What If ...

Alternate history is a fascinating genre. The further back in history you go, the more a little change can change all kinds of things. This is known as the "butterfly effect" whereby something as little as the death of a butterfly might start a chain of events that would totally alter the course of the world.
There is an old proverb that goes like this:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

--Wikipedia article

The concept is the germ for all sorts of speculation. And thus, some very interesting fiction. In such fiction, real people in real situations are used. When things change, then new people may, and most likely do, come into existence.

A lot of alternate history is "wishful thinking" on the author's part, but if done right this avenue can be used for great philosophical musings. The old film "It's a Wonderful Life," starring Jimmy Stewart, was a fanciful look at a world minus just one man. A couple of theological titles have queried the idea "If Jesus had not come," though the one I read did not do the idea justice.

Along side the "alternate history" genre comes the "time travel" device that comes to the rescue in some science fiction (most notably the Star Trek franchise). In such cases, the theory of quantum physics leaves room for countless "alternate realities" to exist along side each other. The sci-fi favorite "Sliders" played on this theory.

Anyway, that is what I am "into" these days. Maybe a book will come of it someday -- but only after two or three OTHER books are written (some of which are half-way done now!).

I Really am still alive

For a really committed blogger for over six months in 2008, I essentially "burned out" and quit the blog-o-sphere. What could have made me do such at thing? Well, here are a few things:

• I lost my job. But really, that was in April of 2009, and my only blog of 2009 before that was on January 1. So that was no excuse. You'd think I would do a lot more blogging with more time on my hands.
• I got into editing my mom's book on her dad's life. That really did take a lot of work. She even paid me in lieu of a Christmas gift. We got the book published in early 2010.
• I discovered Facebook. That most assuredly took the place of the blog-o-sphere. "Friends" on Facebook tend to react a lot faster than followers of blogs.
• I started writing alternate history articles at althistory.com. That has been fun, but the audience is only about twenty people! I thought there was more interest than that to such an intriguing genre.

And so, I have not blogged in quite a while. But perhaps I should return to this avenue of expression. I returned here today to add a widget based on an old Bible Code I found a decade ago. The date of 6 Av 5770 (or July 17, 2010) popped out of the "Antichrist Code" in 1 Samuel.

That date is just a little over a month away. I have begun the "countdown clock" to that date. The time on the clock is GMT, but based on sundown in Jerusalem on July 16, 2010. This is because the Hebrew calendar begins the day in the evening (Gen. 1 -- the evening and the morning, one day ...). The terminal time in Greenville will be 12:45 pm on July 16th.

When this date comes, we'll see what happens! If nothing of significance happens before 12:45 of the 17th, then that will be that. Then I'll change the clock to count down to the "great American eclipse in 2017! I KNOW that is going to be an event to look forward to. It starts in the Pacific Northwest and ends just off the coast of South Carolina. But more on that later.

The clock is ticking.

From Jerusalem to Greenvile, stop 1

Well, it's been far too long away from the blog! I've gave a few cards out, and worked on a few websites, but generally, I have just not been into the blogging scene lately.

Here is a "rabbit trail" I got on the other day. Using Googe Earth I traced the "Great Circle" from Jerusalem to Greenville. A great circle is a straight line drawn on a globe which is equally distant from the center. It is shorter than the line along the latitude east-and-west. The longitudes north-to-south are great circles. So, while heading west from Jerusalem brings you to the coast of Georgia, the great circle to the same point, or rather one close to it, goes across Europe and the North Atlantic.

The great circle to my house from the temple mound, then, goes from Israel, to Greece and Croatia, then through Italy, Switzerland and France, over the the channel to southern Wales, and then across the North Atlantic to Canada and the East Coast of America. I was surprized how this route somewhat traces the spread of the gospel to upstate South Carolina.

And so, I am going to attempt a "travelogue" of some of the villages (very few cities are in the path) that I found along the "rabbit trail." I will especially be looking for evidences of the church in these places.

The first village outside of Jerusalem is Bayt Surik. This is a Palestinian village subject to much controversy due to settlement of Jews outside Jerusalem. It is also spelled "Beit Surik," and supposedly means "Springs village." A security fence was built near here in 2006 which upset the native Palestinians greatly. The village is just over the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line in what is considered "occupied territory" popularly called "the West Bank."

A good site to visit concerning this village is

http://www.beitsurik.net/


This is a site ran by some Britons who formed a friendship forum with the Palestinians. I borrowed the picture above from them. It seems that American Evangelicalism is very biased in favor of Israel, I would recommend that conservative Christians read both sides of what is happening in the "holy" land. The sin nature is alive and well in the homeland of Christ!

The nearest church that Google Maps pulls up is the Church of the Visitation, commemorating the site where Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, lived when Mary visited her (Luke 1:39). This is about eight miles away via curving road in a southern direction.

Biblical Ramah is three miles to the east, but the Google maps will not route you down the roads between the two places (both in the West Bank). The trip down into "Israel" and back up looks to be around ten miles. Keeping travelers off of dangerous Palestinian controlled roads seems to be a feature that Google wishes to provide. Mapquest, my other source for directions, is only for the US and Canada.

Naked and not ashamed

(AR, AUR, AIR, ARaR, ARaM) and cognates all go back to the basic meaning of "bare," or exposed.

(AIR) shows up first alphabetically. It is translated "city" and "watch(er)," assuming an open area and/or a place that needed the watchful (and open) eye of a guard. This word is said to be from(AUM) which is translated "awake," "bare," "chaff," "skin" and even "blind," each with the idea of something spread out in the open - eyes, skin, grain, or eyes glazed over as with a skin.

(AR) comes from rye and is another spelling for "city," but is also translated "enemy" as coming from . The root (ARaM) seems be related less directly, but leads to the two translations of (AROM) so tantalizingly presented early in Genesis. Mre means either "to gather up" (from harvesting, and thus laying bare the ground?) or "to be prudent" (to be watchful, with "bared" eyes). A field denuded of its produce would be naked, and likewise, one who is prudent would have to have his eyes, and mind, wide open.

An unusual justaposition of two uses of the Hebrew word appears in Genesis 2:25 and 3:1. The concordance has two entries, 06174 and 06175.

Here are the two together:

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked (06174), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil (06175) than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

I have replaced (06175) with (naked) in every case, except for the oldest (Genesis and Job) in a positive sense of "prudence" rather than "subtle" as with the serpent.

But let us consider the translation in its purest sense as ALWAYS "naked."

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle (naked) than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

"The serpent was more naked (being hairless!) than any beast of the field." Indeed, the reptile has no hair, and in that way may be considered like man (whose hair was fine and nearly invisible). This lends to the rather ridiculous notion that Satan actually seduced Eve in a human-like form. But it makes sense taken literally.

Job 5:12 He disappointeth the devices of the crafty (naked), so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise.

God, it is said, frustrates the plans of the naked, so that they cannot get things done. It seems that these poor saps just don't have the tools needed to do the job!

Job 15:5 For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty (naked).

Job is accused of admitting himself to be a sinner by cursing like a naked drunkard [choosing the tongue of the {shamefully} naked].


Pr 12:16 A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent (naked) man covereth shame.

"The naked cover shame," a rather prudent act for sure. Meanwhile, the fool's angry rantings are out in the open.


Pr 12:23 A prudent (naked) man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.

The naked man covers what is known (that is, his nakedness). But fools make their foolishness known to all.

Pr 13:16 Every prudent (naked) man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

He who is naked acts with wisdom, but a fool lets everyone see his foolishness.

Pr 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent (naked) is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

The wisdom of him who is naked is that he knows how to act discretely, but fools are just sneaky!

Pr 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent (naked) man looketh well to his going.

Whereas the naive will trust your words, he who is naked well aware of his surroundings.

Pr 14:18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent (naked) are crowned with knowledge.

Whereas the naive live with fools, they who are naked are surrounded by those who understand.

Pr 22:3 A prudent (naked) man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
Pr 27:12 A prudent (naked) man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.

He who is naked perceives evil intent and covers himself, but the naive will sin and face judgment.

The word's simple meaning is plainly to be "bare" with no pretense of self-importance. We are known fully by God, who sees through any pretense we might set forth. In the garden, Adam and Eve were fully open with one another. And then another naked creature seemingly opened itself to the same scrutiny, offering full disclosure of something he said had been covered up. That creature was inhabited by the Chief Liar of the universe.

But the nakedness the serpent displayed, an openness to discerning what is bad for relationships, is seen in those who are truly wise -- the "naked of spirit." Or perhaps, even in those who live "au naturale" in a spirit of openness most of us have a trouble with even within marriage! In these Proverbs a naked person is seen to be wise in deciding where he goes and with whom he associates. From covering himself among strangers (12:16, 23) to discreet behavior among friends, the "Edenist" is wiser than those who have things to hide. A naturist, being keenly aware of his surroundings, can sense when those who sneak in to gawk at him. He will not grant such evil desire, but will cover himself (27:12).

It doesn't work well the other direction:

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked (prudent), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

OK. So we have the first couple before the fall, unashamedly wise beyond their (apparent) years. Hmmm.

1Sa 19:24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked (prudent) all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

Well, perhaps this is not as redundant as at first translated. Without clothes, he would be naked. But to prophecy he must have some reason left, thus "prudence"?

Job 1:21 And said, Naked (prudent) came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked (prudent) shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Nope, that won't work. A newborn baby is not "prudent," for he cannot reason about anything. He is totally dependent upon animal instincts at that point. And as naked as the day he was born! And, though one may be wise when he dies, it is not the body that has the smarts.

Job 22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked (prudent) of their clothing.

Job is being accused of taking advantage of his neighbors. No carefully reasoning man would allow himself to be treated like that. Unless, of course the naked man didn't want the clothes in the first place. But then, it wouldn't be so bad to take them, would it?

Job 24:7 They cause the naked (prudent) to lodge without clothing, that they have no covering in the cold.

Here we have paralellism. No clothing and no covering, pretty much leaves one naked and in the cold. For a wise man to seek lodging when he has no clothes makes sense, but then, to be out in the cold without covering is definitely not wise.
But - [They cause the prudent to grumble, being without clothing and no covering in the cold] - makes sense out of context. But in context, the sin is in mistreatment of the poor.

Job 24:10 They cause him to go naked (prudent) without clothing, and they take away the sheaf from the hungry;

As above, the disinfranchised is being sinned against. Taking a prudent man's clothes is not the same thing as taking a hungry man's food.

Job 26:6 Hell is naked (prudent) before him, and destruction hath no covering.

Pure parallelism. Hell=destruction, naked=no covering.
Alternate: "What he asked for is laid bare in front of him, but destruction is just as sure."

Ec 5:15 As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked (prudent) shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.

As with the passage in Job, a baby is not prudent, though an old man may be in his choices before death.

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked (prudent) and barefoot.

Isaiah is told to drop his drawers and take his shoes off to boot. Nothing quite like opening yourself to the scrutiny of the enemy to make one wise!

Isa 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked (prudent) and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
Isa 20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked (prudent) and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

Isaiah's message is clear - as I am now, so you will be very soon! Naked and barefoot!

Isa 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked (prudent), that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

In context, the poor soul in need of covering is no doubt naked and not liking it.

Ho 2:3 Lest I strip her naked (prudent), and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.

A very stark picture of the inhumane treatment of the treatment of a newborn or miscarriage, abandoned to die by the side of the road.

Am 2:16 And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked (prudent) in that day, saith the LORD.

OK. This one almost works the other way - "Just as courageous men flee, so shall the prudent"

Mic 1:8 Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked (prudent): I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

The prophet is making a racket. "Stripped and wiser (!??)," he sounds like a wild animal. Not likely. Again, it "stripped and naked" just go together.

The shamefully naked, whether by design or from mistreatment, are far from discerning in their relationships. They understand only their distraught condition. They need relief. Nakedness, if not innocent, is sin. Since we all battle sin, in its many guises, very few of us can uncover our insecurities, to be truly "aromic," without shame. Ours is a city with walls, with its guard always up. We are always wary of others who charm us with an open face, for so few are pure. Our eyes are "peeled," looking for the dangers of those who just as cunningly look to take advantage of any "opening" they can find.

Open wide and say "ARR."

What Jesus Read

On his inaugural sermon, Jesus is given the scroll of Isaiah. He opens to the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

Luke records the LXX version, but has Jesus include: "and to let the oppressed go free," from 58:6. The English translation of the Greek NT has "opening the eyes of the blind" following the LXX. " tuflois anablepsin" is indeed best translated that way.

But what of this insertion? Why is it said to be "read" if it is not in the text. I submit that it was right there on the page, with his right thumb "marking the spot." He read his own interpretive insertion from the text in front of him.

The picture above is from the "Great Isaiah Scroll" (c. 150 BC). I have three pages as they would have unrolled from that copy of Isaiah. I have marked the words he read. Clicking on the image will give a larger version.

Jesus read everything Luke says he read, undoubtedly from a Hebrew scroll. Luke cites the LXX version because that is what he is familiar with. There is no inconsistency. The copy Jesus had may have had the verses on adjacent pages (its only a matter of a few words moved up. His copy might have been of a finer hand, putting the verses even closer on the page. The point is, this explains an apparent discrepancy in a concrete way.

Oops. What if...

I saw this poster (outtake above) at work. The message was "Teamwork." Mrs. Clause wants Santa to take out the trash.

But doesn't Santa carry another bag about the same size on his sleigh? What if Santa grabbed the wrong bag on the way to the curb and they got switched?

Talk about "egg in your face"! Day old and in the shell, even! :-)

The artwork is by Tom Marlin, cartoonist for Mad Magazine. He does a lot of Parodies.

A young servant of God

Young Timothy Scott Seiter has ventured out to understand life through studying the Bible! This is daunting task for one so young. Timothy S. Seiter was born just 10 days before my son, Timothy S. Martin. He has produced a website called "Understand Life" that includes the whole Bible in hypertext with the opportunity for the registered reader to offer interpretations along the way.



My best wishes go out to Scott in his efforts. Here is his logo. Click on it or the link above to begin exploring the Bible with him.

Jesus' Birthday

I have written elsewhere in this blog about the real birthday of Jesus. Here is a Bible Code that seems to verify that the date 1 Tishri (Rosh Hashana, "Jewish New Year") is connected to the birth of Immanuel (the verse marked - Isaiah 7:14). An extended date did not show up, though, since that would be from three to five characters (depending on how the date is written, in full or in part). The year marked in the text above is {3}760, a three digit rendering of a full 3760.

Of course, there are other dates there, including a very good match for 3756, four years earlier. That year corresponds with 6 BC, the agreed upon date to allow for the "error" by the medieval monk who finally dated our modern calendars from the birth of Christ. That date, it is believed by many, HAD to be few years before the assumed 4 BC death of Herod. That evidence, though, is based on an eclipse that year. Another "better" eclipse occurred in Tevet of 3761, or January of AD 1.

The total eclipse of AD 1 would have allowed ample time for the sickness and death of Herod before passover over three months later. If the magi had come that same month (or the beginning of Shevat, the next month as the darkened sky of the "new moon" allowed them a better view of the guiding "star."

Thank You, Sarah Palin

I came upon this video at a centrist (traditional) Democratic site. It seems that there are many Clinton supporters that are not happy with the party. Apparently they are somewhat like "Reagan Democrats." Anyway, one of them apparently has seen past the negative press and is impressed with Sarah Palin.



I like the diversity of those chosen to speak in this video. It's too bad that so many people let partisanship blind their reason and logic. In the past the true difference between the major parties was small government vs big government. The first "Democrat" was for small government (that is, Thomas Jefferson) and the first Republican was virtually the INVENTOR of "big government" as we now know it (the federal power grab of Abraham Lincoln in a noble attempt to save the union).

Things have changed. But I will cover that in another blog.

Saying too much?

While surfing to some blogs "related" to mine, I got the link to this site. There you can build your own church marquee. The blogger had a fictional "dueling signs" post.

The above picture is of a real sign of which the "sign generator" collects from users of his site. This sign just about says it all (literally)!

A notice at the page says you can't link directly to the image, but I found it quite easy, really. I guess they want you to enjoy the REST of their site. It really IS quite entertaining.

A good rule of thumb with signs is to limit useful information to maybe fifteen words or so. The more precise the better. You'd have to stop the car to read this sign. Then what? Would you hurt their feelings if you didn't come in for a visit?

If you want to use the sign generator, the "imagemajik" links were down when I was writing this. His "classics," though, seemed to be working. I think the faq's revealed that he used readily available source code on those. Anyway, there were a lot of interesting real signs sent in

Some more fall colors

This time I will start with a "close-up." Here is a little evergreen, surrounded with its perennial neighbors in their changing colors.


Then there were the full grown unashamedly changelings:


And then, there was this one (actually a cropped photo - my equipment doesn't frame stuff this well!) which I named "Americana." Note the "spacious skies," "the purple mountains" and even the "amber waves of grain."


Then we got a little closer to one of the mountains:


And then a little further away again.


Well, I guess I'll get back to "serious" stuff soon enough. I hope anyone who comes this way enjoys the shots.

A Saturday afternoon drive

We started out south on I-385. Debbie had said the colors were good down Simpsonville way.


We ended up cutting over to Woodruff and up I-26 (pictures not shown), and then up I-85 (we got some video - I'll try to get some up if anyone wants to see. Just before Gafney, we got off at a rest area. The moon was in the sky.




And the sun shone through the trees.



Turning down Scenic Highway 11 we come upon this "piece of America" - you know, "spacious skies, purple mountain's majesty, and amber waves of grain." Not to mention an RV or two.



Finally, as we turned down Highway 25, we said good bye to the colors, and hello to a beautiful sunset.


In all we took over fifty pictures and a few videos. It was a good afternoon.

Obama and "antichrist"

I apologize for the images here. Sometimes Blogger does not publish full-sized images. Above is pictured a dim view of the beginning of what looks to be an "interesting" study using Equal Letter Sequences (ELS) found throughout the Hebrew text. The more clusters of "words" beat chance occurrences, the more accurate the information found will be. And the longer a sequence goes, the rarer it is. "Obamah" (as spelled in Hebrew) is a five letter sequence - AOBMH, where the "A" is not pronouced (often written in transliterations as simply an apostrophe).

Six times the letters fall with NO GAPS. The above text is one of those. This text lead to an old "grid" that I did back in 1998. The one that leads off my new website is another one. This one has the "straight text" of 'Obama, though pronounce Ubama when read aloud.

I encourage all my "loyal readers" to check out http://obamacode.synthasite.com/

Synthasite.com offers free web hosting with no advertisements! Their software is online, with no downloads necessary. So I encourage everyone to go there to set up both web pages and blogs.

Is the truth out there? Update

Okay, folks, this is just two strange. The governor of Hawaii has sealed the original CLB, and the district court has told a life-long democrat, but seeker of the truth, that he has no right to ask for the truth. It's going to the Supreme Court. The constitutional crisis will be huge IF Obama wins and the CLB proves suspicions to be true.

Below is the "copy" of the certificate of live birth and an example what the original certificates looked like back in 1963. I added comments below the two.

Clicking on the image will bring my original uploaded bitmap to show detail. I purposely uploaded a bitmap version because of the lack of distortion in the details. The original certificates had way more information, typed not computer printed. Was the photocopier not working in Hawaii? Any "delicate" information could have been as easily blocked out as the example on the left was. But the democratic governor of Hawaii seals the thing. We wonder if the Supreme Court will be able to see the original!

Look at the place where the copy indicates race of the father: AFRICAN

That was his nationality which on the original is box 11. The race of the father was in box 9. In 1963 that space would most likely have been "negro" or maybe "Afro-American." The "copy" is no more than a politically correct information sheet. It has an official seal, showing that it is officially what the authorities are willing to release. But the terms have changed, as the following article indicates

From the website

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/African-American#Definition_and_nomenclature

"Previously acceptable terms that are now viewed as archaic (and, outside of historical contexts, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or the United Negro College Fund) include Negro and Colored; today, the most common term is African American, with Black also commonly accepted since the late 1960s; the term Afro-American was first prominently used in 1961 by a group of activists including Maya Angelou and Leroi Jones (later known as Amiri Baraka)[4] and became common from the late 1960s into the 1980s; it remains generally acceptable, but less common, and has lately been developing a "period" connotation. Blacks are also included in the broader term "people of color". // Negro means black in Spanish and Portuguese (Latin: niger = black). It is an ethnic term applied to people of African origin; The term Negro is now largely seen as archaic and sometimes almost as offensive as the slur nigger. ... Colored and Colored People (or Colored Folk in the plural sense) are North American terms that were commonly used to describe Black people, but also included Asian (brown)/(yellow), Chicano (bronze or brown), and Native American (red). ... Maya Angelou (born Marguerite Johnson April 4, 1928[1]) is an American poet, memoirist, actress and an important figure in the American Civil Rights Movement. ... we all suck dick poetry. ... Colored and person of color (or people of color in the plural sense) are terms that were commonly used to describe people who do not have white skin or a Caucasian appearance. ...


The history of the use of these terms is evident in the names of various African American organizations founded over time. The civil rights organization the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded 1909, is significantly older than the philanthropic organization the United Negro College Fund, founded in 1944. The term colored had come to be seen as politically incorrect by the time of the UNCF's founding. Nonetheless, both Negro and colored remained common until the late 1960s, especially in the Southern United States. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, generally pronounced as EN Double AY SEE PEE) is one of the oldest and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States. ... United Negro College Fund logo The United Negro College Fund (UNCF) is a Fairfax, Virginia-based American philanthropic organization that fundraises college tuition money for African- American students and general scholarship funds for 39 historically black colleges and universities. ... Historic Southern United States. ...


As the Civil Rights Movement evolved in the 1960s into the Black Power/Black Pride movement, these older terms lost favor and became associated with the pre-civil-rights situation of Blacks in America. Through this movement, the terms Black and Afro-American both emerged into common usage in the late 1960s. Due to this legacy, by 1980, the term Black had become accepted by a majority of Americans of African descent, and had also became the referential term applied by White Americans in general. Martin Luther King is perhaps most famous for his I Have a Dream speech, given in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom This article is about the civil rights movement following the Brown v. ... Black Power is a slogan which describes the aspiration of many Africans (whether they be in Africa or abroad) to national self-determination. ... Black pride is a slogan used interchangeably to depict both the movement of and concept within politically active black communities, especially African Americans in the United States. ...

In the late 1980s, Blacks began to abandon the term Afro-American, adopting the autonym African American instead."

One's "race" out of Africa could be "black," "Arab," "white," or whatever. The official who "copied" the information onto the "official copy" was making things as "clear as mud"!


The truth is out there. But will it ever come out?

An Election Sermon - 1792

One of my regular emails comes from an evangelical organization called Christian Worldview Network. A recent email recommended several things for Churches to do before an election, one of which was a time-honored practice of preaching an "election sermon" The following is excerpts from a sermon given before the state assembly of Connecticut in 1792.

A

Sermon,

Preached Before His Excellency

Samuel Huntington, Esq. L.L.D.

Governor,

And The Honorable The

General Assembly

Of The

State of Connecticut,

Convened At Hartford, on the Day of the

Anniversary Election.

May 10th,1792.

By Timothy Stone, A.M.

Pastor of a Church in Lebanon.

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whether ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

DEUTERONOMY IV.5, 6.

Excerpts:

1. Wisdom will direct a community to establish a good system of government. It may be a question whether the all-wise God ever designed that any of His intelligent creatures — even in a state of perfection — should exist without some kind of government and subordinating amongst themselves. . . .

2. The wisdom of a people will appear in their united exertions to support such a system of government in its regular administration. . . .

Changes, however, should be few as possible, for the strength and reputation of government doth not a little depend upon the uniformity and stability observed in its administration. Laws, while they remain such, ought to be executed; when found to be useless or hurtful, they may be repealed. . . .

3. The wisdom of a people will appear in the election of good rulers.

The peace and happiness of communities have a necessary dependence, under God, upon the character and conduct of those who are called to the administration of government. . . .

Knowledge and fidelity are qualifications indispensably necessary to form the character of good magistrates. No man ever possessed natural or acquired abilities too great for the discharge of the duties constantly incumbent upon those who act as the representatives of the Most High God in the government of their fellow creatures: multitudes, however well disposed, are totally incapable of such trust. . . .

But when party spirit, local views, and interested motives direct their suffrages — when they lose sight of the great end of government the public good and give themselves up to the baneful influence of parasitical demagogues – they may well expect to reap the bitter fruits of their own folly in a partial unwavering administration. Through the neglect — or abuse — of their privileges, most states have lost their liberties and have fallen a prey to the avarice [greed] and ambition of designing and wicked men. “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” [Proverbs 29:2]. . . .

4. Wisdom will lead a people to maintain a sacred regard to righteousness in reference to the public and individuals.
. . .

There is in the constitution of heaven an established connection between the practice of righteousness and the happiness of moral beings united in society. . . .

5. The wisdom of a people essentially consists in paying an unfeigned [unhypocritical and sincere] obedience to the institutions of that religion which the Supreme Lawgiver hath established in His church on earth.

That religion which God hath enjoined [commanded] upon rational beings is not only necessary for His glory but essential to their happiness. . . .

The holy religion of the Son of God hath a most powerful and benign influence upon moral beings in society. It not only restrains malicious revengeful passions and curbs unruly lusts, but will in event eradicate them all from the human breast. . . .

If the preceding observations have their foundation in reason and the Word of God, we see the happy connection between religion and good government. The idea that there is, and ought to be, no connection between religion and civil policy appears to rest upon this absurd supposition: that men, by entering into society for mutual advantage, become quite a different class of beings from what they were before — that they cease to be moral beings and consequently lose their relation and obligations to God as His creatures and subjects and also their relations to each other as rational social creatures. If these are the real consequences of civil connections, they are unhappy indeed as they must exceedingly debase and degrade human nature; and it is readily acknowledged these things being true, that religion can have no further demands upon them. . . .

The whole sermon can be found at wallbuilders.com at the following URL:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=13044

Obama, the Christian?

Okay, I know it isn't "right" to call into question one's professed faith. Or at least not "politically correct." But I would like to get to the bottom of Senator Obama's profession. Here is how he dealt with it in 2004 when in a debate with none other than Alan Keyes!



And to think that I was asked to contribute to the effort to defeat Obama at such an early point! I thought it would was inconsequential. I was SO wrong!

Proposing a "Scenario"

Surfing the political postings, I came upon a site "the Arena" which asked its readers to propose a scenario in which McCain/Palin would win in November. Most respondents were ridiculous liberals that trashed the Republican ticket and/or voters. Some conservatives came through, and some liberals gave "worst case" scenarios from their point of view.

I went over to RealClearPolitics and found the polls show that Obama "solid" and "leaning" states have it clinched as of now. That electoral map looks like this:




If you click on the image, it will give you a full version of the map (I think). The light blue are "leaning" to Obama, and the gray states are "toss up." Assuming a successful turning of two traditionally Republican states (Virginia and Colorado) to turn toward McCain (Virginia being the home of Liberty University, and Colorado being the home of Focus on the Family) and the "toss up states to lean toward McCain, and turning Minnesota (traditionally Democratic) into a toss up state, I come up with this predicted electoral map for November 1:




Those changes are not that far out there, IMHO, and the race is still really too close to call. If the Christian Right is as serious about the "dangers" of losing this election as the radical left is, then this second map will be an accurate prediction. I have not seen any polls that factor in the Constitution and Libertarian parties which might siphon off some votes from both sides. But I don't think they will be a factor in the long run.

My advice to the Christian Right: Get out the vote! Stand up or prepare to stand back. God is righteous and America is ripe for judgment. With Reagan we were given our chance only seven years after Roe vs. Wade. But we were focused more on the economy than on righteousness. The result -- Abortion on demand remains the "law of the land." Then, a third party candidate siphoned off enough votes to give us Bill Clinton -- Twice! That was enough to give us ample warning to mend our ways. We "fought back." In 1994 we took back the Congress, but not by enough to effect change. And then, we got another chance -- the former president's son was elected by the barest of margins -- twice! The Congress and the presidency, and almost the Supreme Court, became conservative. But still iniquity rules.

A chance came for George W. Bush to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was pro-life. And it was not an anti-abortion bill. The case was a real, live adult. Permanently brain damaged, possibly by her husband, Terry Shaivo was allowed to die by orders of that very same husband. Bush -- and his brother in Florida -- could have PERSONALLY stepped in and stood in the gap. But they bowed to the "rule of law," where the "law" was the opinion of a corrupt probate judge! The war was lost at that point, IMHO.

I say that to admit that my "scenario" is just another move of MERCY from God who would be just in allowing this nation to go the way of other corrupt empires of the past. I pray not for justice, but for mercy!

Who's in charge, anyway?

The real power is NOT in the president of the United States! Power is in the Congress - the Senate and the House of Representatives. The authority of the president is in executing the laws passed by the Congress. He can veto, but the veto can be over-ridden. The president usually compromises to stay in a "working relationship" with the "powers that be."

Which brings us to the economy. Who "holds the purse strings"? The House of Representatives, the closest thing we have to "democracy" in this conglomerate of "sovereign" states. IF the federal books had to be balanced as do the individual states' books, then we would not be in the mess we are in right now. That being said, a few figures from the Americans for Tax Reform show that whereas things are "worse off" today than they were seven-and-a-half years ago, they did not get there under Republican control, but under Democratic:

The combined cost of staples (Bread, Eggs, and Milk) went from $4.84 to $5.77 in 6 years under the Republicans. That is a 19.2% rise, or 3.2% per year. In the two years since the Democrats were elected in November of 2006, that price has gone to $7.12. That's a 29.5 % rise, or a 15.3% per year. That is a rate of over FIVE times the Republican economy!

Inflation overall went from 3.7% when George W. Bush took office to only 2.1% as America was bamboozled into voting in the Democrats in November, 2006. Since then, inflation has gone to 5.4%. That's a 43% DECREASE in a "Republican" economy compared to a 61% INCREASE in a "Democratic" economy. Hmmm . . .

Unemployment went from 4.2% to 4.6% (+ .4%) in six years. In the two years under Democratic control it has risen to 6.1% (+ 1.5%). Almost FOUR times the increase -- or OVER ELEVEN TIMES when annualized! Even in the two months from election day to the new congress began, the unemployment rate went up .1% (.6% annualized, compared to a .07% per year for the six years previous!)

But then, those wage earners out there -- the "working men and women" ARE still better off than they were eight years ago! Our average wage went from $28,700 to $32,960 -- a steady rate of over $500 a year. That amount did not keep up with inflation, but across the board tax cuts in the six years, and to an extent even since under the veto threat of the president, helped to indeed leave the average man in better shape now than then!

And, finally, I challenge any liberal who might be reading this to name me one Republican/Bush policy that has effected the economy adversely.

Is the truth out there?

It's enough to be something out of the "X-Files"! Barach Hussein Obama, Jr., was born of an American citizen, by a Kenyan citizen. This is a given -- he is a "Jr." Beyond that, though, his citizenship is anyone's guess.

Obama, Sr., brought his wife Anne Dunham Obama to Kenya as she was at term. He was going to show her off, and let the family see his new son, I suppose. They didn't like the fact that she was white, so she wanted out -- back to Hawaii. It appears that she might not have made it. The man who would be president of the US was born instead in his father's Kenya! Or so says the family there.

Anne got out of Kenya fast, registering the newborn as being born in Hawaii two days after he was born in 1961. The Kenyan strongman who had fathered the child soon divorced his white wife, to be married several times more. An Indonesian suiter to the young Hawaiian student won her heart and claimed the child as his own, applying (and lying) to the Indonesian government for citizenship of the child. He went to elemetary school in Indonesia as a citizen there.

Back in Hawaii at age 11, but without his mother, it is assumed that he reapplied for US citizenship (so if he had been born there he would regain his "natural born" status). A Pennsylvania lawyer has filed suit for some answers but the DNC has filed to block the suit. Why? If this man is not an "natural born citizen" then let's put Hilary on the ticket (with Biden?) and go with her. If the original Kenyan birth certificate can be produced, then of course, the same choice has to be made. A "duplicate certificate" has been produced from Hawaii (date stamped Nov. 7, 2007) which is supposed to be the end of it.

Why bother with all this? The man who in 2006 could only be expected to carry Illinois has been polled as having the electorial votes to win (as of last week). He is the most liberal Senator after only four years there. But he is presenting himself as a centrist. I am a centrist. This man is not! Why could the DNC not choose someone with less baggage? The choice came down to "superdelegates" -- Senators, governors, etc. -- that run the party. And they overwhelmingly went for the young "black" man. It is so strange.

What is the truth? What if America votes and THEN it is proven to be against Obama? The election of 2000 will look like child's play then! Can you imagine a NEW election? Or perhaps President Baiden? Martial Law with Bush remaining in control?

I recieved an email putting me onto this story. A search reached this article.

The truth is out there. Is anyone willing to find it?

Added Oct. 18:

A friend found the YouTube version of the report. View below

Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

So reads the headline in the NY Times. Anyone reading this within a week can read the article here. For others, just contact me (I made a copy), or better yet, just do a search for more info.

The gist of the article is that a first century BC record speaks to the suffering servant AND the resurrection "on the third day" even as Jesus taught less than a century later. One scholar, Mr. Israel Knohl, of Hebrew University. Sees in it confirmation of his "iconoclastic" theory that Jesus and his followers just "made up" all their theology from existing literature at the time.

It is hard to tell who will most upset - the unbelieving "New Testament scholars" that insist that any prophecy that is too specific MUST have been inserted after the fact, or insecure believers who think that the ANY attempts to "reconstruct" Christianity from previous documents (such as the dead sea scrolls or this tablet from the century before Jesus) threatens the truth.

To unbelievers, the evidence is dangerous to their pet anti-supernatural theories that explain prophecies as after the fact inventions. Other unbelievers, like Knohl, try to shake our faith by pointing to all the "evidence" that our beliefs are all eclectic myths based on the political and religious expectations of the day in which they were written.

If this tablet is authentic - and it appears to be - what does it show? Does it strengthen our faith or weaken it? Well, it shows that the belief in the resurrection was strong - even to the point of expecting it "on the third day." It further shows that the disciples should NOT have been shocked at the possibility that Jesus would have to die before he could conquer the Adversary.

However, the disciples saw Jesus as more than a political rebel. Their Messiah was by nature a religious leader. They even saw him as GOD'S anointed, even as the Son of God! How could he be defeated by such base folk as the Romans, much less the Sadducees who ruled the religious courts of the day (and denied the resurrection). The Pharisees, on the other hand, would have seemed to be allies -- IF they had not been so corrupt in their orthodoxy.

And so, when Jesus used established interpretations of the prophets, applying it to himself, he was not "inventing" anything. The writers of this text were looking at the same scriptures, applying them to a different person, nearly a century earlier. Jesus just happened to be RIGHT!

Nothing I write here will convince an unbeliever that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a conviction that comes ONLY from God Himself. However, when unbelievers such as Mr. Knohl try to use this to disprove our sacred scriptures, then I can at least post an alternate view!