Free Republic

I have one question for you Newt supporters.

If Newt can’t be trusted to keep his own Wedding Vows, why do you think he can be trusted to keep his Oath of Office?

Voting politics over principles only gets you unprincipled politicians. It NEVER results in the opposite. If we can’t grasp this simple truth and continue to select politicians with no core principles, then no amount of reform is going to help the GOP and it’s time to strike the tent for good.

I’m not throwing my support to Romney, but I’m not settling for a lying, cheating, whoremonger who can’t even keep his own wedding vows. He’s proven to be untrustworthy in his private life, that eliminates him from trust in his public life.

>>>All Rick will do is take votes away from Newt so that Romney wins.

I’ll tell you what, if Newt will take an Oath and keep his promises and not lie to us, I’ll vote for him. Oh, wait, he’s done that before and now they’re his Ex-Wives.

Sorry, but a man who won’t keep his Wedding Vows won’t honor the Oath of Office either. Peddle that cheating, lying whoremonger somewhere else, I didn’t vote for Clinton and I’m not voting for his Republican twin either.

The real question isn't if God speaks to us or even what He's saying to us, as that's clearly given to us in His Word, it's if we're listening and, more importantly, willing to obey His Word and make Him Lord of our life completely.

If a man can’t be trusted with his own marriage, why should we trust him with our entire Country?

He is, but some people don't bother to tell the truth when it comes to Theology in general and Eschatology in particular. It's easier to just lie about someone's beliefs than it is to actually attack them on the issues.

If you actually follow the links back to Perdue’s blog, you quickly realize that he’s a Liberal who’s masquerading, knowingly or otherwise, as a Christian. Lots of focus on Social Justice and “Practical Theology”, not so much focus on Christ.

Everything is in the process of being set up for him to walk in and begin his appointed role in the wrap-up of this age.

I've worked for the Telecom Industry for the last 13 years and we've known about this kind of possibility for decades. The only problem was a lack of processing power in a small enough package to be able to pull this off successfully. Now that smart phones are becoming so advanced, that hurdle is gone.

I used to tell people that you should never say anything around a cell phone that you didn't want to be repeated, but now I don't see any way away from this technological encroachment short of becoming a Luddite and living completely off the grid and even that's not a sure thing any longer.

Thanks for the ping Cronos. I’ll add JA to the prayer list at once.

Obviously I disagree, but thanks for the chuckle anyway. I can tell you've got a sense of humor and that's becoming rare these days.

Here's the problem; faith isn't about feelings or what we want to believe, it's about what we know to be true even if we don't see it immediately. You said so yourself when you said that you "believe that science deals with objective facts". You have faith that science deals with objective facts, but that faith is based in reality and not just feelings or what you want to believe.

The Christian Faith is the same thing; we know these things to be true because the same One who bore witness to them also bore witness to other events which have proven to be true. While there's a lot that we don't know yet, we do know the character of the One who reported the facts to us, so we can have faith in His truthfulness.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you really need to provide proof of your accusations before most here will listen to what you have to say. Just because you claim something doesn’t make it so and, frankly, when two people who know the Bible as well as CB and I know it don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, that’s a pretty clear indication that you’ve got part of the story wrong. Are you sure you’re not confusing the Genesis account in the Bible with the Epic of Gilgamesh?

The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God.

This is not a case where someone is being double minded. This is literally a case where time, as we see it, is not the same as time as God see's it. God recorded the first day as evening and morning, or one yowm, from His vantage outside of time and being clearly able to see the End from the Beginning, but how long does that evening and morning appear to us now, at this point in time? Scripture states that we view reality as through a dim glass, I suspect that this is one of those instances where what we see appears to be at odds with what God has recorded but it really isn't at odds because our understanding of the situation is limited.

In short, God's view of Time versus our view of Time is relative to who is viewing it.

It would probably help if you could get the verses right. Let's start with the very first problem. You stated that “In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.” but that's not what the verse actually says. It actually states that "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Now, the difference is that the words we translate as "without form" actually mean formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness in Hebrew. Looking again with this understanding, we see that the Earth was without form (formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness), and void (emptiness, void or waste); and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep (deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In other words, the Earth was not yet formed into something but it was there because it was void, or empty. It was covered by water, hence why the Spirit of God could be said to move over the face of the water.

Now, on to your next point. There's not two different accounts of the creation. You need to provide proof of your claim, otherwise it just falls flat.

Next claim: Cain's wife. That's easy, she was his sister. At this time, the Law against incest had not been given due to the fact that the genetic pool had not been polluted enough yet to cause genetic problems.

Next claim: God unfairly judges all men according to one man's sins. Correct in that we're all fallen due to Adam's sin, but incorrect in that we don't have a way of setting that account right (Christ died so that all men could be reconciled back to God in the same manner that all men fell due to the actions of one man, Adam) and furthermore the idea that this is unjust is false in that our views of justice are inconsequential as we are a created being. Justice and righteousness is established by the creator, not the created.

Next Claim: Earth Created before Sun. And? This provides a problem how? We know that there was a light source before this time, we just don't know what it was or where it went once the Sun was created.

You seem to be trapped into thinking that just because we can't comprehend how something was formed, that it must not have been formed according to how it's Creator recorded it. Well, that and you don't have a good grasp of the actual text involved either. All in all, I'd say you've evidenced a marked bias against Genesis being correct without even giving it the benefit of actual study on your part. That's remarkably similar to the same attitude that is evidenced by Global Warming advocates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

The KJV used the Robertus Stephanus Latin Vulgate, along with Theodore Beza's translation of the Greek and the Textus Receptus, among others.

Are you talking about the Gap theory, which states that there's a gap of an unknown amount of time between the first sentence of Genesis 1:2 and the second sentence of that same verse?

I agree, we do understand science very well, as it functions at this point in space and time. The problem is that there is no way to confirm that our assumptions about the past are true due to the fact that there's no way to actually truly verify the past. Yes, we can take note of things and make educated assumptions based upon those notes, but there is a certain limit to our understanding that is due to our inability to see time as a whole.

Now, you stated that there are contradictions in Genesis. Care to provide an example?

Yes JA, the KJV is an English version of the Bible based upon the Latin Vulgate. So yes, if you're using the Vulgate for Mass and I'm using the KJV, we're seeing the same text but in a different language.

If it makes you feel any better, how about I show you the same text from the Vulgate?

Mat 6:14-15 VUL - [14] si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum dimittet et vobis Pater vester caelestis delicta vestra [15] si autem non dimiseritis hominibus nec Pater vester dimittet peccata vestra

Happy now? The meaning of the verse is still the same.

He didn't say that truth was relative, he said that our understanding of truth was relative. We see it from the point of view of those who live here, in this moment of time and thereby are subject to the same things which make the Creation appear to be older than what it is. God, who is outside of time, left a record that says it was only a little less than 6,000 years ago that he did all this.

I'll be your huckleberry.

How about those of us who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient Hebrew words, which haven't changed in over 5,000 years? Want to explain why `ereb boqer 'echad yowm doesn't actually mean `ereb boqer 'echad yowm? For your reference, that's "...and the evening and the morning were the first day." in English.

Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?

JA, the Book of Matthew is not solely a Protestant book. It's a part of the four Gospels. Catholics use it, just as Eastern Orthodox and everyone else. It's Holy Scripture and has been accepted since the beginning.

Your rejection of it is telling.