000 years, I thought what the ancient writings said that sent that Jewish rabbi on his quest might give you some truly wonderful insights. Enjoy :)
The Hebrew Bible calculates the beginning of Mankind to be the beginning of the "world" and starts it's calendar from there. Adam and Eve were the first hominids whom God blessed with his Breath of Life, called the Neshamah. There were thousands of years of hominid life before He created Adam and Eve. Coincidently, Adam and Eve coincide with the advent of written language. They were created just about 6,000 years ago.
I guess believing in 'gentiles as animals'... supports more of that same 'man just EVOLVED from lowly animals' ATHEISTIC theory... or, as we know it today, NEW AGE 'thinking'.
Over the past 2,000 years, there has been a slow, steady attempt to BRAINWASH the masses... as if a QUOTE from a scientist (who is more likely to be an atheist or an agnostic) somehow lends credibility to his or her theory.
Why do people choose to accept the belief that scientists are 'smarter' than the rest of us? (Advanced formal education does not always = intelligence.)
After all... God gave each of us the gifts of wisdom, a brain, logic and common sense. It's up to each of us to USE those gifts.
Ghislaine Maxwell "Knows Everything" And "Will Be Naming Names", Former Epstein Associate Says
“We will be seeking detention,” Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss in Manhattan said in a press conference announcing charges. Prosecutors said Maxwell helped Epstein entice girls as young as 14 into sex from 1994 through 1997, then lied about it under oath in 2016."
NOTE: Why would this "investigation" and subsequent indictment entail on the years "from 1994 through 1997"? Maxwell & Epstein's pedophilia political blackmail "sting" operation encompassed many more years, AND PEOPLE, than just those three years. Why on earth would their indictment not cover more recent crimes? What about all of those victims from the POST mid 90's era? Do they not deserve justice, or, is there something else going on here?
Here is the reason Rick Wiles gives, and it make an awful lot of sense to me at least. If you watch the video in which U. S. Attorney Straus announces the indictment, she makes several references to "victims as young as 14." Why is that important? Here's why; there is a "victim" that is on record stating that she "was INTRODUCED to Donald Trump when she was 14 in the MID 90's." Maxwell is about to give the Deep State the "evidence" they need to take down Trump. Maxwell is going to "sing," but her song is only going to cover the time period of the indictment, which is that three year period. By limiting the period of time to the mid 90's, high level people such as Chief Justice John Roberts (flew on Epstein's Lolita Express), Bill & Hillary Clinton, Prince Andrew, etc., etc. will be totally protected. Forget what "Q" says. This is NOT going to be a widespread take down of the huge, global pedophilia ring.
Maxwell will either get a slap on the wrist probation for her "cooperation," or she'll get a very short prison sentence, that will be reduced for good behavior. Either way, she is going to come out of this virtually unscathed.
Don't forget, Maxwell's father was worked for the Mossad. The entire Epstein/Maxwell political blackmail scheme has all the markings of a sophisticated operation that was a State sponsored operation, precisely why then U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta was TOLD, by "higher ups," to back off the Epstein case because "he's intelligence." Acosta responded by illegally cutting him the infamous "Sweetheart Deal" that virtually no one else would have ever been offered, proof that Epstein was being protected.
Rick Wiles might be totally off base on this, and I hope he is. Time will only tell, but I for one think that the timing of this is "perfect" for the Deep State to launch their operation. Probably all the "testimony" from Maxwell will be aired during the heat of the election campaign later this summer.
Since God is in eternity it stands to reason that He can cut right through with immediacy (omnipresence) that finites as we are, can't do. He looked forward through space (and down at the form He was making called the earth) through time and space to create the 24 hour days and nights to do His creating and put the perimeters of space and time upon it. However, when we look back (and look up at the heavens), we can't see through time and space with his immediacy, because we are small and finite, subject to time and space, so we have to see in terms of million and billions of years (speed of light calculations, etc) to look back there (into that third heaven as the Bible calls it?).
Dr. Schroeder makes some good points, but I don't go along with everything. I think that is what will be revealed to humankind when we see the Lord since He holds all knowledge, all truth, because we couldn't understand if He explained it to us now. We do indeed, see through a glass darkly at the moment.
Or not. Regarding G. Maxwell: Let's just hope that all four of the cameras don't fail again in the ten minute window that she attempts a hanging suicide. Or if she attempts the three-shot suicide. And let's hope that the three or four guards who are under orders to watch her closely don't all fall asleep at the same time again.
It's so interesting to read about various people who have been 'Arkan-cided'... like, for example, when someone (who 'fell out' with the Clintons) shoots himself in the BACK of the head.
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and LET HIM HAVE DOMINION OVER the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)
There is a scientific battle going on at present between Evolutionists and Creationists. On the one hand the Evolutionists assert that the entire Universe, including all life on Earth, has evolved over millions and billions of years, with no design or purpose behind it, merely blind chance. On the other hand are the Fundamentalist Creationists, who dogmatically teach that the whole Universe, including life on Earth was created by GOD in six literal 24 hour days, about 6,000 years ago. Somewhere in the middle are those who hedge their bets and compromise, for example Theistic Evolutionists, who believe that GOD "creates" through the process of Evolution. Many so called "mainstream" churches accept Theistic Evolution, while "Evangelicals" accept the Fundamentalist approach.
However the Scriptures clearly show that the "creation week" of Genesis Chapter One was actually a RENEWAL and NOT the original creation.
"In The Beginning, God Created The Heavens And The Earth. Now The Earth Was (Margin - Possibly ‘Became') Formless And Empty." Genesis 1:1-2.
"He Did Not Create It To Be Empty." (Text Note On Isaiah 45:18 – ‘Empty = Formless or Chaotic’). Isaiah 45:18.
The earth was created so beautiful that: "The Morning Stars Sang Together And All The Angels Shouted For Joy." Job 38:3-4.
But then something disastrous occured, a great rebellion bringing chaos and catastrophe in its wake.
"How Are You Fallen From Heaven O Morning Star, Son Of The Dawn. You Have Been Cast Down To The Earth, You Who Once Laid Low The Nations. You Said In Your Heart, ‘I Will Ascend To Heaven; I Will Raise My Throne Above The Stars Of God; I Will Sit Enthroned On The Mount Of Assembly, On The Utmost Heights Of The Sacred Mountain. I Will Ascend Above The Tops Of The Clouds; I Will Make Myself Like The Most High.’" Isaiah 14:12.
Christ Himself testified that He personally witnessed Satan being cast out of Heaven. “I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning From Heaven.” Luke 10:18.
When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he became Satan, the Adversary. The book of Revelation indicates (Rev. 12:9) that about one third of the angels followed him in his rebellion. The whole Universe including the Earth, was in tremendous upheaval. The Earth became an utter desolation. It was sometime after this (scripture doesn't indicate how long) that the Great Creator God put His Mighty Hand to restoring and renewing the Earth in SIX Literal Twenty Four Hour Days, and creating the Sabbath by resting on the SEVENTH Day.
“When You Send Your Spirit, They Are Created, And You RENEW The Face Of The Earth.” Psalm 104:30.
There are very strong indications that the Earth and even the entire Universe are much younger than most people assume. At the lower end somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years, while at the upper end a few million years. Satan's rebellion, the wrecking of the Universe, and the re-creation, can still fit neatly into either timeframe without any great problem. The one scenario which cannot possibly in any way fit into this timeframe, is the Theory Of Evolution. Even now there are howls of anguish from the Evolutionist camp, who are desperately trying to discredit Creationist research. Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this. If we simply have faith in God's Word, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then they both neatly fit together, without having to twist, bend and contort anything.
"Then You Will Know The Truth And The Truth Will Set You Free". John 8:32
On the night of 2–3 July, 2020, hundreds of antifa militants attacked the federal courthouse in downtown Portland in the name of Black Lives Matter. They attacked responding police officers with glass bottles, rocks, a knife and more. After breaking the building's glass doors, they launched mortars inside, starting a fire. This video is the morning after.
Re: "Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this."
Something formless and void, darkness on the face of the deep...the Spirit hovers v2
Then God said: light v3 was good and divided it from darkness v4 and called day and night (1st day) v5
Then God said: firmament, let it divide waters from waters v6 the dividing above and beneath v7 God called the above heaven (2nd day) v8
Dry land appears v9 Then that the **dry land was called earth by God** so there are seas and dry land now and is good v10
And so creating continues now upon the earth v11 on....
God calling it earth in v2 is descriptive of what it would become.
Interesting something that was formless and void though... The devil was cast down to what was called earth..so that happened when it had been formed as dry land then if I am not mistaken???
I am 6:13 PM and I believe the earth is young and is 6000 years old (what the formless mist was and how long it was there before called the earth I don't know)... I won't argue with anyone about that, it is what I believe when I read the Bible because a 1000 years is as a day and a day is as a 1000 years according to the Bible. A 1000 years for each creation day (includes the 7th when God rested from His creating). Until someone can show me something else I will stick with that.
Mr. Dahlheimer thinks he knows something but has nothing (as in zero) to support what he believes. His stuff is bogus.
I had wanted to but it is voluminous, however since you would like to know I will in the next few days if not sooner. It will be exceedingly lengthy over many many many posts but it IS a fundamentally crucial matter that all should be conversant wit.
Seven Strong Indications Of A Young Earth/Universe System
1) Galaxys.
As astronomers look into distant space, they have found that there are other massive collections of stars like our own galaxy. Many of them have a circular pattern as though they consisted of a flat disc of stars with arms extending from them. These arms are curled like the arms of a rotating Catherine Wheel, and present at least three problems to astronomers.
(a) The Speeds Of The Stars.
It has been assumed by astronomers that there is a large mass of stars at the centre of these galaxies, and that the stars rotate around the centre at the right speed to maintain their present orbit. This is similar to the way in which the planets rotate around the Sun, where those nearest the centre travel at higher speeds than those further out. This is known as Keplerian rotation and would maintain the stability of the system, much as the planets are stable in their orbits around the Sun.
Scientists have been able to measure the speed with which these arms are rotating and some have reported that the stars at the centre are travelling at the same speed as those near the ends of the arms. This is apparently, because the mass of the galaxy is distributed and not concentrated near the centre, as it is with our Solar System. One surprise is the recent discovery that up to one half of the stars in many galaxies are rotating in the OPPOSITE direction to the rest. (Royal Astronomical Association Monthly Notice 283:543 1996).
(b) The Winding Action.
Because it has been virtually established that the stars near the centre are travelling at the same speed as those further out on the arms of the galaxy, this results in a "winding up" action of the arms. What is absolutely certain is that the arms are not rigid forms that rotate without changing their shape. Because they are all travelling at virtually the same speed, those near the centre have much less distance to travel than those out on the arms. This results in the spiral or curved arms of galaxies as observed through telescopes from Earth.
Paul Steidl in his excellent book 'The Earth, The Stars And The Bible', has pointed out that from the measurements of the speed with which the stars are moving, it has been calculated that for the centre of the galaxy to complete ONE TURN MORE than the furthest stars would take about 100 million years. As astronomers believe that galaxies have existed for about 10 billion years, then they should have wound round about 100 turns. Yet none observed have more than about 1 or 2 turns at the most, which would give them a maximum age of 100-200 million years. If Almighty God created them with some degree of spiral already, then they would be very much younger than 100-200 million years.
(c) All Galaxies Appear To Be "Wound Up" The Same Amount.
Astronomers use the red shift of galaxies to measure their distance from Earth. The most distant is around 10,000 million light-years away, so as we look at these distant galaxies, we should be seeing them when they were much younger than those nearer to Earth, and in the process of forming with much less "spiral" in their arms, but surprisingly, to them, they do not. The amount of only one or two turns of “spiral" in the arms, appears to be totally independent of their distance from Earth, which also suggests that that these "spirals" have always been present.
In order to avoid the obvious, that these "spirals" indicate that the galaxies were formed relatively RECENTLY and AT THE SAME TIME, alternative theories of how these spiral arms could have formed, have been sought for some time. Other explanations that have been brought forward so far, also raise other problems for scientists. An article entitled 'How Do Spiral Galaxies Spiral?' by N. Comins and L. Marschall in the December 1987 issue of 'Astronomy' magazine reveals how baffled scientists are when they write: “What's wrong here? How can stars have different orbital periods, as we observe, and also trace out spiral patterns, as we also observe, yet still not wind up over periods of billions of years?”
To summarize, the efforts to "explain away" any "Young Universe" interpretation of these spiral arms by astronomers, is brought about by the unbending demands for billions of years by Evolutionists. Some stars are grouped together, not in galaxies, but in globular clusters, and are considered to be amongst the oldest astronomical objects. They are rapidly flying away from each other against the pull of their mutual gravitational force. From their measured speed, it can be calculated that they would have all been very close together, only a matter of THOUSANDS of years ago, instead of millions or billions. Furthermore, all stars emit a solar wind that should build up into a considerable amount of gas when there are many stars together as in a globular cluster.
This gas should be easily detectable, yet there is no evidence that it exists, which suggests that the stars and galaxies were created much as they are seen today, in the comparatively RECENT PAST.
The “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, June – August 1997, has an excellent article entitled, “Exploding Stars Point To A Young Universe”, written by Jonathan Sarfati. To summarize the article, a galaxy like our own Milky Way, should on average, produce one SuperNova every 25 years, leaving behind a huge expanding cloud of debris called an S.N.R. or SuperNova Remnant. The famous Crab Nebula in the constellation of Taurus, is the remnant of a SuperNova which was seen in the year 1054 AD, and remained visible for about a year. It was so bright that it could be seen for a few weeks during the daytime. By using powerful computers and applying the known physical laws of science, astronomers have predicted that an S.N.R. should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. If the Universe was billions of years old, then astronomers should be able to observe many S.N.R.’s this size. In fact the observable evidence from Outer Space is consistent with a Universe with an age in the THOUSANDS of years, but a comlete mystery for a Universe which is supposed to have existed for BILLIONS of years. Two evolutionist astronomers who wrote for the Royal Astronomical Society in 1976, said: “Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?”
"The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God; The Skies Proclaim The Work Of His Hands.” Psalm 19:1.
2) The Sun.
In 1979, two astronomers, Eddy and Boornazian, startled the scientific community when they presented a paper which showed that the Sun was shrinking by 0.1% of its diameter per century. They had examined the records of the Greenwich Observatory from 1836 to 1953, and discovered that the Sun's diameter was decreasing. They then checked their findings by using the similar records of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. since 1846, which confirmed their claim.
If this rate of decrease, 0.1% of diameter per century, is projected backwards in time, in the. space of only 100,000 years, the Sun would have been double its present size. Life could not possibly have existed under such heat. Projecting further backwards in time, about 20 to 21 million years ago, the Sun's diameter would have included the Earth's orbit.
As far as the orthodox scientific community was concerned, these facts had to be discredited and explained away, in a barrage of criticism. Up to now however, the evidence carefully proved and reported by Eddy and Boornazian has not been overthrown by any subsequent critical paper. Indeed, read carefully, these critical papers either do not address the data covered by the observatory measurements, or else they actually confirm them in varying degrees. The fact that the Sun is shrinking has not yet been disproven, presents another sound piece of evidence for a Young Earth/Universe system.
“Give Thanks To The Lord For He Is Good. His Love Endures Forever…………Who Made The Great Lights. His Love Endures Forever…………The Sun To Govern The Day. His Love Endures Forever.” Psalm 136:1,7-8.
3) The Layer Of Meteoric Dust On The Moon.
When the Apollo 11 spacecraft was heading towards the Moon for a Lunar landing in 1969, one of the major concerns at the time was the possible depth of meteoric dust on the Lunar surface. The rate of fall had been estimated to be anywhere between 5 to 14 million tons per year, and if the Universe was billions of years old, then at the very least, the Lunar surface should have a dust layer many feet thick. The Lunar Landing Module had wide, thick pads on the ends of its legs to compensate for this, and hopefully allow a safe landing, without the Module sinking deep into the dust. It was a huge surprise, and indeed relief to everyone, to find that the dust layer was only about 1 to 2 inches thick. Immediately, the scientific establishment refined the rate of fall drastically downwards to fit in with the actual, observable facts. Interestingly, the instruments left behind on the Lunar surface to measure the rate of fall, have indicated that the original estimation before the first Lunar landing, was very close, so scientists have had to revise the rate of fall upwards once again!
Therefore, with the amount of descending dust comparatively high and the amount of it on the Moon so small, this indicates an age for the Moon many millions of years less than that required by evolutionists.
In a fascinating article for the September – November 1998 issue of “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “The Moon – The Light That Rules The Night”, Jonathan Sarfati writes: “Friction by the tides is slowing the Earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the Earth is losing Angular Momentum. The Law Of Conservation Of Angular Momentum says that the Angular Momentum the Earth loses must be gained by the Moon. Thus the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth at about 4 cm (1.5 inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The Moon could never has been closer than 18,400 kilometres (11,500 miles), know as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e. the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the Moon) would have shattered it. But even if the Moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.
N.B. This is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AGE – far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to Moon rocks) – not the actual age.”
“Give Thanks To The Lord For He Is Good. His Love Endures Forever…………Who Made The Great Lights. His love endures forever…………The Moon And Stars To Govern The Night. His Love Endures Forever.” Psalm 136:1,7,9.
In the evolutionary timescale, the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and the first living cell evolved around 1 billion years ago. Such is the scenario put forward by Evolutionists, and here are some interesting figures, which are not really disputed by them, but some very simple calculations show that there is something very seriously wrong with the time scale applied to the geological column.
The depth of sediment in the oceans is surprisingly thin, being only 0.4 miles thick and estimated to weigh about 820 million billion tons. The amount of rock standing above the sea level has been estimated at about 383 million billion tons. It has also been estimated that the amount of material entering the oceans, mainly by the rivers, is about 27.5 billion tons per year.
An article put out by S. Nevins for the Institute For Creation Research, entitled "Evolution - The Oceans Say No", comes up with some surprising conclusions, using the figures given above.
(a) If there are 383 million billion tons in the land mass of the Earth, then it would only take 383 / 27.5 = 14 million years to erode all the continents into the sea.
(b) Similarly, the time it would take to deposit the present sediments into the seas is 820 / 27.5 = 30 million years. It can be shown that if the oceans have existed for 1 billion years, then we could expect to see a depth of sediment nearly 19 miles thick, whereas in actual fact we see a depth of 0.4 miles.
To get round this evidence, various other explanations are sought by evolutionists. In an article by Tas Walker entitled “Eroding Ages”, in the March – May 2000 issue of “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, he cites three examples of how evolutionists try and explain away this observable evidence: “….It is suggested that the mountains still exist because uplift is constantly replacing them from below. Consequently the mountains would have been eroded and replaced many times over in billions of years, but although uplift is occuring in mountainous areas, such a process of uplift and erosion could not go on for long without removing all the layers of sediments…..Yet surprisingly, sediments of all ages from young to old (by evolutionary dating methods) are preserved in mountainous regions. The idea of continual renewal by uplift does not solve the problem.
Another idea suggested….is that the present rates of erosion being measured are abnormally high. According to this argument erosion was much less in the past, before humans interfered. Human activity such as land clearing and farming, is said to be why we are measuring such high rates at present. However, quantitative measurements on the effect of this human activity have found that erosion rates are increased only 2 to 2.5 times. For this explanation to solve the problem, the increase would need to be several hundred times greater. Once again the explanation does not work.
It has also been suggested that the climate in the past was much drier (because less water would mean less erosion). However this idea goes against the evidence. The climate was actually wetter as deduced from the abundance of lush vegetation in the fossil record.”
“All Streams Flow Into The Sea, Yet The Sea Is Never Full. To The Place The Streams Come From, There They Return Again.” Ecclesiastes 1:7.
As you go deeper into the Earth, it is found that the temperature rises about 1 degree centigrade for every 100 feet. (30 metres). Lord Kelvin made various calculations on the rate of cooling of the Earth, and showed that even if the Earth had been molten at the time of creation, it would have cooled to its present temperature gradient within 100 million years, but allowing for uncertainties he suggested between 20 and 400 million years. He later amended this to between 20 and 40 million years. All these ages were far too short for the evolutionists, and they struggled in vain to overcome his evidence. When the heating effect of radioactivity was discovered, this was quickly used to explain the present level of heat in the Earth's interior. However this subject has been examined by L. Ingersoll and others. They discovered that without any radioactivity, the age of the Earth would be 22 million years, and with radioactivity this would be extended to only 46 million years.
The present situation is that although there are still some problems concerning the level of radioactivity in the Earth that need resolving satisfactorily, heat calculations indicate a relatively young Earth, which cannot be accepted by evolutionists.
“He Spreads Out The Northern Skies Over Empty Space; He Suspends The Earth Over Nothing.” Job 26:7.
In 1835, the scientist Gauss carried out a world wide survey of the strength of the magnetic field. From his measurements he worked out that the power of the magnetic field was (8.56 amps/m2 x 10^22). This was checked a few years later by other experts and found to be (8.45). This has continued to be measured over many years and there has been a consistent fall in the value.
T.G. Barnes, a creation scientist who has written books and articles on the magnetic field of the Earth, by examining the measured values mathematically, found that the half-life of the magnetic field was about 1,400 years. The implications of what the magnetic field would have been in the past, poses a tremendous problem for orthodox scientists and evolutionists.
With a value of 8.56 in 1835, then 1,400 years earlier the value would have been 17.12. 2,800 years earlier the value would have been 34.24 and so on. By continuing this calculation backwards in time, it can be demonstrated that for ages more than about 10,000 years ago, the circulating electrical currents necessary to generate this large magnetic field, would have had the power of a magnetic star and the currents would have generated so much heat, that life on Earth would have been impossible.
The above evidence has ensured the the work of T.G. Barnes has been rejected by evolutionists. Although evolutionists have no good explanations as to how it actually happens, they have put forward the ‘Reversal Theory’ of the Earth's magnetic field many times in the past, taking thousands of years for one reversal at intervals of millions of years. It is intriguing the various ways in which secular scientists will go to such desperate lengths to avoid the most obvious solution, that can explain the decrease in the Earth's magnetic field. The simple fact is that a circulating current, slowly being reduced by the electrical resistance of the Earth, is a perfectly adequate explanation of all the measured phenomena. The problem has been made even more acute for evolutionists, by the fairly recent discovery that the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field is not 1,400 years on which T.G. Barnes based his calculations, but 830 years. This would make the age of the Earth younger still.
It is interesting that although evolutionists are stuck when it comes to providing an explanation for their ‘Reversal Theory’, a nuclear physicist by the name of Dr. Russell Humphreys, has an intriguing explanation of how these reversals could occur very quickly, as opposed to thousands and millions of years. This explanation is given in an article written for “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, March – May 1998 issue.
The article entitled “The Earth’s Magnetic Field – Evidence That The Earth Is Young” by Jonathan Sarfati says: “The nuclear physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that T.G. Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the Earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection – hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the magnetic field reverse quickly. Now as discussed in “Creation Vol. 19 No. 3 1997”, Dr. John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood. Dr. Humphreys says that these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection. This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern, rather the total field energy would decay even faster.
This model also explains why the Sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The Sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the ‘dynamo model’ the overall field energy of the Sun is decreasing.
Dr. Humphreys also proposed a test for his model. Magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record Earth's magnetic field in one direction. The inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prevot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke, because eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for the creationist Humphreys’ model.
The Earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence AGAINST evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the Earth could not be older than about 10,000 years."
The fact is the Earth’s magnetism is running down. This world wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite the probability of swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to properly explain how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.
“They Will Tell Of The POWER Of Your Awesome Works, And I Will Proclaim Your Great Deeds.” Psalm 145:6.
7) Elements In The Oceans.
There are 33 calculated ages that are obtained by measurements of various elements that are carried into the oceans by rivers. By dividing the amount in the oceans today, by the total amount entering via the rivers, the MAXIMUM age of the oceans can be calculated. This method assumes that initially there was none of the element present in the sea originally, which enables scientists to arrive at a much greater age.
The longest age of all the 33 calculated is 560 million years, which is obtained from the amount of gold entering the sea. The shortest age using this method is for iron which gives only 140 years. The average age of all 33 methods comes to 17.6 million years, obviously nothing like the thousands of millions of years claimed by evolutionists.
The variation between these values is perfectly understandable. Where the age is very short, as in the case of iron, there is obviously some means by which the element is removed from the sea. In the case of iron, it is most likely absorbed by sea creatures and becomes part of the food chain. Although this reasoning can explain the very low age given by iron, it cannot be used in every case, because there are very few ways in which elements can be removed. They are all at extremely low concentrations, and nowhere near saturation level in the sea. It would also require every listed element to be removed from the oceans by some means or other, but there are too many such examples, and each element would have to have a specific method by which it could be removed.
One common way of dismissing this evidence, is by claiming that these ages of the elements in the oceans are merely 'residence times'., and not indicative of age. In other words they are saying that there have been stable conditions over millions of years (uniformitarianism), in which the amounts of the elements entering the seas are roughly the same as those being removed. When anyone asks the obvious question as to whether this claim can be established by verification, it is met with deafening silence. Bearing in mind the enormous quantity of sea water above every square metre of sea floor, if there had been ongoing removal for vast periods of time, we would expect to see much richer deposits of elements on the sea bed than we see today.
In 1990, a joint paper was written by geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, who had been analysing figures from secular geoscience sources, for the quantity of Sodium Ion in the ocean, and its input and output rates. Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated the MAXIMUM age of the oceans to be around 62 million years.
“Others Went Out On The Sea In Ships; They Were Merchants On The Mighty Waters. They Saw The Works Of The Lord, His Wonderful Deeds In The Deep.” Psalm 107:23-24.
Conclusion
There are very strong indications that the Earth and even the entire Universe are much younger than most people assume. At the lower end somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years, while at the upper end a few million years. Satan's rebellion, the wrecking of the Universe, and the re-creation, can still fit neatly into either timeframe without any great problem. The one scenario which cannot possibly in any way fit into this timeframe, is the Theory Of Evolution. Even now there are howls of anguish from the Evolutionist camp, who are desperately trying to discredit Creationist research. Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this. If we simply have faith in God's Word, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then they both neatly fit together, without having to twist, bend and contort anything.
"Then You Will Know The Truth And The Truth Will Set You Free". John 8:32.
Postscript
Potassium-Argon Dating.
The popular concept of radioactive dating is that it is very accurate and enables strata to be precisely dated. Creationists have long pointed out the wide discrepancies obtained by this method. For example, rocks with an “expected” date of 300 million years, could give results ranging from 100 to 400 million years. With variations this large, it can be seen why measured dates have to be within an 'accepted range' before they can be published.
When determining the age of rock strata by this method, if the radioactive date differs widely from the fossil dating in the strata, the fossil date is always the final authority. Radio dates are only ever used when there are no other indicators of age. When fossils are present where expected in a strata, radio dates are only used to 'confirm' an age. Some experts, keen to make a name for themselves, will seize upon any radio date that gives their fossil discovery precedence over others. Such an example is Richard Leakey's 1470 man, where an initial dating of 220 million years was about 100 times too high to fit the evolutionary timescale. Subsequent dating of the same strata by the same method gave a more "acceptable” figure of 2.6 million years, which was the date that was publicised. Malcolm Bowden states that many more examples could be quoted.
In an article for the December – February 2000 issue of the “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “Radioactive Dating Failure”, Andrew Snelling writes in his conclusion: “The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on the 1949, 1954 and 1975 lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K-Ar (potassium-argon) analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form around 50 years ago. Yet they yield 'ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false.. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?”
In an article for the September – November 1998 issue of the “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “Stumping Old-Age Dogma”, Andrew Snelling writes about an experiment conducted over carefully controlled conditions, which shows radio-carbon dating giving a "young" age for something "supposed" to be very "old": “…a fossilised tree stump was found by miners in the Newvale No.2 (underground) coal mine north of Sydney, Australia. A portion of it was saved by one of the miners….Based on the plant fossils found in them, these coal beds (including the associated mudstone in which the stump was found) have been designated Upper Permian, which uniformitarian geologists would therefore assign to a period of Earth’s history around 250 million years ago…..Small pieces of the coalified bark and the silicified wood immediately underneath it were sent for radiocarbon (C14) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (U.S.A.), a reputable, internationally recognized commercial laboratory. The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their ‘supposed’ evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analysis, now recognized as producing the most reliable results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples……There was detectable radio-carbon in the coalified bark, yielding a supposed C14 ‘age’ of 33,700 years (+ or -) 400 years BP (before present)……Of course, if the wood really were 250 million years old as is supposed, one should not be able to obtain a finite age from radiocarbon – all detectable C14 should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time…..Clearly a 33,700 years (+ or -) 400 years BP radio-carbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the evolutionary fossil and uniformitarian rock ‘age’ of 250 million years for this fossilised tree stump.”
Malcolm Bowden quotes one scientist, a Nobel prizewinner in 1973, who said: "If a C14 date supports a theory, we include it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict a theory, we put it in a footnote. If it is completely 'out of date' we just drop it entirely."
Malcolm Bowden contends that the same attitude prevails today with regard to dating.
That the best Radio carbon dating methods available today are potentially flawed may be true; probably is true. That the spiral nature of galaxies tell a different story than modern science considers to be the facts, might also be true. That some dinosaurs have been found with intact bone marrow which can be dated, and which greatly disagrees with current scientific thinking might also be true. But I don't hear anyone in science, even those who acknowledge these potentially devastating findings, suggesting that the earth and the universe could possibly be 6,000 years old. I'm sticking with Dr Schroeders calculations. It's really difficult to wrap one's mind around the fact that the early universe expressed a vastly different measurement of time. But time is a characteristic of space. Time is a dimension of space. Time is an attribute of space, just like gravity and electromagnetism. At the moment that God said "Let there be light" the universe was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, but it was expanding unimaginably fast. It consisted of nothing but photons; (light). [How could Moses have possibly known that?] It is still expanding today. They say that it is in fact expanding even more rapidly! With each doubling of its expansion, time slowed down by a half. Each successive day of Genesis represents a halving of our perception of time. It isn't until way at the end of day six that the twenty-four hour days that we know even existed, but it's been like that ever since. In the beginning, when Jesus said "Let there be light", (because is the Word of God), the first five and a half days or so, were strictly His time and His days. We know from the scriptures that "One day is as a thousand years to God", but even that is as-of day six of Genesis, when the lights in the firmament and the earth and mankind were all in place more or less the way we perceive them today.
Science is still just a baby. Don't throw it out with the bathwater.
One day we will actually see and know exactly how science will completely fit inside the Word of God. It will tuck neatly inside God's plan. Yes, it is a baby with more growing to do.. (don't we all?)
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding." Job 38:4 Men of science were not there at the time.
"God set the boundaries of the seas when He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth" Proverbs 8:29 Science does not know how or when He did this.
"Do you not fear Me? declares the LORD. Do you not tremble before Me, the One who set the sand as the boundary of the sea, an enduring barrier it cannot cross? The waves surge, but they cannot prevail. They roar but cannot cross it." Jeremiah 5:22 It will be true science when it falls at His feet also to agree that the Lord is past finding out.
Science is wonderful..and God will fulfill the curiousity and endeavor of it some day, giving it the satisfactory answers, and then science will greatly honor God as never before.
Yes, don't throw it out, it's only getting started............
The main reason Trump runs around acting like the Corona-virus is not real, isn't a big deal, is gonna go away very soon, it's gonna disappear and everything is great while shushing anything negative anyone wants to ask or talk about is because he grew up on heretic, Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". Peale was his family's preacher growing up and a family friend. Adding to that is he's now surrounded himself with prosperity gospel new-age false teachers as his "spiritual advisors" who are doubling-down on encouraging him to "speak things into existence". After all - it got him elected and millions upon millions of Americans to believe thousands and thousands of his blatant lies. There's even a group among them promoting the idea the JFK, Jr. is still alive and coming back to lord over us. Therefore, instead of addressing the issue of Covid-19 honestly and intelligently with the brains God provided us and actually leading us THROUGH a crisis (using legitimate prayerful guidance) --- He's gonna speak prosperity and health into existence and huddle up with his false teachers sharing their daily prophetic words with him as they all clamor to be first to accurately guess when the virus will just disappear (based upon their "binding prayers" and their literal vocalized "conversations with [their] god" [demons].
These new-age false Christian dominionists have destroyed his presidency and they are trying to bring about the downfall of America...and soiling the name of Jesus Christ in the meantime. It's time to admit we were wrong and save this country and our churches and hold our noses while Joe Biden gets elected. I haven't decided to vote for Joe yet. Maybe I just sit this election out. But I'm not voting for Bunker Benedict Donald. My faith and love of country won't let me do it.
Trump definitely has a background with Peale. And, it sure seems this ideology pervades his thoughts and actions, for I’ve yet to hear him speak anything negative (he’ll frame it positively instead). And yes, we know Paula White is his “spiritual advisor”. But is she and her cohorts doubling-down on encouraging him to "speak things into existence"? Do you have some proof for that? Do you have proof that the same thing is what, in Trump’s eyes, got him elected last time? There may well be folks in this heretical movement saying these sorts of things, but I’d like some substantiation that Trump is doing what you say he is doing. I’m averse to ‘guilt-by-association’.
I can understand if you don’t like the way he is handling CV19. But I think leaving up to the states is the best thing Constitutionally. But I’m willing to be shown in error on this.
In what way have Dominionists “destroyed his presidency” and how are they “trying to bring about the downfall of America”?
Speaking for me, I didn’t vote for Trump as if he were being elected to some sort of religious position—a bishop or something. I voted for him because I think he has America’s best interests in mind. He certainly is imperfect, and I often bristle at some of the things he does and says. But he’s a far cry better than Biden, who would amount to a mere puppet whose strings would be pulled in order to resume Obama 2.0. THAT would amount to the destruction of America.
I think Trump’s speech at Mt. Rushmore was excellent:
He cited a number of important figures, of all different backgrounds. He even mentioned jazz singer Ella Fitzgerald, whose voice, in my opinion, is without parallel in terms of purity of tone, among other things. (I wish he would have mentioned Billie Holiday also.)
I’m also of the opinion Paula White was chosen by Trump more for her value as eye candy than spiritual advice. Trump loves to surround himself with women he finds beautiful. But, of course, that’s speculative. I’m more inclined to think Melania has a fair amount of spiritual influence over the Donald.
----
Anon 11:55 AM,
By chance, are you receiving your information, in part, from vlogger On Point Preparedness?
Let us remember the impassioned words of Oliver Cromwell, ruler of England centuries ago, when he said: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Therefore, let us then take a new look at this question, “Was there life on Earth before Adam?”
All the geological and paleontological evidence proves beyond the slightest scintilla of a doubt that THERE WAS A WORLD BEFORE ADAM. (And this conclusion is NOT in conflict with the Scriptures – not when we correctly understand the real meaning of the Scriptural account of Creation, found in Genesis, chapter 1!)
Creation and Re-creation
In the pages of Genesis, as it relates to the original creation of the universe, we read the simple, matter-of-fact statement: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, King James Version). The Amplified Bible renders this verse: "In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned,) and created the heavens and the Earth." The Good News Bible states: “In the beginning, when God created the universe.” The Moffatt Translation: "When God began to form the universe. . ." The Goodspeed Translation: "When God began to create the heavens and the Earth. . ." Verse two of Genesis, chapter one, continues: “And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (King James Version). Is this verse describing the ORIGINAL creation as being formless and void? If so, it would seem a contradiction. Verse one tells us God created the heavens and the Earth. When God creates something, it is beautiful, grand, and majestic! In the 38th chapter of the book of Job, we read: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). If the original Earth had been created a chaotic ruin, formless and void, the angels would not have "(sung) together" or have "shouted for joy." Isaiah 45:18 adds more light on this enigmatic passage. The prophet declares: "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the Earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else" (King James Version). The Hebrew word translated "vain" here is tohu and means "to lie waste " "a desolation," "a desert." It can also be translated "confusion," "empty place," "without form," "nothing," "wilderness." It is the very same word used in Genesis 1:2, where we read the Earth "was without form." One place says God created the Earth and it "was without form"; in another place we read God did not create the Earth "without form." Is this a contradiction?Not at all! The KEY to understanding this apparently complex problem lies in the little word "was." It can also be translated "BECAME." In fact, in Genesis 19:26 it is translated "became." We read: "And Lot's wife became a pillar of salt." What happened, then, is this: When God originally created the Earth, it was indeed a lovely place. He created it with no waste, no wilderness, no desolation. NO confusion "For God is NOT the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33. It was inhabited. The angels leapt for joy, and shouted with admiration and enthusiasm when they beheld the primeval Earth.
But then something happened. It became "tohu" -- that is, waste, a ruin, a desolation. The original Earth suffered a great cataclysm --a cosmic catastrophe. The Hebrew words translated "without form and void " in Genesis 1:2 literally mean a desolation, a wilderness, an empty, uninhabited ruin. These words, tohu and bohu are very strong words and denote CATASTROPHE. They strongly suggest that some sort of primeval cataclysm, or several such cataclysms, occurred. Destruction! Paroxysm! Chaos! Scripture gives no data for determining HOW LONG AGO the universe was created. And in the first chapter of Genesis, it only records THREE creative acts: 1) the heavens and the Earth (verse 1); 2) new animal life (verses 20-25); and 3) human life, Adam and Eve (verses 26-27). The first creative act referred to the DATELESS PAST. The creation of NEW forms of animal life, and Adam and Eve, occurred approximately 6,000 YEARS AGO. Obviously, then, the first chapter of Genesis is not describing the original creation of the heavens and Earth as occurring in seven consecutive days.
The CAUSE of Cataclsym and Catastrophe
Angels in the Bible are called “stars” (Rev.1:20). What happened in the rebellion of these “stars” was reflected in what happened to the literal “stars” – that is, the planets and heavenly bodies in our solar system! Wreckage! The massive tell-tale signs of awesome violence and catastrophe in the solar system reflects the debris and results from the initial WAR of the wicked angels in their first rebellion against God, and their subsequent attempts to thwart and destroy God’s plan on this Earth for mankind!
The Renewal of Creation
The rest of chapter one of Genesis describes the RE-creation of the Earth, and life upon it, AFTER the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels. After the chaos and destruction which occurred, in verse two of Genesis one, God began a process of RE-creation, REconstruction, if you please, which lasted for seven days. After the great cataclysm, the Earth was cut off from the light of the sun, moon and stars. Darkness prevailed everywhere. As verse two says: "And the Earth was (became) without form and void (tohu and bohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." What do we see then? An Earth destroyed, in pitch darkness, covered by water, the continents submerged, due to some great cataclysm. The viewpoint becomes that of as seen from the surface of the Earth. During the process of reconstruction or re-creation, God first caused the light from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere once again, in a diffused manner (Genesis 1: 3-5), allowing day and night to become discernible. He created order in the atmosphere (verses 6-8). He caused the dry land to appear once again (verse 10). He caused the Earth to once again bring forth life, plants, vegetation, of all kinds. As the turgid clouds and atmospheric disturbances cleared away, He caused the sun, moon and stars to once again become visible from the Earth's surface (verses 14-18). Verse 16 of Genesis one does not describe the sun and moon and stars being created on the fourth day. (How could light have been created on the first day, but the sun and stars which impart light not be created until the fourth day?)
The original Hebrew for "made" in verse 16 actually means "made to appear, made visible." The Hebrew word for “create” is bara, meaning to create, as from nothing – true creation. However, the word used in verse 16 is asah, which means to “make” or “fashion” a thing from pre-existing elements. The sun and moon were originally created "in the beginning." Then, having REFASHIONED the surface of the Earth, and having prepared it, God created NEW living creatures -- NEW animal life of all kinds, from great whales to small fish, from elephants to rodents, from flying birds to flying fish and insects – to REPOPULATE the Earth, and to REPLENISH it (verses 20-25). Thus something had happened to the Pre-Adamic Earth. It had been overwhelmed in a MIGHTY CATASTROPHE, or a long series of catastrophes, which is briefly described in verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1. The world before Adam came to an ABRUPT, screeching end. It was cut short by flooding and upheaval, stroke upon stroke of catastrophe. Genesis 1:2 -- this one short enigmatic, much misunderstood verse of the Bible -- contains within its cryptic message a story that will intrigue you. This one little verse provides an amazing insight -- a powerful CLUE as to what happened to the Earth, after the original time when it was created, beautiful, and to be “inhabited”. The world was populated by millions of angels, and their king was Lucifer. His throne was on the Earth. But he wasn't satisfied. He was a great king, but this angelic king grew restless, discontent. He was unhappy with his lot – his dissatisfaction grew as he envied the power, authority, and honor of God. He grew jealous. He said, "I will ascend into heaven." That shows he was located on the Earth. "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13). That shows he was a king, a ruler -- he had a throne on the Earth. God had given him this authority. But he wanted MORE! And he wanted it NOW!!! He wanted to reign upon the mountain of God, -- just like God Himself! (same verse). And it all transpired before the time of Adam and Eve, when the Earth then had to be refashioned, reshaped, refurbished, and rebuilt. This one verse, in essence, may cover a time span of multiple thousands of years. But we must question seriously the “MILLIONS” of years postulated by evolutionary-influenced scientists The world before Adam can possibly be understood by studying the evidence of that world contained within the Earth's strata. The Scriptures allude to such a world in the very briefest of terms. But there is some indication in the Bible that would lead us to understand that physical life on Earth did exist before Adam. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament book of Job we read of a dinosaur type of creature, which was originally created for a special purpose. Notice: “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are like bars of iron. He is the CHIEF of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan in his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares” (Job 40:15-24). The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into the Greek language circa 250 B.C., during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt indicates this creature is some kind of dinosaur, obviously.
The account continues: “He sets up his tail like a cypress; and his nerves are wrapped together. His sides are sides of brass; and his backbone is as cast iron. This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels” (vs.12-14, LXX, vs.17-19, KJV). Notice! This creature was created and existed during the time of the ANGELS! This would suggest that the angels ruled that ancient world before Adam was created. But how long that world existed we do not know. Nevertheless, here is evidence of a world in which dinosaur-like creatures existed before the time of man! They may well have become extinct and were wiped out by a serious catastrophe which occurred when the angels themselves rebelled! The fact that geology suggests to us that various forms of animal and plant life became extinct, at different periods of the earth's geologic past, would seem to indicate that God allowed these extinctions for a purpose. At times, to accomplish His purpose, the extinctions were widespread and general, and involved catastrophe. They may have occurred due to the misconduct of the angels under the dominion of Lucifer! Whether this time period was thousands of years, or longer, remains to be proven. Again, I strongly recommend the article, “How Old Is the Universe?” to help answer this question.
Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher, once wrote: "The world was created in 4004 B.C., complete with fossils, which were inserted to try our faith. The world was created suddenly, but was made such as it would have been if it had evolved. There is no logical impossibility about this view. And similarly, there is no logical impossibility in the view that the world was created five minutes ago, complete with memories and records" (An Outline of Philosophy, p. 27). Theodosius Dobzhansky, professor of genetics at the University of California, at Davis, and professor emeritus at the Rockefeller University, points out it is foolish to try to make the Bible into a primer on natural science. If all the radiometric evidence is wrong, if the duration of the geological and paleontological record is grossly distorted, he adds, then the Creator must have seen fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. If fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now, so as to deliberately give the appearance of great age and antiquity, then God must be absurdly deceitful. Dobzhansky added: "This is as revolting as it is uncalled for." But is the Creator playing tricks on mankind, and scientists in particular? Or is it their own minds and emotions which are causing them to misinterpret the evidence of the rocks and scientific dating techniques? Wise king Solomon wrote, “Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what he has made crooked?” (Eccl.7:13, NIV). “The man who fears God,” he declared, “will avoid all extremes” (verse 18). Solomon himself sought to understand these things. He declared, “When I applied my mind to know wisdom . . . then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it” (Eccl.8:16-17, NIV). Albert Einstein once said, "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world," The God revealed in the pages of the Bible is a loving Creator, He is not malicious, spiteful, capricious, or a "Practical Joker." Nor is He a cosmic Magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. The God of the Bible is a Creator -- a Builder -- a Designer -- an Architect, Engineer, Supreme Draftsman, and Originator. Everything He does is with plan and purpose. NOTHING is haphazard. His original creation was PERFECT. And every addition He has made was PERFECT, for the purpose for which He designed it. However, the world is very complex; and the Universe is a great mystery to mankind. Evolutionists have sought to understand how the universe works, but they are stymied in their understanding. They have become lost in a maze of dead ends and labyrinthine tunnels. Evolutionists try to prove the Earth has existed for billions of years, but their proof falls far short of confirming their theory!
10:45 There was a time when the earth was filled with the knowledge of God. There will be a time in the future, when the earth will again be filled with the knowledge of God.
I’ve stated earlier that I think the current tearing down of statues in the US sets a dangerous precedent. I think we all agree that this wrong—no matter the ‘flavor’ of your Christianity (or even those readers here not identifiably Christian). Having prefaced my comment in this way, I wish to explore whether or not the very idea of using Jesus as an icon is proper and valid, per Catholic doctrine. I’m specifically limiting this enquiry to Jesus, not other icons. In other words, I make no comment, pro or con here, about the legitimacy of other icons.
Now, I’m not wishing to start another flame war. But I do think it valid to challenge doctrine—agreeing with Anon 4:10 PM above (from many comments ago). It makes us all sharper.
The main issue, as I see it, is identifying just who YHWH is. Is YHWH the Trinity? That’s the way I understand Catholic belief. But is the term “YHWH” flexible to the extent that the Trinity is the referent in one context yet one Trinitarian ‘Person’ in another? The reason this is important is because YHWH is referenced in Exodus 20:2, 5—the First Commandment—and YHWH is the subject of the Scripture reference in CCC 2129.
The Catholic Church combines all of Exodus 20:2-6 as its First Commandment. Putting it in context, we have:
2 I am the Lord [YHWH] thy God [Elohim], who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt not have strange gods [elohim] before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord [YHWH] thy God [Elohim], mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
For added background, YHWH is consistently translated kyrios in the Septuagint. Relatedly, we understand that in the NT kyrios is a very common designation for Jesus Christ, the Son. In this same vein, in the Douay-Rheims of Jude 1:5 we find “Jesus” as the one having saved the people out of the land of Egypt. Some Greek manuscripts contain “Jesus” (Iēsous) in Jude 1:5, while others have kyrios, “Lord”. Either way, the referent in Jude is understood to be Jesus (and I think Iēsous is the original), because “Lord” is most always used for the Son, while “God” is most often used for the Father. Compare this to Exodus 20:2 above.
Now, this is NOT to suggest God the Father in the NT is NOT YHWH. In fact, in John 1:18 we are told No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [exegeted] him (cf. Exodus 33:20). It could be significant that the Greek article is present in John 1.1b (and the Word was with [the] God [Father]), while 1:18 lacks the article, though one cannot press this too sharply—there’s no hard fast rule in the NT with regard to the Greek article.
This, then, leads to the question: Who is YHWH in Exodus 20:2? According to Jude, this must include the Son. If John 1:18 is speaking of the Father, then the Exodus 20:2 must include the Father. If John 1:18 refers to the Trinity, then the Exodus 20:2 must include the entire Trinity.
Now let’s consider this question of “Who is YHWH?” as we look at the relevant portion of the CCC (Catechism).
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord [YHWH] spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
The Deuteronomy reference in 2129 is 4:15-16, and YHWH is the referent for “Lord”. This must include the Son, like Exodus 20:2, and by extension, 20:5. I suppose one could argue that 2129 is qualified by It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel, thereby excluding the Incarnate Son. But wouldn’t it be Nestorian by very definition to exclude Jesus’ transcendence while He was incarnate? Even if one overlooks this apparent Nestorianism, this would mean that during the Incarnation the Son lacked omnipresence. If that’s the case, which other Divine traits did the Son lack during His earthly ministry? This points to some sort of kenosis, which is condemned by the RCC, not just by implication at Chalcedon (by Leo the Great), but reiterated explicitly by Pope Pius XII.
The way I read Catholic doctrine, as shown above, there can be no justification for images of Jesus. 2131’s “of Christ” contradicts the First Commandment and 2129 when all relevant issues are considered (Chalcedon, Pope Pius XII’s statement, Jude 1:5, etc.). I don’t see any other way around this.
Craig, you should know better than this, but I am going to repeat it anyway.
We Catholics neither 'worship' or 'idolize' STATUES. They are there as 'reminders' to us just as one keeps photos of family members. (We don't worship or idolize our family members either.)
No one is asking you to believe as we do. That's why you should continue as a Protestant... and we will continue as Catholics.
Ultimately, you can 'challenge' all you want... but, this will only be settled on Judgement Day (not by you, or anyone else here on this blog).
I think you're missing my larger point. It's not a matter of worshiping versus veneration. I'd already stated that I understand this distinction. The issue is whether images of Jesus are permitted in the first place. The First Commandment, especially in conjunction with Deut 4:15-6 (CCC 2129), makes it clear we are to make no images of God. Is Jesus not God? If He is, can we separate His Deity from His humanity (which would amount to the heresy of Nestorianism and/or implying a heretical kenosis)?
This is a serious issue. Maybe this is mitigated somewhere I'm just not seeing at present.
And, as others have said before, Matthew 7:3-5 is not applicable here. Otherwise, to take it as broadly as you seem to do, we cannot assess or "judge" any single thing.
Catholics absolutely DO NOT worship statues or images in any form. Worship is reserved for God alone. Idolatry in ANY form is absolutely condemned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2110-2114) spells this out clearly. Anyone who suggests otherwise is mistaken and seriously misrepresents Catholic teaching.
I just saw a five minute clip of Trump's speech today by CBS. This is the blurb accompanying the video:
In remarks at the White House on July 4 ahead of a military flyover, President Trump emphasized shared heritage of Americans and the legacy of "American heroes." Mr. Trump pushed ahead with a divisive message, saying "we will never allow an angry mob to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample on our freedoms."
What is so divisive about pushing back against "never allow[ing] an angry mob to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample on our freedoms"? Typical biased media--fake news.
All this microchipping is of course for our own good! And when it becomes mandatory, you know, for our own good, and we don't comply, they will F K our shit up!
My point was, as written, the CBS wording is a non sequitur. They didn't try to spin his words, which is what I'm used to. What I expect is for them to twist Trump's words, such as, "Trump pushed ahead with a divisive message, calling peaceful protestors 'angry mobs'..." or something like that.
Presuming that microchipping will indeed turn out to have some significant relationship with the Mark of the Beast this book may be of benefit:
"I Won't Take the Mark: A Bible Book and Contract for Children
By "Katherine Albrecht Ed.D
"Product Description
"This beautifully illustrated and scripturally accurate book gently conveys the warnings of Revelation while joyously celebrating the ultimate triumph of good over evil, guiding children to a closer relationship with Jesus—whether at home, in church, or as part of a Bible study. Each book comes with an 8x10 certificate for your child to sign, promising to worship only God and never take the mark of the beast.
"About the Author
"Katherine is an internationally known privacy researcher, consumer advocate, bestselling author, and nationally syndicated radio host. She holds a Doctorate in Human Development and Consumer Education from Harvard University, has studied at the MIT Media lab, and received a Masters from Harvard in Technology, Innovation, and Education.
"Katherine helped to create StartPage, the world's most private search engine, and is on the team that developed StartMail, the fully private, paid email service that privacy within the reach of ordinary people by making PGP encryption easy to use.
"Katherine has authored RFID labeling and anti-chipping legislation, testified before the Federal Trade Commission and numerous state legislatures, and was appointed by NH Governor John Lynch to serve as a consumer technology expert. Her work with Associated Press reporter Todd Lewan helped put an end to human microchipping in the US in 2007, and with the ACLU she launched a successful First Amendment lawsuit against McCormick Place, the nation's largest conference center.
"With Liz McIntyre, Katherine co-authored the bestselling RFID expose Spychips, and she has granted over 2,000 media interviews with news outlets around the globe, including CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, Fox News, Good Morning America, the BBC, Wired Magazine, The New York Times, and more.
"Katherine is currently serving as the Associate Editor of the IEEE ("eye-triple-ee") Technology & Society Magazine, has written on RFID technology for Scientific American, writes a bi-weekly column on technology and security at eHow.com, and heads the 18,000 member consumer privacy organization CASPIAN.
Craig, I was agreeing with you. The media is so predictable now in its perversity. If George Soros wasn't such an old decrepit bag of bones, I would suspect that he is the Antichrist. He's the money behind everything that is anti American, anti family, anti goodness and Anti Christ.
The single most telling thing about Donald Trump, whom I'd like to support, is that he doesn't have George Soros arrested for sedition and treason. That old goat is guilty of all that and more.
According to new reports, humanity is approaching a herd immunity to COVID-19 due to rising recoveries from the virus. However, mainstream media has been ignoring the recovery numbers. One America’s Kristian Rouz finds out why.
I thought so, but figured I'd add to my statement.
I do think Soros is funding a lot of anti-American activities, but I think it may be difficult to find a smoking gun. Also, last I heard, he was living in China.
"What I did say is that AFTER He physically rose from the dead, His body "changed," which can easily be illustrated by the Scriptures."
changed into what? something non physical? His Resurrection body and those we shall receive someday, is indestructible and immortal, but PHYSICAL He said to handle Him and see He has flesh and bones not like a spirit, and ate some fish. This change of His strictly human of present type to the Resurrection body happened at the Resurrection, not after. appearing despite a closed door is not much more spectacular than walking over the water before His death and Resurrection.
So His body changed into some kind of spirit haunt thing? prove it.
ehttps://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/jesus-is-still-human Jesus Is Still Human
Of course you do not address my point about your ignoring when I have shown RC errors include a lot of biblically correct stuff. The hate I refer to does not need to imply you hate individuals, but a froth at the mouth condition that impedes seeing anything but what you want to see. Perhap your whole identity is tied up in rejection of everything remotely "romanish" to the point you ignore what in Scripture supports any such thing (they are in error on several things, incl. the papacy). It seems DISHONEST to not mention this in your remarks.
Forever and ever and to the ages of ages is the same thing. just different ways of saying the same thing. idiomatic differeces that's all.
Sandra is not my sock puppet. her typos are different from mine, which have a keyboard problem basis and the text I compose in doesn't spell check. oops. Certain keys have to be hit harder than others.
As for Trump getting criminal buddies out of jail, Flynn was innocent, unless he lied about something else, he said he didn't discuss something and he didn't he was asked about it and said he could not discuss it the person had to ask the President/ That isn't discussing something that is refusing to discusss something. Flynn was thrown under the bus as a plopy of some kind, gets the corrupt players in the open.
Isit okay to make an image of Jesus? Paul says He is the express image of The Father and Jesus said when you have seen Me you have seen the Father, they are alike. An image of Jesus doesn't show His invisible divinity, but it is included in His person which is depicted.
you salute the flag it is about what it represents. same deal with honoring an icon. When people throw grbge at some unpopulr person's picture they are dishonoring the original on purpose.
...The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be, and Martin worried that wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were — and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19...
Do cloth face coverings work? Probably, to some extent. But just how much they work depends on the material, how they’re used, and what you’re expecting them to accomplish. And — regardless of what you’ve seen in highly shareable memes — we definitely don’t know enough to say that wearing these kinds of coverings will reduce risk of transmission by a specific percentage, let alone a high percentage. Those were the conclusions of an expert report published by the National Academies of Sciences on April 8, and two of the lead authors of that paper recently told me the science hasn’t significantly changed since then. Some studies have come out showing a correlation in certain regions between mask mandates and reduced spread of the coronavirus, but several of those not-yet-peer-reviewed studies have turned out to have important flaws — such as failing to account for factors like other behaviors (such as higher rates of social distancing) that went along with wearing masks in those places.
...“Back in March, it was difficult to even have anybody take you seriously when the CDC and WHO said the opposite,” said Jeremy Howard, a data scientist and entrepreneur...
At the same time, Michael Osterholm, a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told me he’s received vulgar emails from people who read his statements questioning the efficacy of cloth masks. Osterholm said that his position was not that masks shouldn’t be worn — he wears one in public, himself — but that there is limited data on how effective DIY cloth masks are at stopping small particles, either from passing through or being forced out the sides of the mask. Without that information, he said, physical distancing and isolation remain the most important tools in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. But as more Republicans say the worst of the coronavirus is behind us, and usage of masks tracks tightly along the partisan spectrum, Osterholm told me he felt like well-meaning people were making him out to be a pandemic denialist.
Ultimately, experts said, all the nuance and complication around masks is a challenge that public health messaging has to face up to. It’s difficult to make one-size-fits-all recommendations for situations that don’t readily lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all reality.
The good news is that there’s more agreement than disagreement on where to start. Just look at Osterholm and Howard, two experts who might easily be seen as having opposing viewpoints in this battle. Yet they hold similar positions on one issue: They both wish the CDC would have given the public the nuanced information about masks back in March and trusted them to understand it. Granted, that might mean presenting the public with a complex message, such as: “We don’t know how well cloth masks work, so distancing should come first, but masks are likely to work to some extent and not everyone can distance themselves.” That’s a mouthful and harder to fit on a bumper sticker than “yes, you should,” or “no, you shouldn’t.” But it comes down to what builds trust more: certainty or honesty?
Of course, while our first inclination is to laugh out loud . . .
Kanye West (who has plenty of money to finance his own campaign) could be the 'spoiler' candidate. Remember Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent in the 1992 election, which ended up taking votes away from the incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush (denying him a second term)... and putting Bill Clinton in the White House?
(Blacks would support Joe Biden... as many view Kanye as a 'sell out' to their race.)
681 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 681 Newer› Newest»Only ONE particular individual Catholic posted offensive comments here over the past few days.
Anyone with a brain can tell by a person's writing style (+ misspellings, grammar, etc.) that those offensive comments came from the very SAME single individual.
He has been reprimanded by two other Catholic posters (who are regulars on this blog)... and also by Constance.
But, copying & pasting and posting this TWICE today makes two prominent ANTI-Catholics on this blog feel very SMUG, self-righteous, and comfortable... as if they have been given a green light to continue their bigotry.
The complete UNBROKEN line of Catholic Popes (from Peter to Francis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
___________________________________________________________________________________________
DOCUMENTED HISTORY CAN NOT BE DISMISSED OR IGNORED, PAUL... ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO JUST THAT FOR 15 YEARS NOW!!!
In the year 33 AD, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said the following words:
"And I say to you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Thanks for feet held to the fire comments, paul.
And I do not think you are malicious when you do. I do not see that in your posts over a lot of time gone by.
I appreciate that you are not coming against persons to go after them personally, but after an institution that has gotten away with whole eras of egregious things.
The truth is the truth is the truth, and if ever there was a time to tell it, it's now.
But... who is going to hold Paul's 'feet to the fire' and tell HIM the truth???
You can't talk about the 'WORD'of God... while having so MANY VERSIONS of every scriptural passage. It then become WORDS plural... not 'WORD'.
THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS; THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS; THE TRUTH HAS NO VERSIONS.
If there ever was a time to hear it, it is NOW . . .
Thanks 7:18
By the way I actually miss Susanna, who always had a civilized and well informed reply to any of my criticisms.
Also, I am aware that some of the worst examples of Christianity in the world are some of these protestant mega church lukewarm frauds.
And I'll say this again for the umpteenth time: I believe that there are many many sincere God-fearing, Jesus Christ loving, Roman Catholics. They just don't know or don't want to know how corrupt the Vatican is and has been for a long time. After all, the Apostles Creed is the same in my church as it is in RC churches. But that's where I hear Jesus, in Matthew 23, saying "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to do, that do, but do not as the Pharisees do, for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
So I will continue to say; "Come out of her my people, and do not partake in her sins.
I'd tell the members of the Saddleback Church and the Crystal Cathedral, and the The Joel Osteen mob the same thing.
Anonymous said (in part) @ 4:02 PM:
"I am not the first to spot an unkind tone in what you convey in your posts about the Jews, RayB.
Constance herself recently asked you that very thing. Others have mentioned this too."
NOTE: In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," one of the tactics in dealing with the "enemy" is to accuse them of something, whether true or not, in order to put them on the defensive. As long as the ACCUSATION is made, it is enough to cause many people to "suspect" that the accusation "just might be true." This puts your enemy in a weak position and is "very effective."
This is PRECISELY what you are doing. I've had this utterly false accusation thrown at me before, and I have met the challenge with "show your proof ... copy and paste" what I have posted in order to prove your position.
Just as I thought .... you posted nothing.
Your false accusations are not going unnoticed by the Lord.
Constance should also be ashamed of herself for asking such a loaded, completely unfounded question as well. Particularly, since I have NEVER posted ANYTHING on here that could in any way be construed to be "anti-Semetic."
What's next? Is someone going to ask me if I'm a Nazi? It really is a tactic right out of Rules for Radicals. SHAME !!!
Agreed, paul, @ 7:40 PM
Come out of her my people and do not partake of her sins crosses the many denominational lines. I have said the like myself a number of times here and other places too, because it is just true.
When we see Jesus all denominational lines will be erased. We all have truth to hold on to from the Lord but none of us is complete yet as God continues to build His spiritual house awaiting the day when He is before us. We will know then won't we? We all have pieces and parts right now since none of us has "arrived" but each believer can be so thankful for that day that is coming. Jesus is coming back sooner than we realize.
1 Corinthians 13 spells this out or us so well.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror [e]dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the [f]greatest of these is love.
Actually would be good for me to read the entire Love chapter again.
Iron sharpens iron..that's good thing...but believe whatever you want to believe, be my guest, RayB.
Yes, I can't wait until you BIGOTS confront my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on Judgement Day and tell HIM that you told Catholics (who belong to the church that HE founded in 33 AD) to 'come out of her' . . .
To Anonymous @ 8:10 AM
Re: 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things. ???
____________________________________________________________________________________________
This is what JESUS has to say about that . . .
And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
(Anonymous 6:58 PM said:)
"Only ONE particular individual Catholic posted offensive comments here over the past few days.
"Anyone with a brain can tell by a person's writing style (+ misspellings, grammar, etc.) that those offensive comments came from the very SAME single individual."
NICE TRY.
The writing style of the first one is VERY different from the other(s). The 2nd and 3rd have enough similarities to each other to say: maybe the same single poster, maybe two.
And, by the way, YOU wouldn't happen to BE (if 2 total) the OTHER venomous 'Catholic' poster, trying to shift blame by any chance now, would you? The person who had a visceral reaction when the mention of what constitutes a FEDERAL CRIME as defined in the Anti-Stalking law was posted, perhaps suddenly anxious that he or she might now be looking at finding themself in VERY serious trouble?
To Paul @ 7:40 AM:
Re: "I believe that there are many many sincere God-fearing, Jesus Christ loving, Roman Catholics. They just don't know or don't want to know how corrupt the Vatican is and has been for a long time."
____________________________________________________________________________________________
And, as Constance has pointed out many, many times... the New Age Movement has infiltrated ALL of the religions (Protestant AND Catholic). YOUR churches are no exception!!!
But, to demand that we Catholics abandon our traditional Catholic FAITH when we have the PROMISE of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD that "... the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)... that is something that you will have to 'answer for' on Judgement Day.
It means that, in the year 33 AD, Jesus KNEW what was going to happen less than 2,000 years later... and He wanted to let us know that we have HIS WORD THAT EVIL WILL NOT WIN!!!
I’m on Team Christian, not Team Protestant or Team Catholic. I look at historical facts and evidence, from original sources (to the extent we assume they are uncorrupted, of course). I agree that ca. AD 33 Jesus founded His church (His ekklēsia, which in the NT era most generally meant “congregation/assembly of people”, not a physical structure or a hierarchical authority structure; see its use in Acts 19:32, 39, 40 for non-Christian application). But where do we go from there?
According to Eusebius of Caesarea—whom the Catholic website New Advent affirms (as does the Wikipedia entry) as a “Father of Church History”—is a bit ambiguous regarding the first bishop (not “Pope”) of Rome. The Greek πάππας (pappas), “pope” (according to the Wikipedia entry), does not seem to appear at all in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. (Nor does this term appear in 1st-2nd century Greek texts, including the NT, as far as I’ve seen—it is absent in the BDAG lexicon, e.g.) The similar πάππος (pappos), “grandfather”, is found myriad times in Philo.
James the Just, Jesus’ half-brother appears to be the very first bishop chosen, and he was chosen to be the Bishop of Jerusalem. Each use of the “bishop” or “episcopate” in C. F. Cruse’s translation of Ecclesiastical History below is from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer/bishop/guardian”. This term is found five times in the NT (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25):
(2.1.2)…This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem. (2.1.3) Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus : “Peter, and James, and John, after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem" (Eccl. Hist. 2.1.2-3 [Book 2, Chapter 1, Sections 2-3])
Later in Eusebius’ work, the first Bishop of Rome is mentioned:
(3.1.1) …But the holy apostles and disciples of our Savior were scattered over the whole world… (2) Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews who were scattered abroad, he finally came to Rome and was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way… (3.2.1) After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received the episcopate at Rome… (3.4.8) …Linus, whom [Paul] mentions in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been before shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome. (3.4.9) Clement also, who was appointed the third bishop of this church was proved by him to be a fellow laborer with him.
[cont]
[cont]
How can we disambiguate? In the back of Cruse’s translation is a list of “Bishops of Rome”. The list is prefaced with these words:
According to Eusebius, Peter and Paul died as martyrs at Rome; after these followed:
1. Linus
2. Anencletus [ED: this is Eusebius’ spelling]
3. Clement
…and the list continues on. Note that not only is Peter not mentioned in the list, Clement is third, in agreement with 3.4.9 above.
As for Irenaeus, the recognized Church Father, here’s the relevant section, as from the New Advent site (Against Heresies 3.3.2-3):
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.
Like in Eusebius, Peter and Paul are both mentioned, and both are either called “holy apostles and disciples” (Eusebius) or “apostles” (Irenaeus). The first Bishop of Rome is Linus, the third is Clement.
I should also add, the new word papas was used by Bishop Dionysius of Alexander (232-248) as an apparent term of respect in addressing his predecessor Heracles, according to Eusebius (7.7.4). The accompanying footnote to this neologism (new word) reads:
"The word πάπας [papas] here used, and applied by Dionysius to his predecessor at Alexandria was, as we see in this instance, applied to the more aged and venerable prelates. We thus see the origin of the word pope, Latin papa, German pabst. This word is no doubt to be traced to the language of nature, as forming the first syllables that the infant lisps. It is explained by a scholiast on Juvenal, Senex veneratione dignus, pater (See Juv. Sat. vi. 632)."
I see my weblink in the first comment did not work; here it is:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm
So Scripture is contradicting Scripture 9:20PM?
That is not possible. God cannot contradict Himself.
What Jesus said while He was speaking to adults in Matthew 18, refers to a humble childlike heart, like a child trusts it's father in a simple expression of childlike faith for salvation, for being converted.
But the context in 1 Corinthians 13 is about growth in the graces, in sanctification, of the inner man who has become a believer, is born again a spiritual man, who now needs to be growing more loving and kind, growing more discerning in conduct, growing more wise in the truth God's Spirit teaches....growing as Jesus did as that 12 year old boy in the temple (though He was perfect), He grew in stature before God and men so He is our example in this context. So it is we believers who are told in the Bible to put off the old nature to put on the new nature afforded us by the Holy Spirit at conversion. If we believe Jesus don't we want to become like Him?
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:52
There are two phases of a believer's life.
Becoming converted, and then becoming like Jesus by walking by faith. True faith wants to live out the true love of Jesus and the Love chapter shows us what that faith should look like.
Uh, 9:49 PM.
I think you must have missed what Paul said in that 7:40 PM post..
"So I will continue to say; "Come out of her my people, and do not partake in her sins.
I'd tell the members of the Saddleback Church and the Crystal Cathedral, and the The Joel Osteen mob the same thing."
He did not exclude other denominations, he gave a few examples.
Andy Ngo, independent journalist who was beaten pretty badly a year ago (I saw the YouTube video at the time), speaks out, despite death threats:
Andy Ngo Testifies About Antifa at Congressional Briefing
10:12 PM
And you must have MISSED the last 15 years... when Paul was constantly telling Catholics to 'come out of her'.
By refusing to abandon our traditional Catholic FAITH that Jesus created in 33 AD... we are TRUSTING in the PROMISE of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who told us:
"... and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
(So, evidently it is YOU who don't 'get it'.)
Do any of you DENY that Jesus wants us to come to Him like little children???
These are the words of Jesus . . .
And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
Many have discovered when they entered college... that professors would try to convince them that all of that 'religious stuff' they learned as children was just to help them form their conscience... but, now that they were adults, they needed to abandon / deprogram themselves from that way of thinking... and begin to question everything!!! Sounds familiar . . .
I honestly do believe, and will remain in the belief, that if you are a Catholic that has come to a personal relationship with the Savior, Jesus Christ you should leave the Catholic institution. There is an evil, perverted, and violent spirit that resides in that institution, and I'm sure the Lord would have you chose to leave!
2 Peter 3:18 says...but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
Yes, come to Him as a child (childlike, humble) to be converted, saved, and grow in His love and grace to mature as His disciple.
Does a baby stay a baby?
A good parent wants their child to grow in all good ways, good things.
So does the Lord. Spiritual growth to become like His Son Jesus.
Surely this is not complicated to understand...
From child to adult--a warning from the writer of Hebrews:
5:11 Of whom [Jesus] we have much to say, and hard to be intelligibly uttered: because you are become weak to hear.
12 For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that is a partaker of milk, is unskillful in the word of justice: for he is a little child.
14 But strong meat is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil.
A Call to Spiritual Growth
11 There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen.
12 You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word. You are like babies who need milk and cannot eat solid food.
13 For someone who lives on milk is still an infant and doesn’t know how to do what is right.
14 Solid food is for those who are mature, who through training have the skill to recognize the difference between right and wrong.
https://www.biblehub.com/nlt/hebrews/5.htm
38% of Voters Think Biden Has Dementia
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/38_of_voters_think_biden_has_dementia
3:56 AM
As a baptized Catholic Christian... I have already been 'converted and saved'.
My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ KNOWS my heart and my soul.
I am not on trial here. I don't need to explain or prove anything to you or anyone else.
Your opinion does not matter to me.
Your supreme ARROGANCE here on this blog is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!!!
We Catholics are neither 'spiritually dull' or incapable of listening. How DARE YOU!!!
What we are quite wide awake and alert enough to HEAR from you is that we should IGNORE and DISMISS the words of Jesus (to "become as little children")... and become 'masters'???
Uh, no thank you.
There is only ONE 'MASTER' in my life... and that is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Obviously, some of you need to ask God to forgive your SIN of PRIDE... and learn a lesson in HUMILITY.
The Corporate Thought Police Are Merciless
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/corporate-thought-police-are-merciless
The Roman Catholic Bishops conference of Italy published a prayer to Mother Earth in April 2019. The conference did this with a special focus on the Amazon synod which occurred in October 2019. This breakthrough is being equated with the Catholic Church's emerging acceptance of both indigenous people's and New Age spirituality.
The National Catholic Register and EWTN, an American-based, global television network, are, together, promoting a two-Bishops lead vile campaign against Pope Francis and the direction that the Amazon synod is taking the church. In a National Catholic Reporter article title Amazon synod has set Pope Francis' professional haters on edge ," its author, Michael Winters, wrote: Cardinal Raymond Burke and Kazakhstan Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider were leading a "campaign" against the pope and the Amazon synod's working document. Mr. Winters also wrote: In this internet age, an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan can make a splash, but the particular vehicle for Burke's and Schneider's vile insinuations is the National Catholic Register, an arm of EWTN.
Traditionalist Catholic, Michael Matt, editor of the conservative Catholic publication, The Remnant Newspaper, is a prominent member of the Burke and Schneider lead vile campaign. In a video by Mr. Matt titled "POPE SACHS CHURCH: Vatican Embraces United Nations Goals" there is a picture of John Lennon and Pope Francis together, with the words "Imagine THAT" displayed next to them, indicating that the Amazon synod (as Matt says in the video) helps the Church promote its global agenda to fulfill Lennon's (in general) vision, as presented in the lyrics of the Beatles' song Imagine. Matt also produced a video titled: Hippies in the Vatican: A Groovy Kind of Synod.
The leading Protestant opponents of the New Age are making the same -- hippie New Age spiritual philosophy -- connection as Matt is, to a prophesied "coming era," that will be ("if conservative Christians cannot stop it") ushered in by the pope and the United Nations.
Fr. Mitchael Pacwa, a renowned expert on the New Age, condemned what he believed to be idolatry at the Amazon synod on his weekly program on EWTN. He talked about the indigenous people's 'Pachamama' (Mother Earth) "idols" that were praised and blessed at the Synod on the Amazon. He also said: "The bishops conference of Italy published a prayer to Pachamama." Concerning the thinking that influenced the publication of this Inca prayer to Mother Earth, he said: "This is New Age like thinking that goes back to the 1970s."
Wikipedia says: "From a historical perspective, the New Age phenomenon is rooted in the counterculture of the 1960s." The Beatles' promotion of Hinduism, according to Wikipedia, "kick-started the Human Potential Movement that subsequently became New Age." The 1960s counterculture, as stated by Wikipedia, "used the terms New Age and Age of Aquarius to refer to a coming era."
the rest of this article is located at: http://www.towahkon.org/Pachamama.html
Yes indeed Tommy, the Catholic religious institution is very New Age!
Don't mention any of this to Constance, cuz she might get pissed off!
Joe Biden: I support abortion under any circumstance
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/joe-biden-i-support-abortion-under-any-circumstance
Wikipedia: Biden and his wife are Roman Catholic and regularly attend Mass at St. Joseph's on the Brandywine in Greenville, Delaware
To the idiot at 8:57 AM . . .
Constance KNOWS that we Catholics have read both of her best sellers, "The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow" and "A Planned Deception ~ The Staging of A New Age Messiah" back in the early 1980's. That is the reason why we came to this blog 15 years ago... even if we do have to put up with misinformed idiots like you.
If Constance still isn't sure exactly WHO the Antichrist is... how come a few of you ARROGANT know-it-all's assume that you know who it is. How many BOOKS have YOU written lately? (I hear crickets...)
What are you ANTI-Catholics going to do about all of the New Age INFILTRATION that is happening in your OWN churches??? Too busy judging Catholics on this blog to notice???
Obviously, some of that not-so-subtle New Age thinking has seeped deep into your brains though... if you REALLY BELIEVE that Jesus wants you to become 'MASTERS'. LOL
Anyway, thanks for the LAUGH this morning... I really NEEDED that!!!
P.S. We Catholics are at peace in the knowledge that Jesus has made a PROMISE to us:
"... and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
(Therefore, we won't be needing ANYTHING from YOU.)
FYI to Mr. DULLheimer:
Out of 1.2 BILLION Catholics... MOST of us are traditional conservative Catholics who remain true to the FAITH as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ created it in the year 33 AD.
So, for ANYONE to assume that ALL Catholics are part of the New Age is SLANDER on your part.
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
8:28 AM
1) Didn't know I was talking to a Catholic in my 11:43 PM post. I wrote that to anyone because it is simply what the Bible says.
2) Growing in grace to become like Jesus poses a problem for you? Doesn't the world need to see the love of Christ in the lives of His disciples (now more than ever to me)
3) Why do you misuse the word master (from someone else's post that was quoting a proper text for context to go along with the original post) to make it mean something that what it was conveying. (maybe you are dull to miss the application because you should have not made that personal)
4) Why are you interjecting a overt defensiveness into this conversation where nothing is meant to be insulting but an encouragement and an admonition to appreciate how the Lord wants His children to become masterful at (for instance) rightly using His Word, able to grow themselves, able to teach others in the ways of Christ to strengthen them also, and be more and more able to overcome the challenges of life with a heart that is given to love--His love--that overcomes everything for the believer because even better than faith, even better than hope, even better, is love.. The love chapter 1 Corinthians 13 should humble people instead of taking those words and becoming offended. None of us has arrived so you did not need to take it personal.
Whatever offense and wounding you are carrying, whether real, or only imagining, (because I would have absolutely no way of knowing) needs to be brought to the feet of Jesus (it's what I have to do myself at those times). If you do, then perhaps you will see the wonderful encouragement from the passages quoted (by more posters than just me) intended in the posts for the Lord's people, that was made with no distinction of denomination whatsoever. (was actually trying to get away from that whole discussion and you took it there, anyway).
3) not conveying is what I meant.
Please don't take offense at what has no intention of doing that.
Those are questions and points above for any one. No one is singled out.
:)
The pope is very New Age. The last three have been. Globalist Luciferians.
You say the gates of hell will not prevail against your Catholic religion, but it will no longer exist in the very near future!
10:01 AM
Jesus disagrees with you.
You can't claim to believe in 'the word of God'... and then decide to ignore or dismiss certain passages that you disagree with.
Ultimately, my faith is in JESUS... not in YOU.
And you don't know what the future holds; none of us knows exactly what is going to happen.
Meanwhile... you need to spend your remaining time left on this earth cleaning up your OWN Protestant churches of any and all New Age infiltration.
9:57 AM
Re: "please don't take offense"
LOL... thanks for my SECOND laugh this morning. (Laughter really is the best medicine.)
If we Catholics started copying and pasting paragraph after paragraph of disinformation and slander toward various Protestant sects (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.)... day in and day out (ad nauseum) for 15 years... I am sure that you Protestants would not be 'offended' by that ~ right???
Dear 10:19 AM,
It's too bad you do not realize how healing the intended words posted really are, for anyone who claims Jesus as Savior and Lord.
"Ye know not what spirit ye are of"...
That is what Jesus said to some disciples who were offended and angry.
To 9:51 AM:
Maybe you need to be reminded of the WORDS of Jesus Himself . . .
And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 (Douay Rheims)
To 9:51 AM
If 'growing in grace(?) is 'admonishing' Catholic Christians... then you need to ask God to please forgive you.
We have done NOTHING to be 'admonished' for!!!
If Catholics started trashing Protestants on this blog... you all would be expressing outrage and complaining to Constance.
You can dish it out... but you can't take it, can you?
Also 10:24 AM,
There is a poster who is antagonizing you and I read those posts and think that is wrong. The very spirit of what is posted is wrong.
Was not my posting though.
I have called out all that considers itself the Church for things that go against the Bible and have seen for myself, first hand, what is to be considered terrible in other denominations besides Catholic. All that calls itself the Church has a lot to answer for so individuals need to stay out of that fray of playing the demeaning game of we do it better. That is awful...for only the Lord is Good, the rest of us who believe Him are merely sinners saved by His Grace.
And the Lord will do the sorting.
I think playing the "denomination card" (as playing the race card) is ugly, no matter who it is.
Have you ever done recess duty and watched children on a playground and the childish fighting that can go on 10:31 AM?
There is a vast difference between childish and childlike.
When we can note the difference we will really know what Jesus the meant.
This blog comments section is like a big school yard fight.
There are bullies coming from more than one corner (denomination or belief system) and all it takes is just a couple of bullies to ruin recess for everybody.
9:51 AM
Re: "Whatever offense and wounding you are carrying, whether real, or only imagining, (because I would have absolutely no way of knowing)"
and this one...
3:56 AM
Re: "There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen."
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Obviously, it is NOT the Catholics here who are 'spiritually dull' or 'don't seem to listen'... you CLUELESS Protestant Evangelicals haven't been listening for 15 YEARS!!!
LOL!!!
Thanks for my THIRD laugh this morning. (Oh, my side hurts from laughing.)
Yes . . .
All it takes is the bullies known as RayB, Paul and Dahlheimer to spoil a good blog.
When is it going to STOP???
"3:56 AM
Re: "There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen.""
Is a Scripture quote.
If that shoe doesn't fit you don't wear it!
The other quote above it is another whatever, whomever, whenever, very broad statement you hone in on so you can feel targeted, and since you keep bringing up you, and keep bringing up your denomination, then it appears that you are one of the offended Jesus was taking about..
"ye know not what spirit ye are of".
Sorry, but that is your take..and your fight...with someone other than me.
This is more than just ONE person's fight on this blog.
There are a few of YOU (and you know who you are) who do need to ask God's forgiveness for UNFAIRLY and viciously slandering Catholic Christians on this blog for the past 15 years.
(Therefore, IF the shoe fits, etc.)
Well, this is interesting. Check out this article currently making the rounds:
There’s a dark side to meditation that no one talks about
No kidding!
From the article:
What contemporary and ancient meditators have always known, however, is that while the hype may be warranted, the practice is not all peace, love, and blissful glimpses of unreality. Sitting zazen, gazing at their third eye, a person can encounter extremely unpleasant emotions and physical or mental disturbances.
...[T]his demanding and sometimes intensely distressing side of meditation is rarely mentioned in scientific literature, says Jared Lindahl, a visiting professor of religious studies at Brown University, who has an interest in neuroscience and Buddhism. Along with Willoughby Britton, a psychologist and assistant professor of psychiatry at Brown, the two meditators have co-authored a study that documents and creates a taxonomy for the variant phenomenology of meditation. The paper, published in Plos One, is the beginning of an ongoing series of studies. “Just because something is positive and beneficial doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of the broader range of possible effects it might have,” Lindahl says.
Ghislaine Maxwell arrested, busted in New Hampshire!!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8483581/Ghislaine-Maxwell-ARRESTED.html
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/
Let the dominoes fall!
Read the Indictment Against Jeffrey Epstein Associate Ghislaine Maxwell
The British socialite and Epstein confidante was arrested on charges that she conspired with the financier to sexually abuse minors, recruiting girls as young as 14. The indictment, reviewed by TheWrap and embedded below, specifically cited the years 1994 to 1997 as those when she “facilitated and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom and ultimately abuse victims known to Maxwell and Epstein to be under the age of 18.”
I'm sure she will be found dead in her cell. Have to protect the Clinton's
I have an important question that I'd really like to hear our Catholic friends answer. I'D ALSO LOVE TO HEAR CONSTANCE'S INPUT ON THIS.
First, we know that Official Catholic teaching holds that if a Catholic misses weekly Mass, and, or on a Holy Day, for "frivolous" reasons, and dies before this Mortal Sin is confessed and forgiven by a Priest, that that person will spend an eternity in Hell.
This also applies, amongst a number of other "Mortal Sins," including willfully denying Official Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.
Here is my question:
Being that NON-CATHOLICS do not partake in the Mass, and subsequently, do not receive the "Eucharist," AND, that they also obviously deny a lot of Official Catholic Doctrine and Dogma, are these NON-CATHOLICS therefore held to be in Mortal Sin, AND, does that automatically send that offending NON-CATHOLIC to Eternal Hell, as it would an offending Catholic?
In other words, In the eyes of the RCC, if Catholics are not exempt from the Church's Official teachings, are NON-CATHOLICS somehow exempt from Official Catholic teachings, if so, how?
RayB @ 12:31 PM,
Your question reminds me of a somewhat similar question I asked you a while back responding to a statement you made—a question that remains unanswered. Since I’ve retained it, I’ll just copy and paste it here
----
RayB,
@ 11:52 AM, very early in this particular blog post [ED: one from quite a while back now], you wrote:
Satan cannot destroy God's word, because God has promised to protect it. However, Satan can, and does, provide counterfeits. This is exactly what the modern translations are.
Your statement asserts that all modern translations are Satanic “counterfeits”. What is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that modern Bible versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead? In short, can one find eternal security in these “counterfeits” of Satan?
Craig,
Thank you for providing deflection from a very important question.
Why don't YOU provide an answer to my question and stay on topic, Craig?
I believe I addressed this topic before, because I distinctly recall relaying the particulars of my conversion, which involved, at that time, my use of the New American Standard Bible. At one time, I was an enthusiastic proponent of the NASB, until I was challenged to do a verse by verse comparison with the KJV. As to a person's preference, that is left to the individual. However, I have had, over the years, numerous people tell me while holding up their NIV "you need to get your hands on this. It's the best, etc." MANY speak disdainfully of the KJV. I've had any number even say to me; "did you know King James was a homosexual?" Of course, there is no proof of that slanderous assertion, and, the King had NOTHING to do with the actual TRANSLATING, but that doesn't matter; they love their MT, and hate the KJV. So be it.
On a side note regarding I John 5:7. Did you know that 1 John 5:7 in the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, in contrast to the Modern Translations, is almost identical to the KJV? From the DRA: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The NIV (and other Modern Translatons): 1 John 5:7 states: "For there are three that testify:" Is there a difference? You bet there is. And this is just ONE illustration.
So on this verse alone, one version of this text is correct, and the other is incorrect. I'm sure you will disagree, but I still hold to my use of "counterfeit." Counterfeits, just like in currencies, are "close" but they are not the real thing.
By stating that the Modern Translations are "counterfeits" does not mean that the ENTIRE text is counterfeit. It goes without saying that they certainly hold enough truth for God to use in converting those that He calls. However, as a means of GROWTH, they are inferior, IMO, due to the fact that the texts are often watered down. Over and over and over again, key words, sometimes even passages, are "missing." (Of course, you will argue that there is nothing missing, but you are basing your claim upon the works of Wescott & Hort).
Let's not get caught up in this again, which has been argued about at length before. I'm not going to change your way of thinking, and I'm not going to change yours.
PLEASE answer the question that I posted @ 12:31 PM ... I'd really like to hear your take.
RayB,
Your 12:31 post was addressed to Catholics. I'm not Catholic. Therefore, I'm not taking your bait.
Now, as regards your response @ 1:34 PM, you sidestepped the question. Earlier (as I quoted @ 12:53 PM), you'd made an explicit statement that modern versions are "counterfeits", and these "counterfeits" are provided by Satan. Thus, I will ask the question yet again, awaiting a response to the main substance of my question:
Your statement asserts that all modern translations are Satanic “counterfeits”. What is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that modern Bible versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead? In short, can one find eternal security in these “counterfeits” of Satan?
COVI-PASS ~ the world's most secure Digital Health Passport
https://tinyurl.com/yama34ql
RayB:
Neither the Catholics on this blog (nor, I imagine Constance either) are going to fall for your 'bait and trap' game here.
We are not your judge and jury.
Only God, Our Father in Heaven KNOWS what is in each person's heart, soul and mind.
Therefore, HE will be the final judge of every single one of us.
RayB,
I should change/rephrase my response @ 1:46 PM. While you didn’t address the main subject of my comment—the important qualifier of “counterfeit”, namely “Satan”—you did address the eternal security portion. This is new—something you’d not done before. But this concession appears to contradict your earlier statement (with the “Satan” qualifier). That is, you made a statement initially without any sort of limiting aspect as regards content. According to you, modern versions are ‘Satanic’ “counterfeits”.
In other words, your new statement backpedals a bit from the previous, allowing for eternal security, but how can a “counterfeit” provided by Satan furnish security in any sense? The modern versions are either ‘provided by Satan’ or they aren’t. Asserting they are deficient in some manner (as per your most recent comment) is not the same thing as calling them “counterfeits” of Satan.
Perhaps you want to back out the “Satan” part and admit that your earlier statement was in error, perhaps a hastily made comment?
It would stand to reason, RayB - that since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you would be under no obligation to follow the rules of the Catholic faith.
Craig said @ 1:46 PM (in part)
RayB,
Your 12:31 post was addressed to Catholics. I'm not Catholic. Therefore, I'm not taking your bait.
NOTE: What "bait" are you referring to? It's a very legitimate question. Also, to the best of my knowledge, CONSTANCE is not a Catholic, and I also addressed it to her as well. Does that mean that you are now, as a "NON CATHOLIC," going to answer my question?
I already stated that I was converted using the NASB and I completely believe in "eternal security," or, "perseverance of the saints," if you will. I already said that IT IS THEIR CHOICE if they want to use Modern Translations. What part of that is it that you don't understand?
On a personal note; you and I are at cross purposes. You do not respect me, nor do you anything that I have to say. To be honest with you Craig, I typically DO NOT read your posts. IMO, you are a "chip on your shoulder" type that is always attempting to prove your superiority, as evidenced by your jumping into the "Trinity" debate that I referenced.
Again, I posed the question to Catholics as well as Constance, and asked you to answer it as well. Why wouldn't you, Craig?
It would stand to reason, RayB - that since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you would be under no obligation to follow the rules of the Catholic faith.
Anon @ 2:23 PM ...
THANK YOU for your answer.
But, more specifically, are "NON-CATHOLICS" in a state of Mortal Sin for NOT following the RCC, or, does the penalty of committing the RCC definition of Mortal Sins only apply to Catholics? In the eyes of the RCC, are "NON-CATHOLICS" exempt?
But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 2 Timothy 2:23
RayB, that is something you need to consider. Take your questions to God and leave others to their own just as you should do yourself. God knows how to see to it we all get the right correction, and He is merciful doing that. You are not.
Because you generate strife, you really do.
For whatever odd reason (known only to you) you are really into me vs them scenarios. That is unproductive and can descend into the shameful. And who suffers most? The Lord's reputation, in such bad representation by His own.
They do not heal, they fester and spoil what could otherwise be a good learning experience across the board.
Humility is a win-win. For the Lord, and for us.
RayB at 2:34 PM
We traditional Catholics always attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
Since the quarantine, we are only obligated to attend via an online Mass set up by our parish church... or, we many choose to watch one of four Masses a day, shown on the International Catholic television network EWTN.
In other words, even on the occasions when we are sick in bed (unless we are in a coma), we can still watch a Mass on EWTN.
If a Catholic were to willfully and intentionally miss Mass on Sunday... he or she would have to go to Confession before receiving Holy Communion at the next Mass that he or she attends.
You, as a NON-Catholic, would certainly be under no obligation whatsoever... because you are not a member of the Catholic Church.
Alright, enough's enough.
Constance, how about this idea:
Keep this blogspot going and let the constant fighting continue to their heart's content BUT start a SECOND blogspot same as this one EXCEPT it would be STRICTLY for DISCUSSIONS rather than FIGHTS. ANY violation gets immediately deleted and a policy of "3 Strikes And You're 'Out'!" (BANNED). It would be very nice to have a strife-free My perspective -- What Constance thinks to be able to go to rather than this strife-torn one!
RayB,
The “bait” is your attempt at goading me to answer your question (@ 12:31 PM), and I’m still not taking it.
You wrote: I already stated that I was converted using the NASB and I completely believe in "eternal security," or, "perseverance of the saints," if you will. I already said that IT IS THEIR CHOICE if they want to use Modern Translations. What part of that is it that you don't understand?
How can you have been converted by using, as per your own words, a “counterfeit” modern translation “provided by Satan”? The obvious answer, then, is your earlier statement is inherently contradicted by your recent explanation of it. So, again, perhaps you want to admit your earlier statement was either in error or not fully thought through? Everyone occasionally makes unclear or not fully considered comments.
The irony here is that you wish to place your own high standards on others’ comments—such as your badgering of Constance in reference to her comment about the Torah—but you don’t like it when someone else applies similar standards to your comments.
You also wrote: On a personal note; you and I are at cross purposes. You do not respect me, nor do you anything that I have to say...
You sometimes offer information of value, some of which I was formerly totally unaware. In that aspect we are not, as you say, “at cross purposes”. But it’s your polemics that many times go over the top in some fashion that I don’t care for. THAT is what I don’t respect. And I will call you out on it. This is most evident in your loaded questions, framed in such a way as to trap others. It’s one thing to offer valid criticism in some form. And sometimes you do this quite well. But too many times you do not. And, unfortunately for you, your actions in this regard have resulted in an impaired reputation for you on this blog.
Isaiah 40:22 says, in the Douay-Rheims Bible: "It is He that sits upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts; he that stretches out the heavens as nothing, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."
The Hebrew word "chugh" denotes a circle, sphere, or arch, which is attested to by numerous translators, scholars, and speakers of of both Hebrew and Arabic.
That definition, being Dahlheimers sole reason and indictment of the veracity of the scriptures, (which is typical of anyone who doesn't really read the Bible except to try to find something wrong with it), gives me hope that he will perhaps quit repeating it over and over every time he attempts to discredit the Bible, like a man shooting at a giant battleship with a BB gun.
Ben Carson calls Black Lives Matter a 'Marxist organization'
https://tinyurl.com/yd7nxk8p
The only reason Ben Carson would say something like that is because Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization.
But just to finish what I wrote at 5:49 above, How in the world would Isaiah have known that the earth is a globe when all the modern science (Tom's favorite word) _tells us that mankind didn't know that the earth was a globe until less than a thousand years ago. Isaiah was writing his prophesy about two thousand seven hundred years ago.
Hmmm.
Breaking: States Ordered To Fraudulently Inflate COVID-19 Cases 15 Times Actual Rate
WOW... Alex Jones has just exposed this!!!
Must see video . . .
https://banned.video/watch?id=5efab695672706002f367a0a
Paul, Thomas has been shown repeatedly that favorite mantras of his are untrue but he keeps obstinately recycling them rather than admit his statements were erroneous and moving on.
That tells you a lot.
And he's not the only one.
Anyone know we're I can buy my MAXWELL DIDN'T KILL HERSELF t-shirt?
https://MAXWELL-DIDN'T-KILL-HERSELF
Use this one instead:
MAXWELL-DIDN'T-KILL-HERSELF
Sigh.
MAXWELL-DIDN'T-KILL-HERSELF!
The NFL reportedly plans to play a song titled, Lift Ev’ry Voice And Sing, also known as the Black National Anthem, prior to every season opening game this year.
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2020/07/02/report-nfl-expected-to-play-black-national-anthem-before-season-opening-games/
More NFL news ... DC Officials Say Redskins Cannot Move back to DC Unless Team Changes Name
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2020/07/02/officials-say-redskins-cannot-move-back-d-c-unless-team-name-changed/
This fits. We live in an age where nothing can be said or done, that might "offend" someone. Once Utopia is created, and everyone agrees on everything, no one will be upset or offended, and everyone will be happy.
Kind of like one big happy Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.
FBI Hires Top-Rated Italian Bodyguard Hiluigi Clintonelli To Protect Ghislaine Maxwell
Dean of Nursing at U-Mass is fired for saying that, while she agrees with the Black Lives Matter movement, she believes that "Everyone's Life Matters."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dean-of-massachusetts-nursing-school-fired-after-saying-everyones-life-matters
When you want to silence someone because you are offended by what they are saying, eventually the thought/speech police will be knocking on your door. REMEMBER: once freedom is lost, it is lost, if not forever, for a very long time. Witness Russia. They lost their freedoms under the Bolsheviks, and it took over 70 years for the Russians to get it back.
RayB,
I've been having multiple conversations recently, and I've pointed out how the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization is purposefully equivocated with the slogan "black lives matter" such that any disagreement with BLM as an organization is labeled as being against the slogan, which then is labeled racist. For example, pointing out that BLM is a Marxist organization (as Ben Carson has done) is labeled racist. Nuance is out the door. And folks are getting fired for it. It ain't right.
Let me preface the following with this statement: I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of being so (I'm not that petty). The song Lift Ev’ry Voice And Sing rang a bell with me (I probably recognize the title from jazz), so I looked it up. The Wikipedia entry has info on its history and includes the lyrics. From what I've viewed, it's not something that I couldn't get behind. It was penned after slavery was abolished, apparently in homage to Abraham Lincoln. That's more than OK by me!
Anon 8:42 PM,
I just passed on a similar version of this, though I'd not seen the Babylon Bee version. I LOVE this:
“There’s simply no one else that we trust to execute this job as she [Hiluigi Clintonelli] can.”
RELATED STORY:
Bill Clinton: Epstein's Cause Of Death "Depends On What Your Definition Of 'Suicide' Is"
All it took was going for a walk (run) and I remembered: Lift Every Voice and Sing is on Charles Lloyd's Lift Every Voice recording:
https://ecmrecords.com/shop/143038752418/lift-every-voice-charles-lloyd
Lloyd is American of African, Cherokee, Mongolian, and Irish ancestry. In the '60s his jazz quartet even played in the Soviet Union.
"In the '60s his jazz quartet...played in the Soviet Union.
"That's more than OK by me!"
Why am I not surprised, Craig, that you'd find happiness about a commie bastard's music replacing the National Anthem?
This has been a test of the Emergency Parody Broadcast System. The Internet Providers of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an comedic emergency. ... This concludes this test of the Emergency Parody Broadcast System.
I have problems with the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and the Amplified Bible that I do not necessarily have with the King James and Douay Rheims Bibles. I also have no quarrels with the Living Bible that I believe was written in the proper spirit to make the Word understandable to his grandchildren.
For openers, all of the first three eliminated Lucifer as a suspect from the Bible by changing language in Isaiah 14. "Behold a Virgin shall conceive" was changed in several of the newer versions to "Behold a young woman shall conceive . . ." Quite a difference!
And, Daniel 11:38 was changed in most to read "A God of fortresses" from "A God of Forces, a God Whom his fathers knew not." Interestingly, they made the changes in that even in the King James Version as newly revised by Thomas Nelson Publishers just about the time that the New Age phrase "May the Force be with you" became popular. Did you ever hear anybody say "May the Fortress be with you?" That, alone kept many Christians from recognizing and identifying the New Age Movement for the threat that it was. Interestingly, the Aquarian Gospel has language that "One may enter fully in to the God of force . . ."
Changing those sections in modern bibles helped the New Age camouflage itself a great deal.
Constance
Bluntly, there are no perfect churches because there are no perfect people. We all "see through glass darkly." The "love of the truth" is a perfect factor. I think it probably comes down to who loves God and is truly trying to please him. A spirit of hypocritical pharaseeism and/or self-righteousness is always dangerous, IMHO.
Constance
◄ Isaiah 7:14 ►
New International Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
New Living Translation
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).
English Standard Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Berean Study Bible
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel.
New American Standard Bible
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
New King James Version
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
King James Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christian Standard Bible
Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: See, the virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
Contemporary English Version
But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
Good News Translation
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
International Standard Version
"Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.
NET Bible
For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
New Heart English Bible
Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us].
JPS Tanakh 1917
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
New American Standard 1977
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
King James 2000 Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
American King James Version
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
American Standard Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Darby Bible Translation
Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
English Revised Version
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
World English Bible
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Young's Literal Translation
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,
Lexicon
the virgin
הָעַלְמָ֗ה (hā·‘al·māh)
Article | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 5959: A young woman, a virgin
Pulpit Commentary
It is questioned whether the word translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has necessarily that meaning; but it is admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which the word occurs m the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8). The LXX., writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος. The rendering "virgin" has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless 'almah is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" The Hebrew, however, has not "a virgin," but "the virgin" (and so the Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος), which points to some special virgin, pro-eminent above all others.
https://www.biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm
◄ Daniel 11:38 ►
New International Version
Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
New Living Translation
Instead of these, he will worship the god of fortresses—a god his ancestors never knew—and lavish on him gold, silver, precious stones, and expensive gifts.
English Standard Version
He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.
Berean Study Bible
And in their place, he will honor a god of fortresses—a god his fathers did not know—with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
New American Standard Bible
"But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures.
New King James Version
But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.
King James Bible
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Christian Standard Bible
Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not know--with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
Contemporary English Version
and worship only the so-called god of fortresses, who was unknown to his ancestors. And he will honor it with gold, silver, precious stones, and other costly gifts.
Good News Translation
Instead, he will honor the god who protects fortresses. He will offer gold, silver, jewels, and other rich gifts to a god his ancestors never worshiped.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not know--with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches.
International Standard Version
He'll glorify the god of fortresses, a god whom his ancestors never knew, honoring him with gold, silver, valuable jewels, and treasures.
NET Bible
What he will honor is a god of fortresses--a god his fathers did not acknowledge he will honor with gold, silver, valuable stones, and treasured commodities.
New Heart English Bible
But instead he shall honor the god of fortresses; a god whom his fathers did not know shall he honor with gold and silver, and with valuable stones, and costly gifts.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Instead, he will honor the god of fortresses. With gold, silver, precious stones, and other expensive things he will honor a god his ancestors never heard of.
JPS Tanakh 1917
But in his place shall he honour the god of strongholds; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and costly things.
New American Standard 1977
“But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones, and treasures.
King James 2000 Bible
But in their place he shall honor the god of fortresses: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
American King James Version
But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
American Standard Version
But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
And he shall honour the god of forces on his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and desirable things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But he shall worship the god Maozim in his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and things of great price.
Darby Bible Translation
And in his place will he honour the +god of fortresses; and a +god whom his fathers knew not will he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.
English Revised Version
But in his place shall he honour the god of fortresses: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Webster's Bible Translation
But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
World English Bible
But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers didn't know shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Young's Literal Translation
And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things.
Lexicon
of fortresses—
מָֽעֻזִּ֔ים (mā·‘uz·zîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 4581: A place or means of safety, protection.
https://biblehub.com/daniel/11-38.htm
Paul is a nut case. He is totally disconnected from reality. He once posted a statement here on this blog spot wherein he said he believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, and not four and a half billion years old as modern-day science has discovered. In a recent post he quotes Isaiah 40:22 which says, in every Bible except for the Douay-Rheims Bible, that the earth is a circle (flat disk shaped) and not a globe. Paul does not even known that Bible translators sometimes change what the scriptures actually say to what they DO NOT say, and do so, to make it look like the Bible is telling the truth because it is saying what modern-day science has discovered. Google "Bible cosmology" and look at the pictures of the many paintings of Bible cosmology in its biblical context. According to the Bible the earth has "foundations" that go down into water that it sits on. Psalm 104:5 "The earth is firmly fixed on foundations and shall never be moved." Christians often take the different cosmological scriptures out of the overall context that they are in to argue their stooped case, and do so, because they are like Paul. He is psychologically unable to accept and acknowledge that there are scriptures that do not tell the truth.
Bible cosmology (Google site) https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS872US879&sxsrf=ALeKk00Y8yKlrdgvV5YW2F45A7_AiIqM6Q:1593778165323&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=bible+cosmology&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB95OrhrHqAhVLCs0KHcOACOAQsAR6BAgIEAE&biw=1133&bih=582
I never said the earth is 6000 years old Tommy. You are a liar.
I said the WORLD is 6000 years old. If you knew anything about the Bible, you'd know that the world is a definition of time, dating from Adam and Eve. It is the timeline of the Hebrew calendar, not mine.
Nor is the Douay-Rheims the only Bible to translate the Hebrew word "chugh" into our word globe or sphere. It is well known to refer to spheres by all and every speaker of Hebrew and Arabic.
In fact the only one I know who always inserts a little parenthetic "flat disk shape" after every time he quotes it, is you, Thomas.
As a Catholic poster here of many years, I would like to add that the King James bible is the CLOSEST to our Douay Rheims Bible.
Come to think of it, a sphere is the ultimate expression of a circle. It is a three dimensional circle. It is a circle from every point of view.
Are you saying that a sphere isn't a circle Thomas?
Are you saying that you're a scientist? You keep invoking modern science, like you know what you're talking about. What are your scientific credentials Tom?
Well, I guess that I am also a 'nut case' because I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, too.
To accept the 'modern scientists' theory that the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old (wonder how they arrived at the one half part)... is to give credibility to the atheistic theory that the earth just 'evolved' naturally... and with no help from God whatsoever.
When you stop and think about it... Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of mankind less than 2,000 years ago (in 33 AD). Therefore, in the year 2033 (just 13 years from now), it will be exactly 2,000 years since Jesus died on the Cross... and then was risen from the dead.
P.S.
Therefore it is not a stretch to believe and accept that only about 4,000 years transpired between the time of the creation (of the earth, the sun, moon, stars, etc.)... and the first man and woman: Adam and Eve... up until Jesus was born.
Also, doesn't documented HISTORY further support that entire 4,000 year period?
BC (Before Christ)
Dahlheimer is a putz, and I am being nice.
His posts do not educate, they are plain, straight up, stupidity that he asssssummmmmesss he knows anything about the Bible. What he knows is what he just makes up out of his peyote fog.
His bogus"science" is only part of his errancy.
His new age is vapor, his life is wasted on his so-called "calling" as a missionary (of all things) to save us all (well not Christians whom he cannot stand to begin with because we are not like-minded to his farcical facts).
Mr. Frustrated Tommy has a problem with people who actually think and know the Bible spelled out all truth for all time long long long before we got here, because he cannot convince them his way. That's why he has to revise and retell us our beliefs and statements to fit his "facts".
Keep on smokin' Dahlheimer so you can run from reality. (You can run but you can't hide, it will catch up ...)
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)
And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=DRA
Dear 10:12am
I would like to direct your attention to a Dr Gerald Schroeder, who is a PhD physicist as well as a Bible believer. He can be found in the Books "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God", as well as numerous UTUBE videos.
To be way too simplistic about it; the Big Bang was the beginning, when God created light, from nothing. At that point, and for the ensuing eons that followed, TIME ITSELF is understood to be on a much different (shifting) scale than we experience now. Einstein showed that time is, in fact a dimension of the universe.
Dr Schroeder has actually calculated what that means to us from our perspective, this 15+ Billion years later. Again, this is way too brief, and I'm not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one, like Thomas Dahlheimer, but Dr Schroeders calculations reveal that the first five days of creation are in fact; five twenty-four hour days, to God, yet they would be billions of years to us now. After all Genesis doesn't mention the earth, (from which we perceive our twenty-four hour days) until day three, so obviously these first four days are God's days, not ours.
To quote Dr Schroeder; "As the universe expanded, it size (scale) and temperature, AND THEREFORE IT'S CLOCK, were becoming ever more similar to that of our current universe. Because of this the "duration" of each successive twenty-four hour Genesis day encompassed a span of time ever more similar to time as reckoned from our Earth-based perspective. Each doubling in size "slowed" the cosmic clock by a factor of two. Since the time required for the universe to double in size increased superlinearly as it's size increased, the fractional rate of change in the cosmic clock (relative to Earth time), decreased superlinearly."
Dr Schroeder shows a graph which I'll reduce to these few pertinent factoids: (Again, this is too simplistic but I'm trying to fit it into a comment)
Day one: 15,750,000,000 years of our time The creation of the universe; light separates from dark (Gen 1:1-5)
Day two: 7,750,000,000 " " " " The heavenly firmament forms (Gen 1:6-8)
Day three 3,750,000,000 " " " " Oceans and dry land appear; the first life; plants (Gen 1:9-13)
Day four 1,750,000,000 " " " " Sun, moon and stars become visible in the heavens (Gen 1:14-19)
Day five 750,000,000 " " " " First animal life swarms in the oceans ( Gen 1:20-23)
Day six 250,000,000 " " " " Land, animals: mammals, mankind (Gen 1:24-31)
Hi 10:12 AM and also paul.
http://baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IU7qbIxrtZA%3d&tabid=454&mid=1428
You may find this a very interesting (short) read. Is the biography of Leopold Cohn born in Hungary in 1862 and came to the U.S. on his search to know the Messiah Jesus and he later became the founder of Chosen People Ministeries still ministering today, a wonderful outreach to the Jewish people.
Here is a small clip of what sent him on his search:
"During my leisure, I had frequent recourse to my Talmud, in which I at one time read the
following: “The world is to stand six thousand years, viz., two thousand confusion and void, two
thousand with the law, and two thousand the time of Messiah."
He began to read what was the forbidden parts of prophecy in Daniel and Isaiah of the Old Testament and it led him to the feet of Jesus.
I think this will bless anyone who reads it and since you both mentioned those 6000 years, I thought what the ancient writings said that sent that Jewish rabbi on his quest might give you some truly wonderful insights. Enjoy :)
This is 11:15 AM, paul.
I deeply appreciate Dr Gerald Schroeder, too!
The Hebrew Bible calculates the beginning of Mankind to be the beginning of the "world" and starts it's calendar from there.
Adam and Eve were the first hominids whom God blessed with his Breath of Life, called the Neshamah. There were thousands of years of hominid life before He created Adam and Eve. Coincidently, Adam and Eve coincide with the advent of written language.
They were created just about 6,000 years ago.
Don't be surprised at this. Even today there are certain people who consider the Gentiles to be animals, not man.
Ghislane Maxwell "Knows Everything" and "Will Be Naming Names", Former Epstein Associate Says
Not if the CIA decides to hire one of their contractors to choke her to death!
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ghislane-maxwell-knows-everything-and-will-be-naming-names-former-epstein-associate-says
I guess believing in 'gentiles as animals'... supports more of that same 'man just EVOLVED from lowly animals' ATHEISTIC theory... or, as we know it today, NEW AGE 'thinking'.
Over the past 2,000 years, there has been a slow, steady attempt to BRAINWASH the masses... as if a QUOTE from a scientist (who is more likely to be an atheist or an agnostic) somehow lends credibility to his or her theory.
Why do people choose to accept the belief that scientists are 'smarter' than the rest of us? (Advanced formal education does not always = intelligence.)
After all... God gave each of us the gifts of wisdom, a brain, logic and common sense. It's up to each of us to USE those gifts.
Dear 12:54 PM
Just hope that Ghislaine Maxwell does not become 'suicided' (or Arkan-cided)!!!
There is a theory that Jeffrey Epstein's finances may possibly have ties to the Clinton Foundation MONEY.
Ghislaine Maxwell "Knows Everything" And "Will Be Naming Names", Former Epstein Associate Says
“We will be seeking detention,” Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss in Manhattan said in a press conference announcing charges. Prosecutors said Maxwell helped Epstein entice girls as young as 14 into sex from 1994 through 1997, then lied about it under oath in 2016."
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ghislaine-maxwell-knows-everything-and-will-be-naming-names-former-epstein-associate-says
NOTE: Why would this "investigation" and subsequent indictment entail on the years "from 1994 through 1997"? Maxwell & Epstein's pedophilia political blackmail "sting" operation encompassed many more years, AND PEOPLE, than just those three years. Why on earth would their indictment not cover more recent crimes? What about all of those victims from the POST mid 90's era? Do they not deserve justice, or, is there something else going on here?
Here is the reason Rick Wiles gives, and it make an awful lot of sense to me at least. If you watch the video in which U. S. Attorney Straus announces the indictment, she makes several references to "victims as young as 14." Why is that important? Here's why; there is a "victim" that is on record stating that she "was INTRODUCED to Donald Trump when she was 14 in the MID 90's." Maxwell is about to give the Deep State the "evidence" they need to take down Trump. Maxwell is going to "sing," but her song is only going to cover the time period of the indictment, which is that three year period. By limiting the period of time to the mid 90's, high level people such as Chief Justice John Roberts (flew on Epstein's Lolita Express), Bill & Hillary Clinton, Prince Andrew, etc., etc. will be totally protected. Forget what "Q" says. This is NOT going to be a widespread take down of the huge, global pedophilia ring.
Maxwell will either get a slap on the wrist probation for her "cooperation," or she'll get a very short prison sentence, that will be reduced for good behavior. Either way, she is going to come out of this virtually unscathed.
Don't forget, Maxwell's father was worked for the Mossad. The entire Epstein/Maxwell political blackmail scheme has all the markings of a sophisticated operation that was a State sponsored operation, precisely why then U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta was TOLD, by "higher ups," to back off the Epstein case because "he's intelligence." Acosta responded by illegally cutting him the infamous "Sweetheart Deal" that virtually no one else would have ever been offered, proof that Epstein was being protected.
Rick Wiles might be totally off base on this, and I hope he is. Time will only tell, but I for one think that the timing of this is "perfect" for the Deep State to launch their operation. Probably all the "testimony" from Maxwell will be aired during the heat of the election campaign later this summer.
Since God is in eternity it stands to reason that He can cut right through with immediacy (omnipresence) that finites as we are, can't do. He looked forward through space (and down at the form He was making called the earth) through time and space to create the 24 hour days and nights to do His creating and put the perimeters of space and time upon it.
However, when we look back (and look up at the heavens), we can't see through time and space with his immediacy, because we are small and finite, subject to time and space, so we have to see in terms of million and billions of years (speed of light calculations, etc) to look back there (into that third heaven as the Bible calls it?).
Dr. Schroeder makes some good points, but I don't go along with everything.
I think that is what will be revealed to humankind when we see the Lord since He holds all knowledge, all truth, because we couldn't understand if He explained it to us now. We do indeed, see through a glass darkly at the moment.
Suicide Hot Line: "Can I Help You?"
Hillary Clinton: "I'd Like To Place An Order"
Whitehead: America's Revolutionary Founders Would Be Anti-Government Extremists Today
https://zerohedge.com/political/whitehead-americas-revolutionary-founders-would-be-anti-government-extremists-today
"The American Government Still Owes A Debt": Reparations Bill Gaining Steam In House
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/american-government-still-owes-debt-reparations-bill-gaining-sream-house
Apparently I haven't quite caught up with written language, though, considering the redundancy in my last sentence, (which is ironically ironic:)
Last sentence at 11:23 that is.
Oh boy...second to last sentence at 11:23, and I'm done.
Or not.
Regarding G. Maxwell: Let's just hope that all four of the cameras don't fail again in the ten minute window that she attempts a hanging suicide. Or if she attempts the three-shot suicide. And let's hope that the three or four guards who are under orders to watch her closely don't all fall asleep at the same time again.
It's so interesting to read about various people who have been 'Arkan-cided'... like, for example, when someone (who 'fell out' with the Clintons) shoots himself in the BACK of the head.
(Nothing to see here, folks... just move along.)
It's the Hill-Billery show.
26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and LET HIM HAVE DOMINION OVER the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)
There is a scientific battle going on at present between Evolutionists and Creationists. On the one hand the Evolutionists assert that the entire Universe, including all life on Earth, has evolved over millions and billions of years, with no design or purpose behind it, merely blind chance. On the other hand are the Fundamentalist Creationists, who dogmatically teach that the whole Universe, including life on Earth was created by GOD in six literal 24 hour days, about 6,000 years ago. Somewhere in the middle are those who hedge their bets and compromise, for example Theistic Evolutionists, who believe that GOD "creates" through the process of Evolution. Many so called "mainstream" churches accept Theistic Evolution, while "Evangelicals" accept the Fundamentalist approach.
However the Scriptures clearly show that the "creation week" of Genesis Chapter One was actually a RENEWAL and NOT the original creation.
"In The Beginning, God Created The Heavens And The Earth. Now The Earth Was (Margin - Possibly ‘Became') Formless And Empty." Genesis 1:1-2.
"He Did Not Create It To Be Empty." (Text Note On Isaiah 45:18 – ‘Empty = Formless or Chaotic’). Isaiah 45:18.
The earth was created so beautiful that: "The Morning Stars Sang Together And All The Angels Shouted For Joy." Job 38:3-4.
But then something disastrous occured, a great rebellion bringing chaos and catastrophe in its wake.
"How Are You Fallen From Heaven O Morning Star, Son Of The Dawn. You Have Been Cast Down To The Earth, You Who Once Laid Low The Nations. You Said In Your Heart, ‘I Will Ascend To Heaven; I Will Raise My Throne Above The Stars Of God; I Will Sit Enthroned On The Mount Of Assembly, On The Utmost Heights Of The Sacred Mountain. I Will Ascend Above The Tops Of The Clouds; I Will Make Myself Like The Most High.’" Isaiah 14:12.
Christ Himself testified that He personally witnessed Satan being cast out of Heaven. “I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning From Heaven.” Luke 10:18.
When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he became Satan, the Adversary. The book of Revelation indicates (Rev. 12:9) that about one third of the angels followed him in his rebellion. The whole Universe including the Earth, was in tremendous upheaval. The Earth became an utter desolation. It was sometime after this (scripture doesn't indicate how long) that the Great Creator God put His Mighty Hand to restoring and renewing the Earth in SIX Literal Twenty Four Hour Days, and creating the Sabbath by resting on the SEVENTH Day.
“When You Send Your Spirit, They Are Created, And You RENEW The Face Of The Earth.” Psalm 104:30.
There are very strong indications that the Earth and even the entire Universe are much younger than most people assume. At the lower end somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years, while at the upper end a few million years. Satan's rebellion, the wrecking of the Universe, and the re-creation, can still fit neatly into either timeframe without any great problem. The one scenario which cannot possibly in any way fit into this timeframe, is the Theory Of Evolution. Even now there are howls of anguish from the Evolutionist camp, who are desperately trying to discredit Creationist research. Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this. If we simply have faith in God's Word, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then they both neatly fit together, without having to twist, bend and contort anything.
"Then You Will Know The Truth And The Truth Will Set You Free". John 8:32
SPY PHONE? Mystery ‘COVID-19 Exposure Logging’ function ‘appears in settings on iPhones and Android devices’
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1079486/mystery-covid-logging-appears-settings-iphones-android/
Antifa attack Portland federal courthouse
Andy Ngo
On the night of 2–3 July, 2020, hundreds of antifa militants attacked the federal courthouse in downtown Portland in the name of Black Lives Matter. They attacked responding police officers with glass bottles, rocks, a knife and more. After breaking the building's glass doors, they launched mortars inside, starting a fire. This video is the morning after.
iPhone & Android BOTH!
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-check-if-your-iphone-secretly-coronavirus-tracker
To 5:19 PM
Re: "Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this."
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Please tell us exactly what 'evidence' supports the earth being older than 6,000 years.
Thank you.
Genesis..beginning v1
Something formless and void, darkness on the face of the deep...the Spirit hovers v2
Then God said: light v3
was good and divided it from darkness v4
and called day and night (1st day) v5
Then God said: firmament, let it divide waters from waters v6
the dividing above and beneath v7
God called the above heaven (2nd day) v8
Dry land appears v9
Then that the **dry land was called earth by God** so there are seas and dry land now and is good v10
And so creating continues now upon the earth v11 on....
God calling it earth in v2 is descriptive of what it would become.
Interesting something that was formless and void though...
The devil was cast down to what was called earth..so that happened when it had been formed as dry land then if I am not mistaken???
I am 6:13 PM and I believe the earth is young and is 6000 years old (what the formless mist was and how long it was there before called the earth I don't know)...
I won't argue with anyone about that, it is what I believe when I read the Bible because a 1000 years is as a day and a day is as a 1000 years according to the Bible. A 1000 years for each creation day (includes the 7th when God rested from His creating). Until someone can show me something else I will stick with that.
Mr. Dahlheimer thinks he knows something but has nothing (as in zero) to support what he believes. His stuff is bogus.
6:03 PM
I had wanted to but it is voluminous, however since you would like to know I will in the next few days if not sooner. It will be exceedingly lengthy over many many many posts but it IS a fundamentally crucial matter that all should be conversant wit.
Not being from the Bowery I meant conversant "with".
P.S. If you're not familiar with the speaking style of the Bowery I recommend this to your attention: https://youtu.be/Pienya0R3P4
Seven Strong Indications Of A Young Earth/Universe System
1) Galaxys.
As astronomers look into distant space, they have found that there are other massive collections of stars like our own galaxy. Many of them have a circular pattern as though they consisted of a flat disc of stars with arms extending from them. These arms are curled like the arms of a rotating Catherine Wheel, and present at least three problems to astronomers.
(a) The Speeds Of The Stars.
It has been assumed by astronomers that there is a large mass of stars at the centre of these galaxies, and that the stars rotate around the centre at the right speed to maintain their present orbit. This is similar to the way in which the planets rotate around the Sun, where those nearest the centre travel at higher speeds than those further out. This is known as Keplerian rotation and would maintain the stability of the system, much as the planets are stable in their orbits around the Sun.
Scientists have been able to measure the speed with which these arms are rotating and some have reported that the stars at the centre are travelling at the same speed as those near the ends of the arms. This is apparently, because the mass of the galaxy is distributed and not concentrated near the centre, as it is with our Solar System. One surprise is the recent discovery that up to one half of the stars in many galaxies are rotating in the OPPOSITE direction to the rest. (Royal Astronomical Association Monthly Notice 283:543 1996).
(b) The Winding Action.
Because it has been virtually established that the stars near the centre are travelling at the same speed as those further out on the arms of the galaxy, this results in a "winding up" action of the arms. What is absolutely certain is that the arms are not rigid forms that rotate without changing their shape. Because they are all travelling at virtually the same speed, those near the centre have much less distance to travel than those out on the arms. This results in the spiral or curved arms of galaxies as observed through telescopes from Earth.
Paul Steidl in his excellent book 'The Earth, The Stars And The Bible', has pointed out that from the measurements of the speed with which the stars are moving, it has been calculated that for the centre of the galaxy to complete ONE TURN MORE than the furthest stars would take about 100 million years. As astronomers believe that galaxies have existed for about 10 billion years, then they should have wound round about 100 turns. Yet none observed have more than about 1 or 2 turns at the most, which would give them a maximum age of 100-200 million years. If Almighty God created them with some degree of spiral already, then they would be very much younger than 100-200 million years.
(c) All Galaxies Appear To Be "Wound Up" The Same Amount.
Astronomers use the red shift of galaxies to measure their distance from Earth. The most distant is around 10,000 million light-years away, so as we look at these distant galaxies, we should be seeing them when they were much younger than those nearer to Earth, and in the process of forming with much less "spiral" in their arms, but surprisingly, to them, they do not. The amount of only one or two turns of “spiral" in the arms, appears to be totally independent of their distance from Earth, which also suggests that that these "spirals" have always been present.
In order to avoid the obvious, that these "spirals" indicate that the galaxies were formed relatively RECENTLY and AT THE SAME TIME, alternative theories of how these spiral arms could have formed, have been sought for some time. Other explanations that have been brought forward so far, also raise other problems for scientists. An article entitled 'How Do Spiral Galaxies Spiral?' by N. Comins and L. Marschall in the December 1987 issue of 'Astronomy' magazine reveals how baffled scientists are when they write: “What's wrong here? How can stars have different orbital periods, as we observe, and also trace out spiral patterns, as we also observe, yet still not wind up over periods of billions of years?”
To summarize, the efforts to "explain away" any "Young Universe" interpretation of these spiral arms by astronomers, is brought about by the unbending demands for billions of years by Evolutionists. Some stars are grouped together, not in galaxies, but in globular clusters, and are considered to be amongst the oldest astronomical objects. They are rapidly flying away from each other against the pull of their mutual gravitational force. From their measured speed, it can be calculated that they would have all been very close together, only a matter of THOUSANDS of years ago, instead of millions or billions. Furthermore, all stars emit a solar wind that should build up into a considerable amount of gas when there are many stars together as in a globular cluster.
This gas should be easily detectable, yet there is no evidence that it exists, which suggests that the stars and galaxies were created much as they are seen today, in the comparatively RECENT PAST.
The “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, June – August 1997, has an excellent article entitled, “Exploding Stars Point To A Young Universe”, written by Jonathan Sarfati. To summarize the article, a galaxy like our own Milky Way, should on average, produce one SuperNova every 25 years, leaving behind a huge expanding cloud of debris called an S.N.R. or SuperNova Remnant. The famous Crab Nebula in the constellation of Taurus, is the remnant of a SuperNova which was seen in the year 1054 AD, and remained visible for about a year. It was so bright that it could be seen for a few weeks during the daytime. By using powerful computers and applying the known physical laws of science, astronomers have predicted that an S.N.R. should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. If the Universe was billions of years old, then astronomers should be able to observe many S.N.R.’s this size. In fact the observable evidence from Outer Space is consistent with a Universe with an age in the THOUSANDS of years, but a comlete mystery for a Universe which is supposed to have existed for BILLIONS of years. Two evolutionist astronomers who wrote for the Royal Astronomical Society in 1976, said: “Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?”
WHY INDEED!
"The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God; The Skies Proclaim The Work Of His Hands.” Psalm 19:1.
2) The Sun.
In 1979, two astronomers, Eddy and Boornazian, startled the scientific community when they presented a paper which showed that the Sun was shrinking by 0.1% of its diameter per century. They had examined the records of the Greenwich Observatory from 1836 to 1953, and discovered that the Sun's diameter was decreasing. They then checked their findings by using the similar records of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. since 1846, which confirmed their claim.
If this rate of decrease, 0.1% of diameter per century, is projected backwards in time, in the. space of only 100,000 years, the Sun would have been double its present size. Life could not possibly have existed under such heat. Projecting further backwards in time, about 20 to 21 million years ago, the Sun's diameter would have included the Earth's orbit.
As far as the orthodox scientific community was concerned, these facts had to be discredited and explained away, in a barrage of criticism. Up to now however, the evidence carefully proved and reported by Eddy and Boornazian has not been overthrown by any subsequent critical paper. Indeed, read carefully, these critical papers either do not address the data covered by the observatory measurements, or else they actually confirm them in varying degrees. The fact that the Sun is shrinking has not yet been disproven, presents another sound piece of evidence for a Young Earth/Universe system.
“Give Thanks To The Lord For He Is Good. His Love Endures Forever…………Who Made The Great Lights. His Love Endures Forever…………The Sun To Govern The Day. His Love Endures Forever.” Psalm 136:1,7-8.
3) The Layer Of Meteoric Dust On The Moon.
When the Apollo 11 spacecraft was heading towards the Moon for a Lunar landing in 1969, one of the major concerns at the time was the possible depth of meteoric dust on the Lunar surface. The rate of fall had been estimated to be anywhere between 5 to 14 million tons per year, and if the Universe was billions of years old, then at the very least, the Lunar surface should have a dust layer many feet thick. The Lunar Landing Module had wide, thick pads on the ends of its legs to compensate for this, and hopefully allow a safe landing, without the Module sinking deep into the dust. It was a huge surprise, and indeed relief to everyone, to find that the dust layer was only about 1 to 2 inches thick. Immediately, the scientific establishment refined the rate of fall drastically downwards to fit in with the actual, observable facts. Interestingly, the instruments left behind on the Lunar surface to measure the rate of fall, have indicated that the original estimation before the first Lunar landing, was very close, so scientists have had to revise the rate of fall upwards once again!
Therefore, with the amount of descending dust comparatively high and the amount of it on the Moon so small, this indicates an age for the Moon many millions of years less than that required by evolutionists.
In a fascinating article for the September – November 1998 issue of “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “The Moon – The Light That Rules The Night”, Jonathan Sarfati writes: “Friction by the tides is slowing the Earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the Earth is losing Angular Momentum. The Law Of Conservation Of Angular Momentum says that the Angular Momentum the Earth loses must be gained by the Moon. Thus the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth at about 4 cm (1.5 inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The Moon could never has been closer than 18,400 kilometres (11,500 miles), know as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e. the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the Moon) would have shattered it. But even if the Moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.
N.B. This is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AGE – far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to Moon rocks) – not the actual age.”
“Give Thanks To The Lord For He Is Good. His Love Endures Forever…………Who Made The Great Lights. His love endures forever…………The Moon And Stars To Govern The Night. His Love Endures Forever.” Psalm 136:1,7,9.
4) Erosion on the Earth's surface.
In the evolutionary timescale, the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and the first living cell evolved around 1 billion years ago. Such is the scenario put forward by Evolutionists, and here are some interesting figures, which are not really disputed by them, but some very simple calculations show that there is something very seriously wrong with the time scale applied to the geological column.
The depth of sediment in the oceans is surprisingly thin, being only 0.4 miles thick and estimated to weigh about 820 million billion tons. The amount of rock standing above the sea level has been estimated at about 383 million billion tons. It has also been estimated that the amount of material entering the oceans, mainly by the rivers, is about 27.5 billion tons per year.
An article put out by S. Nevins for the Institute For Creation Research, entitled "Evolution - The Oceans Say No", comes up with some surprising conclusions, using the figures given above.
(a) If there are 383 million billion tons in the land mass of the Earth, then it would only take 383 / 27.5 = 14 million years to erode all the continents into the sea.
(b) Similarly, the time it would take to deposit the present sediments into the seas is 820 / 27.5 = 30 million years. It can be shown that if the oceans have existed for 1 billion years, then we could expect to see a depth of sediment nearly 19 miles thick, whereas in actual fact we see a depth of 0.4 miles.
To get round this evidence, various other explanations are sought by evolutionists. In an article by Tas Walker entitled “Eroding Ages”, in the March – May 2000 issue of “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, he cites three examples of how evolutionists try and explain away this observable evidence: “….It is suggested that the mountains still exist because uplift is constantly replacing them from below. Consequently the mountains would have been eroded and replaced many times over in billions of years, but although uplift is occuring in mountainous areas, such a process of uplift and erosion could not go on for long without removing all the layers of sediments…..Yet surprisingly, sediments of all ages from young to old (by evolutionary dating methods) are preserved in mountainous regions. The idea of continual renewal by uplift does not solve the problem.
Another idea suggested….is that the present rates of erosion being measured are abnormally high. According to this argument erosion was much less in the past, before humans interfered. Human activity such as land clearing and farming, is said to be why we are measuring such high rates at present. However, quantitative measurements on the effect of this human activity have found that erosion rates are increased only 2 to 2.5 times. For this explanation to solve the problem, the increase would need to be several hundred times greater. Once again the explanation does not work.
It has also been suggested that the climate in the past was much drier (because less water would mean less erosion). However this idea goes against the evidence. The climate was actually wetter as deduced from the abundance of lush vegetation in the fossil record.”
“All Streams Flow Into The Sea, Yet The Sea Is Never Full. To The Place The Streams Come From, There They Return Again.” Ecclesiastes 1:7.
5) The Cooling Of The Earth.
As you go deeper into the Earth, it is found that the temperature rises about 1 degree centigrade for every 100 feet. (30 metres). Lord Kelvin made various calculations on the rate of cooling of the Earth, and showed that even if the Earth had been molten at the time of creation, it would have cooled to its present temperature gradient within 100 million years, but allowing for uncertainties he suggested between 20 and 400 million years. He later amended this to between 20 and 40 million years. All these ages were far too short for the evolutionists, and they struggled in vain to overcome his evidence. When the heating effect of radioactivity was discovered, this was quickly used to explain the present level of heat in the Earth's interior. However this subject has been examined by L. Ingersoll and others. They discovered that without any radioactivity, the age of the Earth would be 22 million years, and with radioactivity this would be extended to only 46 million years.
The present situation is that although there are still some problems concerning the level of radioactivity in the Earth that need resolving satisfactorily, heat calculations indicate a relatively young Earth, which cannot be accepted by evolutionists.
“He Spreads Out The Northern Skies Over Empty Space; He Suspends The Earth Over Nothing.” Job 26:7.
6) The Earth's Magnetic Field.
In 1835, the scientist Gauss carried out a world wide survey of the strength of the magnetic field. From his measurements he worked out that the power of the magnetic field was (8.56 amps/m2 x 10^22). This was checked a few years later by other experts and found to be (8.45). This has continued to be measured over many years and there has been a consistent fall in the value.
T.G. Barnes, a creation scientist who has written books and articles on the magnetic field of the Earth, by examining the measured values mathematically, found that the half-life of the magnetic field was about 1,400 years. The implications of what the magnetic field would have been in the past, poses a tremendous problem for orthodox scientists and evolutionists.
With a value of 8.56 in 1835, then 1,400 years earlier the value would have been 17.12. 2,800 years earlier the value would have been 34.24 and so on. By continuing this calculation backwards in time, it can be demonstrated that for ages more than about 10,000 years ago, the circulating electrical currents necessary to generate this large magnetic field, would have had the power of a magnetic star and the currents would have generated so much heat, that life on Earth would have been impossible.
The above evidence has ensured the the work of T.G. Barnes has been rejected by evolutionists. Although evolutionists have no good explanations as to how it actually happens, they have put forward the ‘Reversal Theory’ of the Earth's magnetic field many times in the past, taking thousands of years for one reversal at intervals of millions of years. It is intriguing the various ways in which secular scientists will go to such desperate lengths to avoid the most obvious solution, that can explain the decrease in the Earth's magnetic field. The simple fact is that a circulating current, slowly being reduced by the electrical resistance of the Earth, is a perfectly adequate explanation of all the measured phenomena. The problem has been made even more acute for evolutionists, by the fairly recent discovery that the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field is not 1,400 years on which T.G. Barnes based his calculations, but 830 years. This would make the age of the Earth younger still.
It is interesting that although evolutionists are stuck when it comes to providing an explanation for their ‘Reversal Theory’, a nuclear physicist by the name of Dr. Russell Humphreys, has an intriguing explanation of how these reversals could occur very quickly, as opposed to thousands and millions of years. This explanation is given in an article written for “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine, March – May 1998 issue.
The article entitled “The Earth’s Magnetic Field – Evidence That The Earth Is Young” by Jonathan Sarfati says: “The nuclear physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that T.G. Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the Earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection – hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the magnetic field reverse quickly. Now as discussed in “Creation Vol. 19 No. 3 1997”, Dr. John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood. Dr. Humphreys says that these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection. This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern, rather the total field energy would decay even faster.
This model also explains why the Sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The Sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the ‘dynamo model’ the overall field energy of the Sun is decreasing.
Dr. Humphreys also proposed a test for his model. Magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record Earth's magnetic field in one direction. The inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prevot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke, because eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for the creationist Humphreys’ model.
The Earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence AGAINST evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the Earth could not be older than about 10,000 years."
The fact is the Earth’s magnetism is running down. This world wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite the probability of swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to properly explain how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.
“They Will Tell Of The POWER Of Your Awesome Works, And I Will Proclaim Your Great Deeds.” Psalm 145:6.
7) Elements In The Oceans.
There are 33 calculated ages that are obtained by measurements of various elements that are carried into the oceans by rivers. By dividing the amount in the oceans today, by the total amount entering via the rivers, the MAXIMUM age of the oceans can be calculated. This method assumes that initially there was none of the element present in the sea originally, which enables scientists to arrive at a much greater age.
The longest age of all the 33 calculated is 560 million years, which is obtained from the amount of gold entering the sea. The shortest age using this method is for iron which gives only 140 years. The average age of all 33 methods comes to 17.6 million years, obviously nothing like the thousands of millions of years claimed by evolutionists.
The variation between these values is perfectly understandable. Where the age is very short, as in the case of iron, there is obviously some means by which the element is removed from the sea. In the case of iron, it is most likely absorbed by sea creatures and becomes part of the food chain. Although this reasoning can explain the very low age given by iron, it cannot be used in every case, because there are very few ways in which elements can be removed. They are all at extremely low concentrations, and nowhere near saturation level in the sea. It would also require every listed element to be removed from the oceans by some means or other, but there are too many such examples, and each element would have to have a specific method by which it could be removed.
One common way of dismissing this evidence, is by claiming that these ages of the elements in the oceans are merely 'residence times'., and not indicative of age. In other words they are saying that there have been stable conditions over millions of years (uniformitarianism), in which the amounts of the elements entering the seas are roughly the same as those being removed. When anyone asks the obvious question as to whether this claim can be established by verification, it is met with deafening silence. Bearing in mind the enormous quantity of sea water above every square metre of sea floor, if there had been ongoing removal for vast periods of time, we would expect to see much richer deposits of elements on the sea bed than we see today.
In 1990, a joint paper was written by geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, who had been analysing figures from secular geoscience sources, for the quantity of Sodium Ion in the ocean, and its input and output rates. Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated the MAXIMUM age of the oceans to be around 62 million years.
“Others Went Out On The Sea In Ships; They Were Merchants On The Mighty Waters. They Saw The Works Of The Lord, His Wonderful Deeds In The Deep.” Psalm 107:23-24.
Conclusion
There are very strong indications that the Earth and even the entire Universe are much younger than most people assume. At the lower end somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years, while at the upper end a few million years. Satan's rebellion, the wrecking of the Universe, and the re-creation, can still fit neatly into either timeframe without any great problem. The one scenario which cannot possibly in any way fit into this timeframe, is the Theory Of Evolution. Even now there are howls of anguish from the Evolutionist camp, who are desperately trying to discredit Creationist research. Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this. If we simply have faith in God's Word, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then they both neatly fit together, without having to twist, bend and contort anything.
"Then You Will Know The Truth And The Truth Will Set You Free". John 8:32.
Postscript
Potassium-Argon Dating.
The popular concept of radioactive dating is that it is very accurate and enables strata to be precisely dated. Creationists have long pointed out the wide discrepancies obtained by this method. For example, rocks with an “expected” date of 300 million years, could give results ranging from 100 to 400 million years. With variations this large, it can be seen why measured dates have to be within an 'accepted range' before they can be published.
When determining the age of rock strata by this method, if the radioactive date differs widely from the fossil dating in the strata, the fossil date is always the final authority. Radio dates are only ever used when there are no other indicators of age. When fossils are present where expected in a strata, radio dates are only used to 'confirm' an age. Some experts, keen to make a name for themselves, will seize upon any radio date that gives their fossil discovery precedence over others. Such an example is Richard Leakey's 1470 man, where an initial dating of 220 million years was about 100 times too high to fit the evolutionary timescale. Subsequent dating of the same strata by the same method gave a more "acceptable” figure of 2.6 million years, which was the date that was publicised. Malcolm Bowden states that many more examples could be quoted.
In an article for the December – February 2000 issue of the “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “Radioactive Dating Failure”, Andrew Snelling writes in his conclusion: “The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on the 1949, 1954 and 1975 lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K-Ar (potassium-argon) analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form around 50 years ago. Yet they yield 'ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false.. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?”
Radio-Carbon Dating.
In an article for the September – November 1998 issue of the “Creation Ex Nihilo” magazine entitled “Stumping Old-Age Dogma”, Andrew Snelling writes about an experiment conducted over carefully controlled conditions, which shows radio-carbon dating giving a "young" age for something "supposed" to be very "old": “…a fossilised tree stump was found by miners in the Newvale No.2 (underground) coal mine north of Sydney, Australia. A portion of it was saved by one of the miners….Based on the plant fossils found in them, these coal beds (including the associated mudstone in which the stump was found) have been designated Upper Permian, which uniformitarian geologists would therefore assign to a period of Earth’s history around 250 million years ago…..Small pieces of the coalified bark and the silicified wood immediately underneath it were sent for radiocarbon (C14) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (U.S.A.), a reputable, internationally recognized commercial laboratory. The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their ‘supposed’ evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analysis, now recognized as producing the most reliable results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples……There was detectable radio-carbon in the coalified bark, yielding a supposed C14 ‘age’ of 33,700 years (+ or -) 400 years BP (before present)……Of course, if the wood really were 250 million years old as is supposed, one should not be able to obtain a finite age from radiocarbon – all detectable C14 should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time…..Clearly a 33,700 years (+ or -) 400 years BP radio-carbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the evolutionary fossil and uniformitarian rock ‘age’ of 250 million years for this fossilised tree stump.”
Malcolm Bowden quotes one scientist, a Nobel prizewinner in 1973, who said: "If a C14 date supports a theory, we include it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict a theory, we put it in a footnote. If it is completely 'out of date' we just drop it entirely."
Malcolm Bowden contends that the same attitude prevails today with regard to dating.
[The End]
That the best Radio carbon dating methods available today are potentially flawed may be true; probably is true.
That the spiral nature of galaxies tell a different story than modern science considers to be the facts, might also be true.
That some dinosaurs have been found with intact bone marrow which can be dated, and which greatly disagrees with current
scientific thinking might also be true.
But I don't hear anyone in science, even those who acknowledge these potentially devastating findings, suggesting that the earth and the universe could possibly be 6,000 years old.
I'm sticking with Dr Schroeders calculations.
It's really difficult to wrap one's mind around the fact that the early universe expressed a vastly different measurement of time.
But time is a characteristic of space. Time is a dimension of space. Time is an attribute of space, just like gravity and electromagnetism.
At the moment that God said "Let there be light" the universe was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, but it was expanding unimaginably fast. It consisted of nothing but photons; (light). [How could Moses have possibly known that?] It is still expanding today. They say that it is in fact expanding even more rapidly!
With each doubling of its expansion, time slowed down by a half.
Each successive day of Genesis represents a halving of our perception of time. It isn't until way at the end of day six that the twenty-four hour days that we know even existed, but it's been like that ever since.
In the beginning, when Jesus said "Let there be light", (because is the Word of God), the first five and a half days or so, were strictly His time and His days. We know from the scriptures that "One day is as a thousand years to God", but even that is as-of
day six of Genesis, when the lights in the firmament and the earth and mankind were all in place more or less the way we perceive them today.
Science is still just a baby. Don't throw it out with the bathwater.
Because He is the Word of God
One day we will actually see and know exactly how science will completely fit inside the Word of God. It will tuck neatly inside God's plan.
Yes, it is a baby with more growing to do..
(don't we all?)
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding."
Job 38:4
Men of science were not there at the time.
"God set the boundaries of the seas when He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth" Proverbs 8:29
Science does not know how or when He did this.
"Do you not fear Me? declares the LORD. Do you not tremble before Me, the One who set the sand as the boundary of the sea, an enduring barrier it cannot cross? The waves surge, but they cannot prevail. They roar but cannot cross it." Jeremiah 5:22
It will be true science when it falls at His feet also to agree that the Lord is past finding out.
Science is wonderful..and God will fulfill the curiousity and endeavor of it some day, giving it the satisfactory answers, and then science will greatly honor God as never before.
Yes, don't throw it out, it's only getting started............
The main reason Trump runs around acting like the Corona-virus is not real, isn't a big deal, is gonna go away very soon, it's gonna disappear and everything is great while shushing anything negative anyone wants to ask or talk about is because he grew up on heretic, Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". Peale was his family's preacher growing up and a family friend. Adding to that is he's now surrounded himself with prosperity gospel new-age false teachers as his "spiritual advisors" who are doubling-down on encouraging him to "speak things into existence". After all - it got him elected and millions upon millions of Americans to believe thousands and thousands of his blatant lies. There's even a group among them promoting the idea the JFK, Jr. is still alive and coming back to lord over us. Therefore, instead of addressing the issue of Covid-19 honestly and intelligently with the brains God provided us and actually leading us THROUGH a crisis (using legitimate prayerful guidance) --- He's gonna speak prosperity and health into existence and huddle up with his false teachers sharing their daily prophetic words with him as they all clamor to be first to accurately guess when the virus will just disappear (based upon their "binding prayers" and their literal vocalized "conversations with [their] god" [demons].
These new-age false Christian dominionists have destroyed his presidency and they are trying to bring about the downfall of America...and soiling the name of Jesus Christ in the meantime. It's time to admit we were wrong and save this country and our churches and hold our noses while Joe Biden gets elected. I haven't decided to vote for Joe yet. Maybe I just sit this election out. But I'm not voting for Bunker Benedict Donald. My faith and love of country won't let me do it.
Anon 11:56 AM,
Trump definitely has a background with Peale. And, it sure seems this ideology pervades his thoughts and actions, for I’ve yet to hear him speak anything negative (he’ll frame it positively instead). And yes, we know Paula White is his “spiritual advisor”. But is she and her cohorts doubling-down on encouraging him to "speak things into existence"? Do you have some proof for that? Do you have proof that the same thing is what, in Trump’s eyes, got him elected last time? There may well be folks in this heretical movement saying these sorts of things, but I’d like some substantiation that Trump is doing what you say he is doing. I’m averse to ‘guilt-by-association’.
I can understand if you don’t like the way he is handling CV19. But I think leaving up to the states is the best thing Constitutionally. But I’m willing to be shown in error on this.
In what way have Dominionists “destroyed his presidency” and how are they “trying to bring about the downfall of America”?
Speaking for me, I didn’t vote for Trump as if he were being elected to some sort of religious position—a bishop or something. I voted for him because I think he has America’s best interests in mind. He certainly is imperfect, and I often bristle at some of the things he does and says. But he’s a far cry better than Biden, who would amount to a mere puppet whose strings would be pulled in order to resume Obama 2.0. THAT would amount to the destruction of America.
I think Trump’s speech at Mt. Rushmore was excellent:
President Trump makes BLISTERING speech at Mt. Rushmore: Children are taught "to hate" our country
He cited a number of important figures, of all different backgrounds. He even mentioned jazz singer Ella Fitzgerald, whose voice, in my opinion, is without parallel in terms of purity of tone, among other things. (I wish he would have mentioned Billie Holiday also.)
11:55 AM
What are our options at the voting booth in November?
Please tell us how Joe 'Dementia' Biden is going to lift this country up out of this HUGE mess we're in.
Waiting with baited breath . . .
To Craig @ 12:42 PM
I am in complete agreement with you on your analysis of Trump.
Texas Governor Abbott Confronted With Evidence COVID-19 Is A Giant Hoax
https://banned.video/watch?id=5effb85b672706002f3f8495
Anon 1:43 PM,
Glad to hear that.
I’m also of the opinion Paula White was chosen by Trump more for her value as eye candy than spiritual advice. Trump loves to surround himself with women he finds beautiful. But, of course, that’s speculative. I’m more inclined to think Melania has a fair amount of spiritual influence over the Donald.
----
Anon 11:55 AM,
By chance, are you receiving your information, in part, from vlogger On Point Preparedness?
Food for thought . . .
I can’t breathe
Masks
Ventilators
Respiratory Virus
Dust Clouds
All an attack on oxygen
5G= 666
60ghz, 600 MHz, 600000 anTuTu score
Let us remember the impassioned words of Oliver Cromwell, ruler of England centuries ago, when he said: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Therefore, let us then take a new look at this question, “Was there life on Earth before Adam?”
All the geological and paleontological evidence proves beyond the slightest scintilla of a doubt that THERE WAS A WORLD BEFORE ADAM. (And this conclusion is NOT in conflict with the Scriptures – not when we correctly understand the real meaning of the Scriptural account of Creation, found in Genesis, chapter 1!)
Creation and Re-creation
In the pages of Genesis, as it relates to the original creation of the universe, we read the simple, matter-of-fact statement: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, King James Version). The Amplified Bible renders this verse: "In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned,) and created the heavens and the Earth." The Good News Bible states: “In the beginning, when God created the universe.” The Moffatt Translation: "When God began to form the universe. . ." The Goodspeed Translation: "When God began to create the heavens and the Earth. . ." Verse two of Genesis, chapter one, continues: “And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (King James Version). Is this verse describing the ORIGINAL creation as being formless and void? If so, it would seem a contradiction. Verse one tells us God created the heavens and the Earth. When God creates something, it is beautiful, grand, and majestic! In the 38th chapter of the book of Job, we read: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof
fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). If the original Earth had been created a chaotic ruin, formless and void, the angels would not have "(sung) together" or have "shouted for joy." Isaiah 45:18 adds more light on this enigmatic passage. The prophet declares: "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the Earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else" (King James Version). The Hebrew word translated "vain" here is tohu and means "to lie waste " "a desolation," "a desert." It can also be translated "confusion," "empty place," "without form," "nothing," "wilderness." It is the very same word used in Genesis 1:2, where we read the Earth "was without form." One place says God created the Earth and it "was without form"; in another place we read God did not create the Earth "without form." Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The KEY to understanding this apparently complex problem lies in the little word "was." It can also be translated "BECAME." In fact, in Genesis 19:26 it is translated "became." We read: "And Lot's wife became a pillar of salt." What happened, then, is this: When God originally created the Earth, it was indeed a lovely place. He created it with no waste, no wilderness, no desolation. NO confusion "For God is NOT the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33. It was inhabited. The angels leapt for joy, and shouted with admiration and enthusiasm when they beheld the primeval Earth.
But then something happened. It became "tohu" -- that is, waste, a ruin, a desolation. The original Earth suffered a great cataclysm --a cosmic catastrophe. The Hebrew words translated "without form and void " in Genesis 1:2 literally mean a desolation, a wilderness, an empty, uninhabited ruin.
These words, tohu and bohu are very strong words and denote CATASTROPHE. They strongly suggest that some sort of primeval cataclysm, or several such cataclysms, occurred. Destruction! Paroxysm! Chaos! Scripture gives no data for determining HOW LONG AGO the universe was created. And in the first chapter of Genesis, it only records THREE creative acts: 1) the heavens and the Earth (verse 1); 2) new animal life (verses 20-25); and 3) human life, Adam and Eve (verses 26-27). The first creative act referred to the DATELESS PAST. The creation of NEW forms of animal life, and Adam and Eve, occurred approximately 6,000 YEARS AGO. Obviously, then, the first chapter of Genesis is not describing the original creation of the heavens and Earth as occurring in seven consecutive days.
The CAUSE of Cataclsym and Catastrophe
Angels in the Bible are called “stars” (Rev.1:20). What happened in the rebellion of these “stars” was reflected in what happened to the literal “stars” – that is, the planets and heavenly bodies in our solar system! Wreckage! The massive tell-tale signs of awesome violence and catastrophe in the solar system reflects the debris and results from the initial WAR of the wicked angels in their first rebellion against God, and their subsequent attempts to thwart and destroy God’s plan on this Earth for mankind!
The Renewal of Creation
The rest of chapter one of Genesis describes the RE-creation of the Earth, and life upon it, AFTER the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels. After the chaos and destruction which occurred, in verse two of Genesis one, God began a process of RE-creation, REconstruction, if you please, which lasted for seven days. After the great cataclysm, the Earth was cut off from the light of the sun, moon and stars. Darkness prevailed everywhere. As verse two says: "And the Earth was (became) without form and void (tohu and bohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." What do we see then? An Earth destroyed, in pitch darkness, covered by water, the continents submerged, due to some great cataclysm. The viewpoint becomes that of as seen from the surface of the Earth. During the process of reconstruction or re-creation, God first caused the light from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere once again, in a diffused manner (Genesis 1: 3-5), allowing day and night to become discernible. He created order in the atmosphere (verses 6-8). He caused the dry land to appear once again (verse 10). He caused the Earth to once again bring forth life, plants, vegetation, of all kinds. As the turgid clouds and atmospheric disturbances cleared away, He caused the sun, moon and stars to once again become visible from the Earth's surface (verses 14-18). Verse 16 of Genesis one does not describe the sun and moon and stars being created on the fourth day. (How could light have been created on the first day, but the sun and stars which impart light not be created until the fourth day?)
The original Hebrew for "made" in verse 16 actually means "made to appear, made visible." The Hebrew word for “create” is bara, meaning to create, as from nothing – true creation. However, the word used in verse 16 is asah, which means to “make” or “fashion” a thing from pre-existing elements. The sun and moon were originally created "in the beginning." Then, having REFASHIONED the surface of the Earth, and having prepared it, God created NEW living creatures -- NEW animal life of all kinds, from great whales to small fish, from elephants to rodents, from flying birds to flying fish and insects – to REPOPULATE the Earth, and to REPLENISH it (verses 20-25). Thus something had happened to the Pre-Adamic Earth. It had been overwhelmed in a MIGHTY CATASTROPHE, or a long series of catastrophes, which is briefly described in verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1. The world before Adam came to an ABRUPT, screeching end. It was cut short by flooding and upheaval, stroke upon stroke of catastrophe. Genesis 1:2 -- this one short enigmatic, much
misunderstood verse of the Bible -- contains within its cryptic message a story that will intrigue you. This one little verse provides an amazing insight -- a powerful CLUE as to what happened to the Earth, after the original time when it was created, beautiful, and to be “inhabited”. The world was populated by millions of angels, and their king was Lucifer. His throne was on the Earth. But he wasn't satisfied. He was a great king, but this angelic king grew restless, discontent. He was unhappy with his lot – his dissatisfaction grew as he envied the power, authority, and honor of God. He grew jealous. He said, "I will ascend into heaven." That shows he was located on the Earth. "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13). That shows he was a king, a ruler -- he had a throne on the Earth. God had given him this authority. But he wanted MORE! And he wanted it NOW!!! He wanted to reign upon the mountain of God, -- just like God Himself! (same verse). And it all transpired before the time of Adam and Eve, when the Earth then had to be refashioned, reshaped, refurbished, and rebuilt. This one verse, in essence, may cover a time span of multiple thousands of years. But we must question seriously the “MILLIONS” of years postulated by evolutionary-influenced scientists The world before Adam can possibly be understood by studying the evidence of that world contained within the Earth's strata. The Scriptures allude to such a world in the very briefest of terms. But there is some indication in the Bible that would lead us to understand that physical life on Earth did exist before Adam. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament book of Job we read of a dinosaur type of creature, which was originally created for a special purpose. Notice: “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are like bars of iron. He is the CHIEF of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan in his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares” (Job 40:15-24). The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into the Greek language circa 250 B.C., during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt indicates this creature is some kind of dinosaur, obviously.
The account continues: “He sets up his tail like a cypress; and his nerves are wrapped together. His sides are sides of brass; and his backbone is as cast iron. This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels” (vs.12-14, LXX, vs.17-19, KJV). Notice! This creature was created and existed during the time of the ANGELS! This would suggest that the angels ruled that ancient world before Adam was created. But how long that world existed we do not know. Nevertheless, here is evidence of a world in which dinosaur-like creatures existed before the time of man! They may well have become extinct and were wiped out by a serious catastrophe which occurred when the angels themselves rebelled! The fact that geology suggests to us that various forms of animal and plant life became extinct, at different periods of the earth's geologic past, would seem to indicate that God allowed these extinctions for a purpose. At times, to accomplish His purpose, the extinctions were widespread and general, and involved catastrophe. They may have occurred due to the misconduct of the angels under the dominion of Lucifer! Whether this time period was thousands of years, or longer, remains to be proven. Again, I strongly recommend the article, “How Old Is the Universe?” to help answer this question.
Avoiding the Two Extremes
Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher, once wrote: "The world was created in 4004 B.C., complete with fossils, which were inserted to try our faith. The world was created suddenly, but was made such as it would have been if it had evolved. There is no logical impossibility about this view. And similarly, there is no logical impossibility in the view that the world was created five minutes ago, complete with memories and records" (An Outline of Philosophy, p. 27).
Theodosius Dobzhansky, professor of genetics at the University of California, at Davis, and professor emeritus at the Rockefeller University, points out it is foolish to try to make the Bible into a primer on natural science. If all the radiometric evidence is wrong, if the duration of the geological and paleontological record is grossly distorted, he adds, then the Creator must have seen fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. If fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now, so as to deliberately give the appearance of great age and antiquity, then God must be absurdly deceitful. Dobzhansky added: "This is as revolting as it is uncalled for." But is the Creator playing tricks on mankind, and scientists in particular? Or is it their own minds and emotions which are causing them to misinterpret the evidence of the rocks and scientific dating techniques? Wise king Solomon wrote, “Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what he has made crooked?” (Eccl.7:13, NIV). “The man who fears God,” he declared, “will avoid all extremes” (verse 18). Solomon himself sought to understand these things. He declared, “When I applied my mind to know wisdom . . . then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it” (Eccl.8:16-17, NIV). Albert Einstein once said, "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world," The God revealed in the pages of the Bible is a loving Creator, He is not malicious, spiteful, capricious, or a "Practical Joker." Nor is He a cosmic Magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. The God of the Bible is a Creator -- a Builder -- a Designer -- an Architect, Engineer, Supreme Draftsman, and Originator. Everything He does is with plan and purpose. NOTHING is haphazard. His original creation was PERFECT. And every addition He has made was PERFECT, for the purpose for which He designed it. However, the world is very complex; and the Universe is a great mystery to mankind. Evolutionists have sought to understand how the universe works, but they are stymied in their understanding. They have become lost in a maze of dead ends and labyrinthine tunnels. Evolutionists try to prove the Earth has existed for billions of years, but their proof falls far short of confirming their theory!
Liberals want racist statue of Abraham Lincoln to go, but Margaret Sanger statue can stay???
https://www.lifenews.com/2020/07/03/liberals-want-racist-statue-of-abraham-lincoln-to-go-but-margaret-sanger-statue-can-stay/
10:45
There was a time when the earth was filled with the knowledge of God.
There will be a time in the future, when the earth will again be filled with the knowledge of God.
I’ve stated earlier that I think the current tearing down of statues in the US sets a dangerous precedent. I think we all agree that this wrong—no matter the ‘flavor’ of your Christianity (or even those readers here not identifiably Christian). Having prefaced my comment in this way, I wish to explore whether or not the very idea of using Jesus as an icon is proper and valid, per Catholic doctrine. I’m specifically limiting this enquiry to Jesus, not other icons. In other words, I make no comment, pro or con here, about the legitimacy of other icons.
Now, I’m not wishing to start another flame war. But I do think it valid to challenge doctrine—agreeing with Anon 4:10 PM above (from many comments ago). It makes us all sharper.
The main issue, as I see it, is identifying just who YHWH is. Is YHWH the Trinity? That’s the way I understand Catholic belief. But is the term “YHWH” flexible to the extent that the Trinity is the referent in one context yet one Trinitarian ‘Person’ in another? The reason this is important is because YHWH is referenced in Exodus 20:2, 5—the First Commandment—and YHWH is the subject of the Scripture reference in CCC 2129.
The Catholic Church combines all of Exodus 20:2-6 as its First Commandment. Putting it in context, we have:
2 I am the Lord [YHWH] thy God [Elohim], who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt not have strange gods [elohim] before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord [YHWH] thy God [Elohim], mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
For added background, YHWH is consistently translated kyrios in the Septuagint. Relatedly, we understand that in the NT kyrios is a very common designation for Jesus Christ, the Son. In this same vein, in the Douay-Rheims of Jude 1:5 we find “Jesus” as the one having saved the people out of the land of Egypt. Some Greek manuscripts contain “Jesus” (Iēsous) in Jude 1:5, while others have kyrios, “Lord”. Either way, the referent in Jude is understood to be Jesus (and I think Iēsous is the original), because “Lord” is most always used for the Son, while “God” is most often used for the Father. Compare this to Exodus 20:2 above.
Now, this is NOT to suggest God the Father in the NT is NOT YHWH. In fact, in John 1:18 we are told No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [exegeted] him (cf. Exodus 33:20). It could be significant that the Greek article is present in John 1.1b (and the Word was with [the] God [Father]), while 1:18 lacks the article, though one cannot press this too sharply—there’s no hard fast rule in the NT with regard to the Greek article.
[cont]
[cont]
This, then, leads to the question: Who is YHWH in Exodus 20:2? According to Jude, this must include the Son. If John 1:18 is speaking of the Father, then the Exodus 20:2 must include the Father. If John 1:18 refers to the Trinity, then the Exodus 20:2 must include the entire Trinity.
Now let’s consider this question of “Who is YHWH?” as we look at the relevant portion of the CCC (Catechism).
IV. "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord [YHWH] spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
The Deuteronomy reference in 2129 is 4:15-16, and YHWH is the referent for “Lord”. This must include the Son, like Exodus 20:2, and by extension, 20:5. I suppose one could argue that 2129 is qualified by It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel, thereby excluding the Incarnate Son. But wouldn’t it be Nestorian by very definition to exclude Jesus’ transcendence while He was incarnate? Even if one overlooks this apparent Nestorianism, this would mean that during the Incarnation the Son lacked omnipresence. If that’s the case, which other Divine traits did the Son lack during His earthly ministry? This points to some sort of kenosis, which is condemned by the RCC, not just by implication at Chalcedon (by Leo the Great), but reiterated explicitly by Pope Pius XII.
The way I read Catholic doctrine, as shown above, there can be no justification for images of Jesus. 2131’s “of Christ” contradicts the First Commandment and 2129 when all relevant issues are considered (Chalcedon, Pope Pius XII’s statement, Jude 1:5, etc.). I don’t see any other way around this.
Comments? Refutations?
To Anonymous @ 3:13 PM
Re: "Evolutionists TRY TO PROVE the Earth has existed for billions of years, but their proof falls far short of confirming their theory!"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
To Craig @ 5:12 PM
Re: "The way I read Catholic doctrine, as shown above, there can be no justification for images of Jesus."
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Craig, you should know better than this, but I am going to repeat it anyway.
We Catholics neither 'worship' or 'idolize' STATUES. They are there as 'reminders' to us just as one keeps photos of family members. (We don't worship or idolize our family members either.)
No one is asking you to believe as we do. That's why you should continue as a Protestant... and we will continue as Catholics.
Ultimately, you can 'challenge' all you want... but, this will only be settled on Judgement Day (not by you, or anyone else here on this blog).
Looking forward to seeing you then.
(Meanwhile, "Judge not lest ye be judged.")
Anon 8:10 PM,
I think you're missing my larger point. It's not a matter of worshiping versus veneration. I'd already stated that I understand this distinction. The issue is whether images of Jesus are permitted in the first place. The First Commandment, especially in conjunction with Deut 4:15-6 (CCC 2129), makes it clear we are to make no images of God. Is Jesus not God? If He is, can we separate His Deity from His humanity (which would amount to the heresy of Nestorianism and/or implying a heretical kenosis)?
This is a serious issue. Maybe this is mitigated somewhere I'm just not seeing at present.
And, as others have said before, Matthew 7:3-5 is not applicable here. Otherwise, to take it as broadly as you seem to do, we cannot assess or "judge" any single thing.
Catholics absolutely DO NOT worship statues or images in any form. Worship is reserved for God alone. Idolatry in ANY form is absolutely condemned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2110-2114) spells this out clearly. Anyone who suggests otherwise is mistaken and seriously misrepresents Catholic teaching.
This will all be 'sorted out' on Judgement Day, Craig... not by you or anyone else on this blog.
I am really looking forward to seeing you then . . .
WOW... this is certainly food for thought!!!
I can’t breathe
Masks
Ventilators
Respiratory Virus
Dust Clouds
All an attack on oxygen
5G= 666
60ghz, 600 MHz, 600000 anTuTu score
Are they preparing the world for Ghislaine Maxwell's possible 'suicide'... because she knows too much? Only time will tell...
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1084647/epstein-lawyer-maxwell-die-prison/
Anon 8:28 & 8:32,
Let me deduce the issue down to its very essence with this question:
Are we permitted to make an image of YHWH/God?
Louis Farrakhan Accuses Fauci And Bill Gates Of Plotting To ‘Depopulate The Earth’ With Coronavirus Vaccine
https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/04/louis-farrakhan-fauci-bill-gates-vaccine-coronavirus/
Attack on Christianity, all religion–California bans singing in Church–mask or no mask
https://www.intellihub.com/attack-on-christianity-all-religion-california-bans-singing-in-church-mask-or-no-mask/
Denver Airport now hiding ‘underground construction’ in plain sight with new billboards, hashtag #DENFILES
https://www.intellihub.com/denver-airport-now-hiding-underground-construction-in-plain-sight-with-new-billboards-hashtag-denfiles/
I just saw a five minute clip of Trump's speech today by CBS. This is the blurb accompanying the video:
In remarks at the White House on July 4 ahead of a military flyover, President Trump emphasized shared heritage of Americans and the legacy of "American heroes." Mr. Trump pushed ahead with a divisive message, saying "we will never allow an angry mob to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample on our freedoms."
What is so divisive about pushing back against "never allow[ing] an angry mob to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample on our freedoms"? Typical biased media--fake news.
Craig,
Do you really have to ask?
Twitter Ditches "Offensive" Non-inclusive Terms Such As "Whitelist", "Man-hours" And "He, Him, His"
https://www.zerhodge.com/political/twitter-ditches-offensive-non-inclusive-terms-such-whitelist-man-hours-and-he-him-his
A Will To Overthrow The United States
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/will-overthrow-united-states
Michigan Passes Controversial Bill To Microchip Humans Voluntarily To Protect Their Privacy
https://greatgameindia.com/bill-to-microchip-workers/
All this microchipping is of course for our own good! And when it becomes mandatory, you know, for our own good, and we don't comply, they will F K our shit up!
paul @ 7:45 AM,
My point was, as written, the CBS wording is a non sequitur. They didn't try to spin his words, which is what I'm used to. What I expect is for them to twist Trump's words, such as, "Trump pushed ahead with a divisive message, calling peaceful protestors 'angry mobs'..." or something like that.
I, as a child of God, choose NOT to get the microchip (whether voluntary or 'mandatory') for MY own good.
"Don't Let Them Vaccinate You": Farrakhan Warns Africans That Dr. Fauci Is Trying To Kill You
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dont-let-them-vaccinate-you-farrakhan-warns-africans-dr-fauci-trying-kill-them
Presuming that microchipping will indeed turn out to have some significant relationship with the Mark of the Beast this book may be of benefit:
"I Won't Take the Mark: A Bible Book and Contract for Children
By "Katherine Albrecht Ed.D
"Product Description
"This beautifully illustrated and scripturally accurate book gently conveys the warnings of Revelation while joyously celebrating the ultimate triumph of good over evil, guiding children to a closer relationship with Jesus—whether at home, in church, or as part of a Bible study. Each book comes with an 8x10 certificate for your child to sign, promising to worship only God and never take the mark of the beast.
"About the Author
"Katherine is an internationally known privacy researcher, consumer advocate, bestselling author, and nationally syndicated radio host. She holds a Doctorate in Human Development and Consumer Education from Harvard University, has studied at the MIT Media lab, and received a Masters from Harvard in Technology, Innovation, and Education.
"Katherine helped to create StartPage, the world's most private search engine, and is on the team that developed StartMail, the fully private, paid email service that privacy within the reach of ordinary people by making PGP encryption easy to use.
"Katherine has authored RFID labeling and anti-chipping legislation, testified before the Federal Trade Commission and numerous state legislatures, and was appointed by NH Governor John Lynch to serve as a consumer technology expert. Her work with Associated Press reporter Todd Lewan helped put an end to human microchipping in the US in 2007, and with the ACLU she launched a successful First Amendment lawsuit against McCormick Place, the nation's largest conference center.
"With Liz McIntyre, Katherine co-authored the bestselling RFID expose Spychips, and she has granted over 2,000 media interviews with news outlets around the globe, including CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, Fox News, Good Morning America, the BBC, Wired Magazine, The New York Times, and more.
"Katherine is currently serving as the Associate Editor of the IEEE ("eye-triple-ee") Technology & Society Magazine, has written on RFID technology for Scientific American, writes a bi-weekly column on technology and security at eHow.com, and heads the 18,000 member consumer privacy organization CASPIAN.
"This is her first children's book."
https://www.amazon.com/Wont-Take-Mark-Contract-Children/dp/0988280213
Thank you so much for sharing this information with us, Anonymous @ 2:54 PM.
4:43 PM, you're most welcome!
Craig,
I was agreeing with you.
The media is so predictable now in its perversity.
If George Soros wasn't such an old decrepit bag of bones, I would suspect that he is the Antichrist.
He's the money behind everything that is anti American, anti family, anti goodness and Anti Christ.
The single most telling thing about Donald Trump, whom I'd like to support, is that he doesn't have George Soros arrested for sedition and treason. That old goat is guilty of all that and more.
Katherine Albrecht | Coast to Coast AM
‘Herd immunity’ near, but MSM suppress recovery numbers
According to new reports, humanity is approaching a herd immunity to COVID-19 due to rising recoveries from the virus. However, mainstream media has been ignoring the recovery numbers. One America’s Kristian Rouz finds out why.
paul,
I thought so, but figured I'd add to my statement.
I do think Soros is funding a lot of anti-American activities, but I think it may be difficult to find a smoking gun. Also, last I heard, he was living in China.
He lives in upstate New York, I thought, after getting kicked out of the UK
9 Things You Need To Know About George Soros
Texas Governor Abbott Confronted With Evidence COVID-19 Is A Giant Hoax
https://banned.video/watch?id=5effb85b672706002f3f8495
There needs to be an immediate investigation as to how many death certificates have been erroneously written up as 'Covid-19'.
"What I did say is that AFTER He physically rose from the dead, His body "changed," which can easily be illustrated by the Scriptures."
changed into what? something non physical? His Resurrection body and those we shall receive someday, is indestructible and immortal, but PHYSICAL He said to handle Him and see He has flesh and bones not like a spirit, and ate some fish. This change of His strictly human of present type to the Resurrection body happened at the Resurrection, not after. appearing despite a closed door is not much more spectacular than walking over the water before His death and Resurrection.
So His body changed into some kind of spirit haunt thing? prove it.
ehttps://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/jesus-is-still-human Jesus Is Still Human
Of course you do not address my point about your ignoring when I have shown RC errors include a lot of biblically correct stuff. The hate I refer to does not need to imply you hate individuals, but a froth at the mouth condition that impedes seeing anything but what you want to see. Perhap your whole identity is tied up in rejection of everything remotely "romanish" to the point you ignore what in Scripture supports any such thing (they are in error on several things, incl. the papacy). It seems DISHONEST to not mention this in your remarks.
Forever and ever and to the ages of ages is the same thing. just different ways of saying the same thing. idiomatic differeces that's all.
Sandra is not my sock puppet. her typos are different from mine, which have a keyboard problem basis and the text I compose in doesn't spell check. oops. Certain keys have to be hit harder than others.
As for Trump getting criminal buddies out of jail, Flynn was innocent, unless he lied about something else, he said he didn't discuss something and he didn't he was asked about it and said he could not discuss it the person had to ask the President/ That isn't discussing something that is refusing to discusss something. Flynn was thrown under the bus as a plopy of some kind, gets the corrupt players in the open.
Isit okay to make an image of Jesus? Paul says He is the express image of The Father and Jesus said when you have seen Me you have seen the Father, they are alike. An image of Jesus doesn't show His invisible divinity, but it is included in His person which is depicted.
you salute the flag it is about what it represents. same deal with honoring an icon. When people throw grbge at some unpopulr person's picture they are dishonoring the original on purpose.
Good article on the mask issue:
The Science of Mask-Wearing Hasn’t Changed. So Why Have Our Expectations?
...The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be, and Martin worried that wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were — and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19...
Do cloth face coverings work? Probably, to some extent. But just how much they work depends on the material, how they’re used, and what you’re expecting them to accomplish. And — regardless of what you’ve seen in highly shareable memes — we definitely don’t know enough to say that wearing these kinds of coverings will reduce risk of transmission by a specific percentage, let alone a high percentage. Those were the conclusions of an expert report published by the National Academies of Sciences on April 8, and two of the lead authors of that paper recently told me the science hasn’t significantly changed since then. Some studies have come out showing a correlation in certain regions between mask mandates and reduced spread of the coronavirus, but several of those not-yet-peer-reviewed studies have turned out to have important flaws — such as failing to account for factors like other behaviors (such as higher rates of social distancing) that went along with wearing masks in those places.
...“Back in March, it was difficult to even have anybody take you seriously when the CDC and WHO said the opposite,” said Jeremy Howard, a data scientist and entrepreneur...
At the same time, Michael Osterholm, a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told me he’s received vulgar emails from people who read his statements questioning the efficacy of cloth masks. Osterholm said that his position was not that masks shouldn’t be worn — he wears one in public, himself — but that there is limited data on how effective DIY cloth masks are at stopping small particles, either from passing through or being forced out the sides of the mask. Without that information, he said, physical distancing and isolation remain the most important tools in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. But as more Republicans say the worst of the coronavirus is behind us, and usage of masks tracks tightly along the partisan spectrum, Osterholm told me he felt like well-meaning people were making him out to be a pandemic denialist.
Ultimately, experts said, all the nuance and complication around masks is a challenge that public health messaging has to face up to. It’s difficult to make one-size-fits-all recommendations for situations that don’t readily lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all reality.
The good news is that there’s more agreement than disagreement on where to start. Just look at Osterholm and Howard, two experts who might easily be seen as having opposing viewpoints in this battle. Yet they hold similar positions on one issue: They both wish the CDC would have given the public the nuanced information about masks back in March and trusted them to understand it. Granted, that might mean presenting the public with a complex message, such as: “We don’t know how well cloth masks work, so distancing should come first, but masks are likely to work to some extent and not everyone can distance themselves.” That’s a mouthful and harder to fit on a bumper sticker than “yes, you should,” or “no, you shouldn’t.” But it comes down to what builds trust more: certainty or honesty?
MSM ALTERNATIVE NEWS OUTLETS!
In Alphabetical Order
#1) http://badblue.bitnamiapp.com/trendr8.htm
#2) https://www.censored.news
#3) https://www.citizenfreepress.com
#4) https://thelibertydaily.com
#5) https://newsammo.com
#6) https://preppersdailynews.com
#7) https://rantingly.com
#8) https://www.whatfinger.com
KANYE WEST SAYS HE IS RUNNING FOR US PRESIDENT – AND HE HAS WON THE BACKING OF ELON MUSK
https://www.infowars.com/kanye-west-says-he-is-running-for-us-president-and-he-has-won-the-backing-of-elon-musk/
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Of course, while our first inclination is to laugh out loud . . .
Kanye West (who has plenty of money to finance his own campaign) could be the 'spoiler' candidate. Remember Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent in the 1992 election, which ended up taking votes away from the incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush (denying him a second term)... and putting Bill Clinton in the White House?
(Blacks would support Joe Biden... as many view Kanye as a 'sell out' to their race.)
Craig 6:50 AM
Well, I don't trust the CDC, WHO, Bill Gates, or Dr. 'FAUX'!!!
Burger King Changes Logo to “BURGER QUEER” in Honor of Pride Month!
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/lgbt-agenda-gets-exported-to-mexico-when-burger-king-changes-logo-to-burger-queer-in-honor-of-pride-month
Anon 8:23 AM,
And that's why I wrote: Masking…the Truth?.
Post a Comment