Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Universe's 6,000th birthday ...
Guardian ^ | 22 October 2004 | Radford, Tim

Posted on 10/22/2004 7:22:56 AM PDT by Publius Valerius

Universe's 6,000th birthday ...

Tim Radford Friday October 22, 2004 The Guardian

Britain's geologists are about to celebrate the fact that the universe is exactly 6,000 years old.

At 6pm tonight at the Geological Society of London, scientists will raise their glasses to James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (below), who in 1650 used the chronology of the Bible to calculate the precise date and moment of creation.

Working from the book of Genesis, and risking some speculation on the Hebrew calendar, he calculated that it began at 6pm on Saturday October 22, 4004 BC.

Actually, he put the date at October 23, and then pedantically realised that time must have begun the night before, because the Bible said that "the evening and the morning were the first day."

The geologists selected the anniversary for a day-long conference on some of the fakes, frauds and hoaxes that have plagued geological and palaeontological research for centuries. "It's not that we think Archbishop Ussher's date was a fraud," said Ted Nield, the society's communications officer. "It's just that it was spectacularly wrong."

Dr Nield conceded, too, that in toasting the archbishop's calculations the geologists were committing another error. More than 6,000 years have passed since 4004 BC. The symmetry is only apparent. The date is a mere numerological reflection. The real anniversary passed unnoticed, in 1997.


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; genesis; origins; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

I am no inconsistent you are the one stating that a day MUST equal a thousand years. I have explained that this is a figure of speech. You know like someone saying, "I stood in line 'forever' at the DMV." They do not mean that they literally stood an eternity at the Licensing counter. Or like someone saying. "It 'seems' like only yesterday that my kids were in grade school." They do not mean that the actually think that yesterday their kids were in grade school. They are both figures of speech.

I meant that the English word "day" that you see in your Bible may not always be the same root word in Hebrew. An example of this is in the New Testament there are several diferent words in Greek that are all translated into English as love. Agape, Philos, and Eros, I think they are. Agape is an unconditional, all inclusive love. The kind of love that God has for the whole world. Philos is the type of love that you have for your sibling or your parents, a familial love. Eros is the physical love between a man and a woman. This is where we get our word "Erotic". I never said that a the word day CANNOT be used to mean more than 24 hours. In fact I specifically stated that it could. The "day" of the Lord is Joel is longer than 24 hours. It does not however mean exactly 1,000 years everytime it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. There is no verse that you stated that stated the word day in the Bible is to be interpreted as meaning 1,000 years. You are neglecting the last half of both verses that also states that 1,000 years is as a day. Again, that is a figure of speech meaning that God is not bound by time and our reality.

You can determine from the text how long the day were. If you interpret the Bible literally, the 6 days that God created the Earth are literal 24 hour (or approximately this long. I can elaborate on that later) days. The reason I know this is that Genesis puts bounds and numbers on the "days". It states, evening and morning, Day one, evening and morning Day two, evening and morning Day three, etc. That cannot be interpreted in any other way. You don't have to agree with it, but you cannot make the text say anything else.

By the way you have yet to answer my question do you think that EVERY instance of the word "day" in the Bible is to interpreted as actually being 1,000 calender years, and that every instance where the Bible says 1,000 years, we are to substitute a literal 24 hour period of time? That is what you are saying, if you tell me I HAVE to interpret Genesis 2:17 in that way.

Regards,


161 posted on 10/22/2004 10:00:05 PM PDT by Christian Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

There is a textual gap in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 that allows for time to pass before the creation of the world. However, there would be nothing for God to enjoy, but a sphere of water surrounding a sphere of rock. Because every living thing on this planet was created in 6 24 hour days.


162 posted on 10/22/2004 10:04:08 PM PDT by Christian Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

> But you should just say "I don't really know of any in particular."

Why should I lie to you? I do know of quite a number of predictions made via evolutionary theory that were later borne out. And since these predictions are quite readily discovered via Google, I figured I'd let you find them for yourself. But it appears you'd prefer not to.


163 posted on 10/22/2004 10:39:08 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Christian Conservative
By the way you have yet to answer my question do you think that EVERY instance of the word "day" in the Bible is to interpreted as actually being 1,000 calender years, and that every instance where the Bible says 1,000 years, we are to substitute a literal 24 hour period of time? That is what you are saying, if you tell me I HAVE to interpret Genesis 2:17 in that way.

No, you are coming at it from the wrong direction. It is the context of Genesis 2:17 along with some inferrence from the patriarch lists (i.e. none lived quite to 1000) that is explained by a literal interpretation of Ps.90:4 & 2Pet.3:8 which indicates which day is meant, man or God's. An immediate spiritual death is one way of getting around it. But Adam could give a hoot about it if 2:17 did not also mean a real death.
164 posted on 10/23/2004 3:25:29 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
. . . universe is exactly 6,000 years old.

. . . "the evening and the morning were the first day."

The Universe has nothing to do with days and years.
Days and years have nothing to do with the Universe.

The last "time" I looked.

165 posted on 10/23/2004 3:59:14 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Okay, I will try one last time to make myself clear. The original manuscripts that make up the books of the Bible were written in three different languages; Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic. Sometimes when you translate from one language to another, there are no words that directly correspond. (See my previous example of instructions from say, a ready made furniture kit that is made in a foreign country). Then there is the problem of different dialects of languages that have different vocabularies. For instance, the U.S., Great Britian, and Australia. We all speak English, but with different dialects and vocabularies. It is difficult sometimes to express certain thoughts from one culture to another. For example, if I talked to a person in France, and told him someone "kicked the bucket" they would probably not know what I was talking about.

Therefore, you have to look at the original word, not the word that is written in your English translation of the Bible to find the original meaning. I will do some research with my Bible Concordance and try to find which Hebrew word was used, and how it is used in other places. However, I would like to point out that I looked up "day" in Webster's New World College Dictionary, and found 9 definitions. In fact one of the definition, #4 says, "a period of time; eraa; age [the best writer of her day]". So even in modern english we use the word "day" sometimes when we mean other than a literal 24 hour day.

I will now give other scripture references which use the words "die" or "dead" while no speaking of immediate physical death. 1 Timothy 5:6 when talking about widows who qualify for assistance from the church says, "She who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead while she lives." Luke 15:24 is conveying the thoughts of the prodigal son's father, "For this son of mine was dead and has come to life again, he was lost and has been found." 1 Corinthians 15:31 has Paul talking about his everyday struggle in this world, "I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily." Revelation 3:1 records the words of Jesus to the church in Sardis, "I know your deeds, that you are alive, but you are dead." These examples all use our English words for death or dying, but none of them are speaking of immediate or current physical death. The prodigal son was not physically dead, he was spiritually and relationally dead, because he had forsaken his family and was seperated from them. I don't think anyone would say that the Apostle Paul actually meant that every day he died physically. He was meaning that everyday he seperates himself from the things of this world that would distract him from serving God. I looked up the word die in Webster's New World College dictionary. There are 9 different definitions for it as well!

So when you combine the alternative meanings, given in Webster's Dictionary, which can hardly be cast as a religious work, you can keep the sentence exactly as God spoke it and have it be true without distorting the entire rest of the Bible.

I don't think that it is wise to pull two verses out of context, especially when Peter is probably quoting the verse in Psalms, and apply a "figure of speech" as the standard of measure for all of time in the Bible. Think of it like this. Days, Weeks, Months, and Years are manmade scales of time. God never said in the Bible, "you shall call one rotation of the earth 'day' and you shall call one cycle of the moon 'month' and you shall call one cycle of the seasons 'year'." They are terms that we as humans have made to help us track the passage of time. What the passage is saying is that a day is too short, compared to God, for Him to track. If you don't belief what the Bible says that is fine, but don't try to make it say something that it doesn't just because it is easier for you to believe it.

Regards,


166 posted on 10/23/2004 7:50:41 AM PDT by Christian Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Christian Conservative
"I don't think that it is wise to pull two verses out of context, especially when Peter is probably quoting the verse in Psalms, and apply a "figure of speech" as the standard of measure for all of time in the Bible. Think of it like this. Days, Weeks, Months, and Years are manmade scales of time."


"probably quoting" Now let's go to what the subject matter that Peter was telling us.

IIPeter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your "pure minds" by way of remembrance;

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the LORD and Saviour:

This is the introduction of the subject matter requiring "pure minds" and remembrance of the words spoken by the "holy prophets" and commandment of us the apostles.

Peter is sending us back to the words of the "holy prophets" and that starts in Genesis, yes Moses was a prophet.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lust.

This establishes the TIME frame for which this remembrance is given. So to us this day we are to have "pure minds" by way of "remembrance" of what the words are spoken by the "holy prophets".

4 And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

Now that word "beginning" is one and the same as the word GENESIS.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Now most try and connect this OLD as being Noah's flood but they ignore verse 6.

6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Now there is no other meaning to that word perished than destruction, and that will not fit Noah's flood as we know full well that not all perished. You check out that word perished, where it is use and who it is used about.

Jeremiah 4 talks about a flood where all was destroyed, and all perished and how those words "willingly ignorant" come into play.

Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME: The are sottish children, and they have none understanding: They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge....

Sounds just like Peter talking about people today.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had not light.

Where exactly are these words "without form and void" used???? What exactly do these words mean in the original????

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.


25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jeremiah is not talking about Noah's flood and Peter by using the words "willingly ignorant" and that word "perished" is bringing into the "pure mind" remembrance of the words of the holy prophets.

IIPeter3:6 Whereby the world that then WAS....

what exactly does "WAS" mean??? You might check out what the Heavenly Father asked Job about after Job was "elected" to be persecuted by that one that was allowed to "go to and fro".

Read Job 38 thru the end and get a glimpse into the "pure mind" required to get a glimpse.

IIPeter3: 7 But the heavens and the earth which are NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

What does "NOW" mean. I am counting 1 age that WAS and 1 age that is NOW and a future AGE to come, cause we sure have not had that "fire against the DAY of judgment in which that one of "perdition" (check out that word, where it is used and who is the son of "perdition")

8 But, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing, that one DAY is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one DAY.

So you really think Peter was not aware of the DAYS of creation.

Finally, how is it that Chinese history pre-dates 6,000 years...?????
167 posted on 10/23/2004 8:26:47 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I will try to answer your points and questions in order. I apologize If I miss any of them. I pretty much agree with your analysis of 2 Peter 3 until you get to verse 5&6. Verse 5 is referring to creation "The heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water." Genesis 1:6 "Then God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the MIDST of the waters, and let it seperatethe waters from the waters.'". This is were we get the vapor canopy theory. There was a layer of water surrounding the earth above the atmosphere. This is seen in verse 8 where God calls the expanse between the waters heaven meaning sky. In Genesis 1:9 we read, "Then God said, 'Let the water below the heavens be gathered into one place and let dry land appear.' and it was so." God calls this dry land earth in verse 10. These explain 2Peter 3:5. "...the earth was formed out of water...".

2Peter 3:6 "through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." "Though which" refers to water, which destroyed the world (that meaning the physical world) in Genesis 7. If you read verse 21 of Genesis 7 it says, "And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth and all mankind." Sounds just like 2Peter 3:6. The qualifying in Genesis 7 is "that moved on the earth." Noah his family and the animals were not on the earth (meaning dry ground) they were on the water. Therefore they are not included in the destruction by the mercy and design of God.

The word used for "formless" in Genesis 1 and Jeremiah 4 is the same word, tohuw. It means desolation or like a desert. The word used for "void" in Genesis 1 and Jeremiah 4 is same word, bohuw. It means vacuity, an undistignguishable ruin, and emptiness. There were no landmarks in Genesis before God formed the dry land, just as there would be no landmarks after the destruction of Israel by the Babylonians.

The word for flood used in Genesis 7 is mabbuwl meaning a deluge. This word is not used in Jeremiah 4. Jeremiah is talking about destruction by the Babylonian armies, not by water. However the Greek word for flood is used in 2Peter 2:5 is kataklusmos, meaning an inundation or flood. This verse says, "and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly." If you read all of 2Peter chapter 2, you see Peter describing several historical judgments on sin from the Old Testament. Then in chapter 3 he says he is stirring up remembrance of the things the prophets told. That is what he is refering to, the judment of sin by God.

About the thousand years equals a day formula. I cannot state it any clearer. "With the Lord" 1 day is LIKE 1,000 years AND 1,000 years is LIKE 1 day. It is not an exact mathematical calculation with a substitution of the terms when they are encountered in scripture passages. It is a figure of speech meanint that God is outside our universe and reality, therefore He is not subject to nor bound by time in the same way that we are. 2Peter is warning of false teaching and false teachers, and the judgment coming for the world. We are to understand 2Peter 3:8 in the context of this message. It simply means that just because we have not seen it happen yet, does not mean that it is not coming. The Flood of Genesis 7 did not take place until about 1600 years after the fall of man. God was patient with man's evil for 1600 years the first time. After 1600 years only 8 people on the face of the planet were considered worthy enough by God to be saved from the ulimate destruction. There are many more than that now I would assume and it has only been about 4500 years since the Flood. We have not denigrated to the point YET, where God is willing to kill everything left on the Earth as punishment. This does not mean the the fiery judgment promised in 2Peter 3:7 will not happen. It only means that it WILL happen, but it has not happened YET.

The word for "day" in Genesis 2:17 is yowm. It can mean literally the warm hours of daylight, or figuratively just a space of time like we use the word "age" i.e. the Middle Age. The word for day in 2Peter is hemera. Which can also mean a literal space of time between dark and light, or figuratively just a space a time without a specific time frame. When we use an expression like, "in his day, Michael Jordan was the greatest player in the NBA" we are not meaning that he was the greatest player for a 24 hour period. We mean that he was the greatest while he played.

I have never heard that Chinese history is over 6,000 years old. I really doubt that it is true. Not that they don't have it, but that the history is accurate.

I did a google of "history of written languages" here are two pages you might want to visit.

http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/c/ch/chinese_written_language.html

http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/s/sh/shang_dynasty.html

Apparently they say Chinese writing originated around 1600 B.C in the Shang dynasty. How can the Chinese have reliable history dating to 6,000 B.C. if they did not write anything down until at least 4400 years later?

Like I said in my previous post, you don't have to agree with what the Bible says, but you cannot twist the meaning to something different just so it fits a model that you like. You have to either accept the entire Bible or reject it entirely. It becomes worthless if individuals get to pick and choose which points and passages they get to believe and which ones they can overlook.

I am not trying to force my faith on anyone. I just want to make sure that it is accurately reflected. I love to debate, but I do not wish to degrade that into bickering and fighting.

Regards,



Bibliography: All of my definitions for the Hebrew and Greek words and their crossreferences came from Stong's Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew Chaldee and Greek Dictionaries. Biblical quotes were from the New American Standard Translation of the Bible.


168 posted on 10/23/2004 3:40:36 PM PDT by Christian Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Christian Conservative
I use the Strongs and the King James Version.

Genesis 1:1-2 tells us of two events. The beginning the heaven and earth were created. And the destruction or overthrow of the heavens and earth.

No time frame is given for either event how long it took or how long it lasted.

When was Satan created? Not one word is mentioned of his creation in Genesis yet in Ezekiel 28 we are told that Satan was created and was in the Garden of Eden.

Why does Chinese history pre-date 6,000 years?
169 posted on 10/24/2004 2:00:33 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

As a member of "The Earth is Flat" society, I am sympathetic to this cause.


170 posted on 10/24/2004 2:01:45 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Funny, the Universe doesn't look a day over 5700.


171 posted on 10/24/2004 2:32:10 AM PDT by willyboyishere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian Conservative
MY COMMENTS ON THE BIBLE RECORD OF CREATION

GENESIS – Chapter 1 – In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good…

Genesis, the word comes from the Late Greek, to become. The first book of the Pentateuch is an early description of the sequence of events that led to the appearance of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. By Chapter Fifty it ends with the death of Joseph. The Jewish Sages of the First Temple Era, as described below, took the literal descriptions from Genesis, and dated their calender to the moment of creation being dawn of the first day. It is my belief that the early writers of the Pentateuch had to try and describe their version of events leading up to their time. Past oral testimony and story telling from their forebears would have been handed down from
person to person from the early pre-Noahide era. Later archaeological evidence and records of dinosaur fossils and other hominid-like creatures, named “Cro-Magnon”and “Neanderthal” suggest that there were other creatures roaming the earth prior to Adam and Eve. The description in Genesis does not contradict these later findings from paleontology. The first “Six Days” of the Jewish Calender were in fact not days in our perception of time, but “days” of “God Time”. That is to say that the notion of time as we perceive it today, would have been very different in the early pre-Adamic times of Planet Earth. Time thus can change and take on different forms !

The Master of the Universe does indeed lie beyond time, as time is a subset, and God is the superset. It is thus impossible for humankind to even begin to contemplate how exactly creation happened. It is indeed also quite pointless an exercise as we are given the basic description in Genesis, and we don’t need to question it. In fact it would be extremely impudent of humankind to worry too much about the question, when we have been given the numerous bountiful gifts for which we should show gratitude : Planet Earth, Land, Air, The Sun, The Moon, The Stars, Rain, Wind, Fire, Thoughts, Water, Seas, Lakes, Rivers, Oceans, Mountains, Food, Animals, Wood, Minerals etc. etc. The Ten Commandments and the Mitzvot are the rules we have been given by God, to conduct our lives, to live happy lives and to bring eternal peace to the world. Arrogant, secular, reductionist, materialist scientific “proofs” of evolution are no such thing, and they should be pointed out for the frauds that they are. Such scientific “truths” have often been used as planks in the Trojan Horse to be wheeled in by the anti-god crowd to further their own short-sighted, evil agendas.

God is beyond time, and the Genesis story is a great description of Creation !
172 posted on 10/24/2004 3:05:24 AM PDT by Bandaneira (The Third Temple/House for All Nations/World Peace Centre...Coming Soon...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

As I said in my previous post there is a "literary" pause between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This would allow for time outside of the six literal days of creation dealing specifically with the earth. I do not think it is supported by the rest of Genesis, but it is allowable to come to this conclusion. I believe that Lucifer (Satan's original name) was created sometime during the week of creation. It is possible for God to have done this before, but I see no reason that it is necessary. Lucifer was cast out of heaven and became Satan, sometime after the creation week because Genesis says that "God saw that it was very good" when speaking about creation. It had not yet been tainted with sin therefore Lucifer was still in heaven at that time. The Bible simply does not tell us how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before they ate of the fruit, so we cannot tell. I also think that this is why it is ludicrous to try to establish the "Day and Hour that the Universe was created". We cannot know that because there are too many variables with time and calenders outside of the Bible to be able to determine even the Year the that the universe was created.

I don't think that Chinese history does pre-date 6,000 years. I think that you can trace the Flood of Genesis 7 back fairly accurately, so it happened in the neighbor hood of 4500 years ago. I googled "Chinese history 6,000 B.C." and came up with this sight;
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/history_of_china.html

They have an entirely evolutionary standpoint, but even they say that most of the reliable history only dates to about 2,000 B.C. and writing began occuring in about 1,600 B.C. To keep oral tradition alive AND accurate for over 4,000 years, completely boggles the mind. We can't even agree on history from less than two hundred years ago about the Civil War, and there is no end to written documentation from both sides. How well do you think oral tradition would have lasted for 40 Centuries?

The writers of the article know that a species called "homo erectus" (another evolutionary hoax) lived in China over 1,000,000 years ago. Then we know that the "Homo Sapiens" were there 65,000 years ago. Next, we see a "proto-Chinese" rice paddy agriculture about 6,000 B.C. Do they have any concrete proof of this? I have heard the arguments before. "We don't have that much evidence because it is not preserved in the fossil record." Okay, how do you have any evidence it nothing is preserved in the fossil record? If there is no evidence, why do you believe it to be true? If evidence exists, where is it, and why didn't more survive? We cut across thousands and millions of years of time with no evidence to support passage of that amount of time. I have heard the Carbon dating debate from both sides. To me it boils down to one simple phrase, "How do you KNOW with any certainty how much Carbon-14 was present in the first place?" If you miscalculate the original (unknown) starting amount by even a small fraction, it will skew your readings by many years. I could provide more examples, if you would like, but I have other things I need to do right now. If you reply to this post I will happily respond to any questions or arguments that you may have.

I enjoy debating, as long as it in good-natured and factual in its content.

Regards,


173 posted on 10/24/2004 6:42:22 PM PDT by Christian Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson