The Biblical Examiner
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand

January, 2010


All God's truth is ancient (Calvinism)
Poor in Spirit
In defense of Pat Robertson
Can two walk together, Amos 3:3
"The Truth Behind Left Behind"
Global Warming Update
To Your Health

War. what do we mean?
God's Answer. The day of Judgment

All God's truth is ancient .

C.H. Spurgeon said:

"There shall be no new God, nor new devil, nor shall we ever have a new saviour, nor a new atonement. Why then should we be attracted by the error and nonsense which everywhere plead for a hearing because they are new? To suppose the Theology can be new is to imagine that the Lord himself is of yesterday. A doctrine lately true must of necessity be false. Falsehood has no beard, but truth is hoary with age immeasurable. The old Gospel is the only Gospel. Pity is our only feeling toward those young preachers who cry: ‘See my new Theology!' in just the same spirit as little Mary says: ‘See my pretty new frock!'"

God's truth does not change any more than he can change. Paul said in Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever." Spurgeon commenting on this verse said this.

"Immutability is ascribed to Christ, and we remark the he was evermore to his people what he now is, for he was the same yesterday. Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth in meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not the natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way—they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall. As like as a man's face to that which he sees in a glass is the spiritual life of David to the spiritual life of the believer now. Take the book of Psalms in your hand, and forgetting for an instant that you have the representation of the life of one of the olden time, you might suppose that David wrote but yesterday. Even in what he writes of Christ, he seems as though he lived after Christ instead of before, and both in what he sees of himself and in what he sees of his Saviour, he appears to be rather a Christian writer than a Jew; I mean that living before Christ he has the same hopes and the same fears, the same joys and the same sorrows, there is the same estimate of his blessed Redeemer which you and I have in these times. Jesus was the same yesterday as an anointed Saviour to his people as he is today, and they under him receive like precious gifts. If the goodly fellowship of the prophets could be here today, they would all testify to you that he was the same in every office in their time as he is in these our days." (from Sermon No. 848, January 3, 1869)

In another article Spurgeon said:

"Those who labour to smother ‘Calvinism' will find that it dies hard, and, it may be, they will come, after many defeats, to perceive the certain fact that it will outlive it opponents. Its funeral oration has been pro-nounced many times before now, but the performance has been premature. It will live when the present phase of religious misbelief has gone done to eternal execration amid the groans of those it has undone. Today it may be sneered at; nevertheless, it is but yesterday that it numbered among its adherents the ablest men of the age; and tomorrow, it may be, when once again there shall be giants in theology, it will come to the front, and ask in vain for its adversaries."

"Calvinism, pure and simple, is but one form of Evangelism; it is not perfect, for it lacks some of the balancing truths of the system which arose as a remonstrance against its mistakes, but still it contains within it so large a measure of divinely immortal truth that it will never die. ‘Modern thought' is but the thistledown upon the hillside; the wind shall carry it away, but the primeval mount of ‘Calvinism', which is none other than Pauline or Christian doctrine, shall stand fast for aye." (The Sword and the Trowel, Feb. 1874, p. 31)

These old creeds embody the truth of God as the church saw it at that time. We can learn much from what they wrote.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. ..."( Jeremiah 6:16)


Poor in Spirit

Matthew 5:21-26

The seven beatitudes of vv. 3-11 are illustrated by the six ye have heards, vv.:21-48.

The Lord's message here on the Mount shows us one of man's basic problems. Because man is basically a sinner, he desires to take God's word in the least possible meaning. Man does not want to closely examine God's word for its implications, but he will examine all kinds of man-made documents for their implications. As we see here in these passages, when the law says, "Thou shalt not kill," sinful man desires to restrict the definition of kill as much as possible, and ignore the positive, "Thou shalt preserve life." The same with the next ye have heard, adultery.

As Christ preached, He was surrounded by the religious leaders and teachers of His day. These men believed that Moses did not record everything given to him by the Lord. They also held that the Lord spoke to the seventy elders who went with Moses part way up the mount. Then these elders passed on by word of mouth what the Lord said to them.

Christ now publically exposes the religious leaders as hypocrites. He tells them that they are the current heirs to the "old time" teachers; they feel the heat as he tells the people what is in their hearts.

In these first two Ye have heards, our Lord deals with pagan dualism—that is, separating thoughts from action. Society, as well as many Christians, see no connection between thoughts and actions. Thus, his law forbids a "mental illness" defense.

Wicked men of all ages have sought to separate the spiritual from the physical, dualism–"this is spiritual, that is secular." They believe that life is made up of spiritual and secular, and thus relieving their conscience over sin.

Some years ago, probably in the ‘80s, a friend of mine named Evert Sileven was telling people how to legally avoid taxes. Though the IRS admitted he was right, they convicted him of conspiracy because he was making the information public. I kept close contact with Evert Sileven while he was in the Marion IL prison. In fact, he is the one who motivated me to write the book on Christian Identity. In one of his letters, he mentioned about how that, once people found out he was a preacher, they started telling him how much they loved the Lord. One of the guards told him that he (the guard) was a faithful Church-going Christian. Bro Sileven asked him how he could be a good Christian and work in a place like the Federal Pen. The man told him that he had learned to separate his work life from his Christian life. Then, as he walked away from Bro Sileven, he proceeded to cuss out another inmate.

"I feel spiritual, and I do spiritual things, so I am fine." But their supposed spirituality does not translate into consistent Christian actions.

It is the old Greek Paganism that says a person is divided up into the spiritual (thought, emotions) and the physical (actions). This pagan idea must be avoided; it is thoroughly unbiblical.

Christ condemns the division of the individual into two parts. Today this heresy takes the form of "we can love the sinner while hating his sin." We commonly hear supposedly Christian teachers utter these anti-Christian words: "We are to love the individual, but we are to hate his sin." We have heard this lie so many times that it is now accepted as Biblical, even by Christians who should know better.

When our Lord said, ye have heard, he was taking a direct shot at the traditional teaching of the law which reduced it to merely outward formal action. This particular law was against murder. The Jews had reduced this law to no more than a prohibition against intentionally killing someone, and then only if the one murdered was a fellow Jew. As long as they did not kill another Jew, according to their teaching, they were fine upstanding law-keepers, v. 20.

Their righteousness was purely outward formalism, for their hearts were full of pride and every evil imagination. Their heart attitude was an abomination to the Lord. They were whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones.

V. 22, But I say.. Speaking with total authority as the King of the Kingdom of God and the only true Lawmaker and Lawgiver, King Jesus had the right to change any law, but he changed nothing. Rather, he expands the law, and gives it its proper meaning. Not murdering someone may keep us from man's judgment seat, but it does not protect us at God's judgment seat.

Vv. 21-26, this first Ye have heard corresponds to and expands upon the first beatitude, v. 3: poverty or humility before one God and man. Godly poverty enables one to go God and others and make things right. Isaiah 51:4.


First, thoughts have consequences. Clearly, the Lord Jesus tells us in these first two Ye have heards, vv. 21-26 & vv. 27-30, that lawless actions begin with a lawless thought. Thoughts and actions cannot be separated, and the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, deals with the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12.

Our Thrice Holy God sees thoughts and actions as the same. However, I would much rather have your lawless thoughts toward me than your lawless actions.

Self-control, starting with our thoughts, is the most important thing anyone can have, for the law of God holds us responsible for every thought because every thought has consequences.

Second, v. 21, anger... What is the Biblical doctrine of anger?

Our Lord clearly tells us that the action of murder is the result of the harbored thoughts of anger and hate. Implied here:

1) we will be in bondage to that unclean emotion of anger toward that person until we settle the difficulty. The difficulty must be faced and settled between us and them. If that is not possible, then at least between us and the Lord. See the "Lord's Prayer", in 6:12-15.

2) v. 23, another has something against us. If we suspect another has a problem with us, we are responsible to try to straighten it out.
bondage to our emotions is like a prison. There is no release from that torture until the anger is conquered. See following.
Anger identified

Anger is an emotion that can motivate either good or bad action.

V. 21, anger is identified with murder. This anger wishes someone harm, or that they did not exist, or that they would get what they deserve or have coming to them. This anger seeks vengeance or desires to see some kind of ill come toward another, or that God would shower out His vengeance upon the offender.

Paul commands anger.

Ephesians 4:26 Be angry, but sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath, 27 Neither give place to the devil. (Also, Psalms 37:8)

There are two types of anger:

anger which causes one to act contrary to the word of God. He loses control of his mind, emotions, actions, speech—any one or all of these areas. He then operates outside of what is according to the word of God. His sin gives place for the devil to work.
anger which causes one to act in accord to the word of God. We can say that this is a godly anger that causes us to take action according to the commands of God. Christ often exercised godly anger. Mark 3:5.
Some years ago, The Indianapolis Star ran an article about a woman angry over wasteful spending by her local school board in needless construction, so she circulated a petition to present to the state tax board against the tax increase. She was angry, but she sinned not.. Rather, her anger motivated her to proper action.

We had a situation in the next county north of where we lived in Indiana which exemplified what we are saying. The Lafayette City Council considered an anti-discriminatory law forbidding any "discrimination" against sodomites desiring to teach in the city school corporation (I believe that one of the council members had a sodomite son who desired to teach children). Be ye angry, and sin not... There were a few Christians who spoke out against the proposed law, but not enough to keep the council from voting for it on the first vote. There were not enough angry people there to prevent the sodomite's desire to make sodomites out of their children in those schools by teaching there.

Probably the most revealing thing about the above mentioned situation is that many "Christians" stood up for sodomite "rights." Is not the Lord allowing American Christianity to reap what it has sown and is sowing: indifference and monasticism? Christians' support of sodomite "rites" is a natural result of "love the individual, yet hate his sin."

I have a friend in Lafayette, Indiana. She got angry over the corruption particularly in regard to the wasteful spending by the school board, and sodomite teachers in the system. The result was that she started a free newspaper, called "The Family Times." The paper became quite popular, and really put the right kind of pressure on the "public servants" to clean up their acts.

Sadly, there was not a pastor in the Lafayette area who would support her, not even her own pastor, so she asked me to write articles for the paper, applying the Word of God to various situations.

Be ye angry... It is a sin not to get angry?

We need some people today to obey the Lord's command to be angry, and sin not, for Christian people will not get angry enough over sin to take godly action against it, even to write a letter to the editor. Thus, the lack of anger against sin which motivates godly action against sin is a sin in itself.

Godly anger motivates Godly action. Ungodly anger motivates ungodly action.

Neither give place to the devil...

Ungodly anger permits the devil to work. On the other hand, a lack of godly anger permits the devil to work. With no godly anger challenging the wicked with righteous activity, the wicked prosper for the devil.

Let me give more points from this section than you care to follow:

Remember that the altar was still standing in Jerusalem where the required offerings were still being made. These instructions were given in the hearing of the Pharisees of his day. They taught that God was appeased by the sacrifices appointed by Moses. Christ tells them that God will not accept any man's offering unless he has a proper relationship with the Father and with those whom he has offended.

First, without a cause tells us that there are just causes for anger. Our Lord condemns unjustified anger toward another. Has that person done something contrary to the word of God? If so, there is just cause for anger. If not, there is no cause for anger. And there is never a time for personal offence—offences over something some one else did or did not do which had nothing to do with the word of God.

Nehemiah had a just cause for anger. Motivated by anger, he severely rebuked the nobles and rulers, 5:6.

The Old Testament is full of instances where God, in His anger and wrath, executed justice and judgment upon the wicked, and where men of God exercised Godly wrath and anger against sin, e.g., Samuel. The evil of men finally caused the Lord to take lawful action against their wicked ways.

Our Lord warns us here against allowing unholy emotions to well up within us against others. If they have done nothing against the word of God and we are angry at them, our anger is without a cause. I will have

to admit that most of our excitement against others is not over their violation of the word of the Lord. Rather, they have violated a standard which we have established for them.

Godly anger is always under control of the individual; it is always in conformity to the word of God, and godly anger is only motivated by violations of God's word.

Second, v. 22, shall say... Raca (a term of reproach in Christ's day, meaning empty headed, senseless) ... thou fool... These two harsh terms are motivated by the anger hidden in the heart.

Third, v. 22, danger of hell fire... On the surface, it appears one is in danger of losing salvation over angry words. Remember, Christ is speaking to the Jewish mentality. Thus, the Geneva gives a much better understanding: "worthy to be punished with hell fire..." (Online Bible now contains the Geneva text.)

The Geneva note gives the best explanation:

The Jews used four kinds of punishments, before their government was taken away by Herod: hanging, beheading, stoning, and burning. It is burning that Christ meant, because burning was the greatest punishment; therefore by making mention of a judgment, a council, and a fire, he shows that some sins are worse than others are, but yet they are all such that we must give account for them, and will be punished for them.

Christ is not speaking of eternal hell, but physical punishment. All of this section is emphasizing the importance of controlling the heart, anger, with a warning of several civil penalties over uncontrolled anger, vv. 25, 26.

Fourth, v. 23.The emphasis of the message changes

from our anger toward someone, to having done ought, something, against someone that causes hard feelings against us.

Rememberest. It is the Spirit who reminds us, and wrong can only be defined by Scripture. V. 23 assumes two things:

The person is sincerely trying to please the Lord.
The person is not aware of the problem or has ignored it. It is so easy to ignore what we do not want to remember. But the Lord remembers.
I do not like conflicts, particularly when I am wrong.

If we perceive that someone is justly holding something against us, then we are to find out what it was, and, if possible, make it right. However, if the hard feelings are over our stand on the word of God, then we owe them nothing.

Normally we offend others with our own stubborn, foolish and dumb actions, particularly within our own families and close friends.

There is no longer a physical altar, so the teaching is general. Our service to the Lord will not be accepted if we ignore where we have offended others.

How many of us have tried to pray, only to be reminded of an offence toward someone, which had to be corrected before we could commune with the Lord?

Also, our enemy will bring guilt upon us if he can. Remember, he is a liar and the father of lies, and he uses lies to beat us down. So anything brought to our memory must be compared to scripture, or we will end up "confessing" things that have no Biblical reason for confession, and only make matters worse.

God speaks to us through his word, so before we make fools of ourselves, let God speak as we study his word.

Warning: We cannot pick up an offence for someone else. "You did wrong toward that other person, so now I am offended over your actions toward him or her."

Fifth, vv. 22-24, with his brother.. The Lord takes for granted that people are sinners and there will be conflicts any time people are together in close associations.

If there is any place where unity should prevail, it should be among the congregation of the Lord. But, sad to say, this is, more often than not, the place where disunity grows out of control and does the most damage.

If we cannot get along with our fellow man whom we can see, how can we expect to get along with the Lord whom we cannot see?

If we cannot communicate one with another, we cannot expect to have clear communication with the Heavenly Father.

If we do not have a clear conscience with others, we cannot have a clear conscience with the Lord.

Sixth, v. 24. leave thy gift... Though there is no physical altar today, two things are implied here:

The importance of taking care of the problem as soon as it comes to mind.
There is no pleasing God until the problem is solved. I have met those whose pride prevented them from humbling themselves to their "opponent," and stopped serving the Lord rather than make things right.
Seventh, v. 25. adversary.

Peter identifies the adversary as the devil. 1 Peter 5:8. So the problem must be dealt with as soon as it is brought to our attention, or we are fair game for the adversary. It may take a while for him to catch up with us, but we are available.

Eighth, vv. 25, 26. to the officer, and cast into prison. The Lord compares unjustified anger, hard feeling between two people, or even a refusal to humble ourselves to the bondage of a debt.

Bondage to emotions like anger, unforgiveness, hard feelings and even guilt are like a prison with many tortures. And our adversary will pile on the tortures in our mind.

Ninth, til thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. The Lord clearly tells us that there will be no release from that prison until the matters are Scripturally dealt with.

I have met more than a few controlled by their anger and bitterness toward others, yet they stoutly refuse to settle the problem. You might say, "But that person I have a problem with does not want to make matters right," or "I am unable to contact them to make matters right," or "It has been so long ago that no one remembers," or "It is really not that important," or any of a number of reasons why we cannot go to a brother and settle the matter.

But if we are reminded by the Spirit and it is according to Scripture, it must be confronted.

The Lord sees the heart. The outside may be fine, but the heart harbors all kinds of evil emotions toward another. The Lord sees the heart, judges accordingly and delivers the person to the officer of the prison.

Tenth, there is no running from the problem.Being on church staffs and pastoring, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people, even pastors, try to run rather than deal with anger, bitterness, hard and hurt feelings. They think they can escape their prison by moving.

The physical location has nothing to do with this prison; when the person seeks to run from the situation, the situation follows because it is in the heart that the bitterness and anger must be settled.

Not all situations are possible or feasible to settle with the other person, as David found out after he killed Uriah the Hittite. But it must at least be settled with the Lord; He is the One who delivered us to the officer, the devil, who must answer to the Lord.

Eleventh, the individual has the key to his prison. It is called the key of humility. The prison's key is in our hands, and the key is called being poor in spirit: Humility before God and man.

Twelfth, as society becomes more humanistic, every man his own god and every man for himself, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to follow our Lord's admonition in this passage. As people think that they are their own god and act like it, the situations described by our Lord in vs. 21-26, become more common.

There is no worse enemy or prison than anger, bitterness and hard feelings between people. It is a prison from which there is no release except by humility.


that we will be in bondage to that unclean emotion toward that person until we settle the difficulty. The difficulty must be faced up to and settled between us and that person if it is something which can be settled between the two of us; or if it is something that needs to be settled between us and the Lord, it must be settled.
the one who suspects that another has a difficulty toward him is responsible to go to the other individual and try to bring the matter out into the open.
there is no worse bondage than bondage to our emotions.
Truly, blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of God.


* I tried putting this into MS Word so you could easily copy the articles out. However, I find MS Word, and other MS programs expensive and bloated, as well as too confusing for it to be worth the effort to learn for just this letter. (The free Open Office will do everything

Microsoft's software will do. I use Open Office's data base to maintain the Microsoft Access data base for, now with over 8800 posted images. I started with the old Word Star word processing program, then moved to Word Perfect before it was 5.1. I then upgraded to the 5.1 (famous for its live support, which I often used), and all under IBM's OS/2, the best OS ever produced. I followed Word Perfect to WP 10, but like the old WP 9 better. So I use it exclusively for my material. If I need more "power" than 9 can muster, I have the Adobe DTP programs, as well as professional PDF programs (that can edit as well as quickly convert PDFs into word processing files. However, the only program I have found that will make "hyperlinked" PDF files is Acrobat, which is overpriced and bloated) and OCR programs. So, sorry that this is in PDF. If you would like separate files for whatever reason, just drop me an e mail and I can send them in rtf or even MS Word.

* The big news in our part of the country since our last mailing has been the cold and snow. We only had 19 inches here in our area of WV, but our friends over in VA had over 24. Three Sundays in a row brought to us bad weather, Two Sundays bad enough that folks could not make it to the service. Though it has warmed up into the 40's for a couple days now along with rain, January 18, 2010, we still have a good bit of snow around us. I lost my "Christmas Spirit" a few weeks ago that snow usually brings. Really, I lost it with the second time I had to shovel the drive out. (Once to get our old 4x4 vehicle out the first time. Then the snow plow again clogged it up. Then the wind drifted the snow in, which required two shovelings, and then the last time, I had to shovel it wide enough to get the other vehicle out.)

The snow came in Friday. There was not even an attempt to open our road until Sunday morning, and then the sun came out. Local farmers here are hired by the county to open the roads in the mountains when the county cannot get to them. The big highway snow blower did not come by our house to remove the drifts until 1/15, 3 weeks after the snow. Being on top of a mountain and at the end of a large depression which runs in the direction of the prevailing winds (from the NW), the wind funnels right up to our house. The wind ranged from 20 to 45mph for three weeks, with the temperatures well below freezing, even in the single digits. It makes the house hard to heat, and makes us thankful for our wood heat.

It remained quite chilly for over three weeks, but we are thankful for "global warming", which prevented itfrom getting really cold. Thankfully, it had been well below freezing for a few days before the snow, so the new snow did not melt first and then freeze an ice layer under the snow. It was cold enough, in the teens, to make the snow very light and fluffy, making it easier to shovel. The cold, fluffy snow did not stick to trees and powerlines, so we did not lose power as happens when the snow is wet.

As we felt sorry for our weather, the Alaska Dispatch, the Alaskan newspaper, reported that 5 feet 8 inches of snow fell on a town in Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska. Yes, record snow equaling the height of an average American woman, equaling the height of an average Asian man fell on Valdez, Alaska last week. The snow fell at 4 inches per hour on an average, from Monday of last week till Friday. Alaska Dispatch reported that National Weather Service called this a record.... (—record-snow-in-10-states-Al-Gore-Stop-making-things-up)

Though the weight of the snow caused some boats in the bay to sink, they did not even close the schools.

* Bettie has finished her therapy for her second knee replacement, and it is doing quite well. Though still quite sore, it is better than before she had it done.

I had a growth removed from the side of my nose that was being greatly irritated by my glasses. The lab reported that it was a non-malignant cancer. I am to go back to have some other places examined.

* David, Bettie's son, is working on an I-Pod app which will be original color images of WWII War-Birds, as posted on I am going back through the ones he wants to use and adding the description of each.

I have mentioned this before: As I realize the purpose of that war, as well as the vast majority of other wars, was simply to increase the income of a few powerful men, and to enslave both the "winners" and "losers," I am sickened at the horrendous waste of money and lives as I look at the images.

Those who have unjustly caused those wars have met their Creator, and are even now answering for their wickedness. Those who are involved in our modern "warfare", both against other nations and against this nation as they deindustralize us, will also meet their Creator and answer for every deed done in the flesh.

* We purchased a storage building from an Amish man to place at Bettie's son's house in PA. We made friends with the owner, and he invited us to spend a night in his cabin up on the side of a mountain. It was a very nice evening with him and his wife surrounded by 90 acres of nothing but trees and a full moon (and cold). Obviously, I questioned him about the Amish practices. Divorce: I asked him about divorce, and he said it was unknown in their church. He said maybe 5% leave the church, and maybe 1% of those do divorce. Education: 8 years of formal education, and then the young person starts studying for whatever trade he will follow. Family: This is the most interesting of the several things we discussed. The mentality of the Amish is to provide occupation opportunities for their children and grandchildren. Of course, they are known for their large families. Quite unlike the average Christian, they love children. This man was quite happy that all of his six children were living within a couple of miles of his home. Horse, buggy, no electricity: Its purpose is to provide "fencing" around their children. Lack of cars and electricity means no unnecessary running around, and greatly restricts what the children are exposed to through the media. Salvation to them is a very private matter which they will speak very little of, but it seems to correspond basically to faith in Christ, though they restrict their Bible to the four gospels.

The Amish have some very unbiblical, even sinful, ideas about their children, and no doubt many homes are kept together by fear of what the church might do to them. As common with us all, they find ways to skirt the strict laws of their beliefs. But credit must be given for their low divorce rate, education system that includes preparing the men to be self-employed and their desire to establish income producing occupations for their children and grandchildren. Sadly, we have noticed that they send their daughters out to "make money" in local retail establishments.

* Interesting comparison:

Geneva, he is also become the son of Abraham... KJV, he also is a son of Abraham...

Though a Jew, it was the faith of Abraham that made him a son of Abraham, not his "natural" birth.

The Genevah Bible text is now on Online Bible. You can read the two texts side by side.

* Sad, but true–Have you noticed that the ads for Christian colleges normally feature girls rather than boys? What is wrong with this picture?AFA website, Bryan Fischer-Focal Point, 1/15/10.

In defense of Pat Robertson

Here is what Pat Robertson actually said this week about Haiti:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French . . . and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French." True story. And so the devil said, "OK, it's a deal." . . . Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is, is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic that something good may come. But right now we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is almost unimaginable.

Pat Robertson has been pilloried by everyone, Christians included, for making reference to Haiti's ancient pact with the devil. No one, to my knowledge, has criticized the timing of his comments; rather all have criticized the truthfulness of his comments.

It's one thing to criticize him for making a true but untimely comment, to suggest that to mention this dark part of Haiti's past is insensitive and lacking in Christian compassion.

But that's not what he is being criticized for. He is being criticized for saying something untrue, and that's a whole different thing.

Robertson did not say that God caused the earthquake. What he said, if people actually listened rather than reacting with hysterical hissy fits, is that Haiti's grinding poverty is a result of its pact with the devil. "Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another, desperately poor."

It is a matter of historical record that Haiti's independence from France is, in fact, rooted in a pact with the devil made on August 14, 1791 by a group of voodoo priests led by a former slave named Boukman. The pact was made at a place called Bois-Caiman, and the tree under which a black pig was sacrificed in this ceremony is still a shrine in Haiti. Annual voodoo ceremonies are conducted every August 14 on this very site, essentially renewing the covenant with darkness each summer. An iron statue of a pig stands today in Port-au-Prince to commemorate the Boukman contract with the devil.

During the ceremony in 1791, a priestess was possessed by a spirit called Ezili Dantor and it was this spirit who received the offering of the black pig.

Hundreds of slaves drank the pig's blood and pledged to exterminate all the white Frenchmen on the island, while Boukman asked for Satan's help in liberating Haiti from their French overlords. In exchange, the voodoo priests offered to dedicate Haiti to Satan for 200 years. The slave rebellion drove the French from Hispaniola and Haiti declared its independence on January 1, 1804.

On national TV, Haiti's ambassador to the U.S. openly admitted, while criticizing Robertson, that Haiti did in fact enter in to this pact with the devil. In fact, he adds that America should be grateful for this pact, since the slave revolt that followed the creation of this pact prompted Napoleon to sell the Louisiana Purchase to the United States.

Prior to this slave revolt, under French colonial rule, Haiti was known as the "Pearl of the Antilles" for its singular beauty and the richness of its resources. It engaged in robust trade in cocoa, cotton, sugar cane and coffee and by 1780 was one of the richest regions in the world.

Tragically, however, the plantation system that made this wealth possible was built on the backs of slaves imported from West Africa who brought with them their occult practices of spirituality.

The 200 years, of course, expired on January 1, 2004, but on April 8, 2003 dictator and president Jean-Bertrand Aristide extended the pact by declaring voodoo to be an officially recognized religion in Haiti. Haiti is officially Roman Catholic, but as the BBC says, it is a common saying among Haitians that Haiti is 70% Catholic, 30% Protestant, and 100% voodoo.

Robertson then went on to say that we must hope that this crisis will lead to "a great turning to God" among the Haitians, and that "right now we're helping the suffering people," whose suffering is " almost unimaginable." As he spoke, a phone number appeared on the screen, which viewers could use to donate to the relief effort.

On his program, Shepard Smith of FOX News made harshly critical comments about Robertson. As he spoke, a phone number likewise appeared on the screen. It was the number for the U.S. State Department. In other words, the hard-hearted Robertson was actively soliciting relief aid while the compassionate Smith was handing out a number for government bureaucrats.It's remarkable that well-meaning conservatives would criticize Robertson for saying these things.

Let's summarize:

Pat Robertson said that Haiti made a pact with the devil in exchange for freedom from slavery. This is historically true. No one in Haiti disputes this, and Haiti's ambassador confirmed it on U.S. television.
Robertson did not say that the earthquake was a result of this curse, or was God's fault. Instead, Robertson attributed Haiti's grinding poverty to this compact with Satan. Jesus himself said that the thief comes only to "steal and kill and destroy."
Robertson said he hopes this crisis will lead many in Haiti to turn to God, and that we need to pray to that end.
Robertson said that the unimaginable suffering of the Haitians should prompt us to come their aid.
Which one of these statements, exactly, can any believer in the Judeo-Christian tradition challenge? Secularists, and even many conservative commentators, appear to have falsely criticized Robertson for things he did not say, while paying little or no attention to things he actually did say. I'm sticking with Pat on this one. BlogPost.aspx?id=2147491158

RED CROSS plan to bring 45,000 evacuees from Haiti to Florida; ‘Mass migration'... (Drudge Report, 1/ 19/10.) 45,000 open devil worshipers!!! It seems everyone is determined to turn America into even more of a pagan nation.

Angry Haitians block roads with corpses: witness, 1/14/10

PORT-AU-PRINCE (Reuters) - Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them after a devastating earthquake, an eyewitness said,

Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two downtown roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks.

"They are starting to block the roads with bodies, it's getting ugly out there, people are fed up with getting no help," he told Reuters.

[What right does anyone have to demand others help them? The welfare mentality is a curse upon all nations.]

Ganges of looters war against each other with machetes as they loot anything they can find, especially food. Absolutely no law enforcement visible. worldwatch/entry6097747.shtml

Can two walk together...?

Amos 3:3

The above text is often quoted to judge associations of all kings. But how many times have we heard it quoted to support what the context teaches?

Before we look at the verse and its context, consider this very obvious, important, yet overlooked, point:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isaiah plainly tells us that every message and messenger from God will speak according to the law and prophets as found in the Old Testament (cf., Luke 24:44-49.) See 2 Peter 1:20 and Isaiah 28:10. (2 Peter 1:21 implies that no New Testament passage, especially "prophet" passages, will stand apart from its Old Testament counterpart.)

No passage will stand alone, and when seen in the light of other passages, very few will say what they appear to say in their ‘literal' sense. A term used by Charles C. Ryrie is "consistent literalism." According to Dispensationalist Ryrie:

Since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified.1

Dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.2

Consistent literalism is at the heart of dispensational eschatology.3

A better term for Ryrie's literalism is "speculative literalism," for those of his stripe are more interested in applying the prophetic words to modern events than they are in the historical-grammatical exegesis of the prophetic passages.4 Over the years, their prophetic applications have had to change with the daily news, a method more commonly known as "Newspaper Exegesis."

Those of Ryrie's stripe must dogmatically reject any exegesis that goes beyond the grammatico-historical exegesis of Holy Scripture. That is to say, scholars must go past the grammatical and historical understanding of "prophetic passages" to the theological understanding of such passages. According to Berkhof:

Properly understood, the deeper sense of the Bible does not constitute a second sense. It is in all cases based on the literal, and is the proper sense of Scripture. The real meaning of Scripture does not always lie on the surface [as contended by the dispensationalists, ed.]. There is no truth in the assertion that the intent of the secondary authors, determined by the grammaticohistorical method, always exhausts the sense of Scripture, and represents in all its fullness the meaning of the Holy Spirit. Many of the Old Testament types pointed ultimately to New Testament realities; many prophecies found their final fulfilment in Jesus Christ, no matter how often they had obtained partial fulfilment...5

That is to say: there is more to interpreting Scripture than understanding the sentence structure and historical context of the passages. But dispensationalism must reject the "‘theological' principle of hermeneutics because it would allow a blending of Israel and the Church, placing a non-literal application beside a literal exegesis of Old Testament prophetic Scripture."6 Without that Church/literal Israel distinction, dispensationalism collapses. Quoting LaRondelle:

Scofield stated unambiguously that specific prophetic sections of Scripture must be interpreted and applied with absolute literalism: "Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but always literal." Such an absolute literalism in prophetic interpretation, however, leads irrevocably to a forced interpretation. Not only must Israel be restored as a national theocracy, but also Edom, Moab, and Ammon must the be restored as nations, because the prediction reads: "They [Israelites] will lay hands on Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be subject to them" (Isaiah 11:14). Such a consistent literalism may not unjustly be called "the insanity of literalism." The historic Christian position recognizes that the literal exegesis of Old Testament Scripture permits the typological application as employed by Christ and His apostles in the New Testament. This acknowledges that the Old Testament is "a Christian book."

Dispensational literalism does not allow that Jesus Christ provided a new perspective for interpreting the Old Testament. Dispensationalism is therefore basically oriented to the Old Covenant instead of to the Cross.7 [Added note: Paedobaptist are also oriented to the Old Covenant instead of the new man in Christ Jesus.]

LaRondelle states the case well. Dispensationalism revolves around the Old Covenant given to national Israel, making it the central theme of Scripture and history, instead of making the Cross of Christ the central theme of Scripture and history.If dispensationalists would be true to their faith, they would have to condemn Paul for allegorizing Scripture with Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 21, Galatians 4:24-31), and condemn him for "spiritualizing" the law concerning the ox (Deuteronomy 25:4, 1 Corinthians 9:9). Hence, allegorical interpretation cannot be condemned as "anti-historical in character" as does J.D. Pentecost.8

Even a superficial examination of Dispensationalism reveals that their doctrine only literalizes or spiritualize those passages needed to support their Church/literal Israel distinction, upon which dispensationalism hangs. Modern day Israel has used and is using the dispensational corruption of Scripture to their great advantage, defrauding US taxpayers out of billions of dollars (or rather, convincing the US that it should borrow massive amounts of money to support that modern unholy, anti-Christ Zionist nation of religious "Jews" ).

The New Testament presents nothing new, (except the mediation work of Christ, which was repeatedly foretold in the Old Testament). Accordingly, according to the Lord Jesus Himself, every New Testament doctrine must be understood in the light of what is already established in the law and the prophets. Luke 24:44-48, John 5:45- 47.

The Reformers started from the assumption that the Old Testament and the New Testament are organically related to each other. In spite of the differences in the forms of administering God's grace, the two Testaments are substantially the same, both teaching redemption by one and the same Mediator and Redeemer, both having one hope and one fellowship with the same covenant God, summed up in the words, "I will be your God and you shall be my people."9

Can Two Walk Together, except they be agreed?

The question must be viewed in the light of the context, the law and of the prophets.

In chapter one of Amos, the Lord pronounces His judgment against the heathen nations, showing that even the pagans will be held accountable to the Lord God of Heaven. No one will escape His notice and judgment. His judgment against the heathens is for their obvious wickedness.

Vv. 4ff, the Lord points out that if the heathen cannot avoid the judicial wrath of God, then how do His people expect to avoid His wrath? They can not and will not.

Then He moves on to His people. Judah and Israel, vv. 4-8. Why is God going to move in His wrath against His people?

because they have cast away [despised, KJV] the Law of the Lord, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err after them which their fathers have walked. (Geneva.)

The Lord then promises to send a fire upon His people, to devour the palaces... As Scripture interprets Scripture, despise speaks of rejecting the Law of the Lord. See Leviticus 26:43, I Samuel 8:7, 15:23, 26, 16:1, Isaiah 5:24, (30:12), Jeremiah 6:(19) 30, 8:9, Ezekiel 5:5-8 (20:13, 16, 24).

The passage which best sums up Amos 2:4 and 3:3 says is Leviticus 26, where despise is used in vv. 15 and 43. It is re-given and expanded upon in Deuteronomy 28-32.


First, Leviticus 26:12 is used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:16:

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Ephesians 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.

These are only two of the many New Testament passages that refer to the fact that God dwells with and in His people. Thus, although Leviticus 26 was addressed to the Old Testament Hebrew nation, the theological principle contained therein is as far reaching as the Church of the living God today.

Second, Leviticus 26:3 gives the condition for inheriting God's blessings: If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Vv. 4-13 gives the blessedness of walking in His statutes.

Third, Leviticus 26:14, But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. Vv. 16- 39 describe the destructive result.

Fourth, vv. 40-46. We can reverse what is said with no damage to the context, and we see that if His people ignore or reject their responsibility to obey His law, He will not only depart from them, but will cast them away.

Without exception, in all the passages listed above (and many more which are not listed), we see that when God's people reject (despise, or even ignore) the law of God as given by Moses, God rejects (or ignores) them, Amos 2:4, Hosea 4:6.

God's people despised the law of the Lord, and kept not His commandments. The result was a fire of judgment upon them. Not only did Paul apply this law for the church, so did Peter (1 Peter 1:14-25), and the writer of Hebrews (10:26-32).

Amos 3:2, 3.

V. 2, the Lord reminds His covenant people that though the whole world is responsible to His law, they alone are the chosen ones. They are the ones through whom He chose to show Himself strong by giving to them His law.

3:3, His people rejected, despised, His law, 2:4. In doing so, and in accord with Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, their God departed from them, which brings us to the verse itself.

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Be agreed about what?

Man must agree with God that His law and commandments are just as valid for the Church today as they were for Old Testament national Israel. (The law was valid for Gaza, Edom, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, the Philistines, Tyrus, Hazael, Benhadad, Damascus, Eden, Syria, Kir, &c. See Isaiah 13:11.)
Man must agree with God that everything must be done in accord with His revealed will (as revealed to Moses).
Man must agree with God in his desire to obey the law-word of God.
Man must agree with God to exalt the law of the Lord, and to keep His commandments, 2:4.
The unifying agreement is not that the world is a mess, though it is.

The agreement is not even that the word of God is the word of God, though it is.

The agreement here is primarily between the Law-Giver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12) and the ones to whom the law was and is given. That is, an agreement between God and man. As long as man agrees with God that His law alone is the rule for everything he does, and he is committed to doing the commandments by the indwelling grace and power of God, the Lawgiver will walk with the lawkeeper.

A secondary application can be between man and man. The agreement here is that the law of God is the final authority, and the two men who are walking together, are, by God's grace, dedicated to law-keeping.

Another application is between a man and a woman, i.e., marriage. If the two cannot agree on the things each holds important before marriage, then trouble is ahead.

In all cases, the walking together is based in the mutual dedication to that law.

As the two walk in that mutual agreement and dedication, they cannot help but be together. The mutual agreement and dedication is not that they should be together, but that both are dedicated to the total of God's Law-Word.

As people walk in dedication to God's total word, others will see their love for God's word. Their holy, righteous life will bring conviction (or persecution) on those watching. The dedication to the commandments will reveal our love toward Christ and the Father. John 15:10.

Can two walk together, except they be agreed that whether they eat, or drink, or whatsoever they do, it must be done to the glory of God? 1 Corinthians 10:31.

The Lawgiver made it clear that unless man agrees with Him concerning His command-law as given at the Mount, He cannot and will not walk with them.

End Notes

1 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today. Moody Press, Chicago. 1965. P. 97. Quoted by LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy. Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Hans K. LaRondelle. Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, Michigan. P. 11.

2 Ryrie, ibid, 96.

3 Ryrie, Ibid, 158.

4 Principles, p. 17.

5 Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. 1950. pp. 59, 60.

6 Principles, p. 25.

7 Principles, 26.

8 Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 112. Prophecy, 27.

9 The Israel of God in Prophecy. Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Hans K. LaRondelle. Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, Michigan. P. 28.

Book Review

"The Truth Behind Left Behind"

By Thomas Williamson

"The Truth Behind Left Behind," published in 2004, is a book by Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, two of the leading dispensationalist prophecy teachers of our time. Its purpose is to defend the system of prophecy taught in the best-selling "Left Behind" novels co-authored by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

As I read the first 3 novels in the "Left Behind" series, I noticed that these novels did not provide a scriptural basis for the scheme of prophecy that was taught in the books. In "The Truth Behind Left Behind," Hitchcock and Ice have attempted (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to remedy this deficiency, by providing the alleged scriptural basis for the Left Behind Theology.

It is freely admitted in "The Truth Behind Left Behind" that the "Left Behind" novels are fiction. On page 5, Tim LaHaye in his introduction to the book says, "Jerry Jenkins is a superb fiction writer with a phenomenal skill for taking my interpretation of end-time events and putting it into an exciting fictional setting." This is a remarkable admission - "Left Behind" is nothing more than a fictional rendering of Tim LaHaye's fallible interpretations and speculations on future events.

On page 15 Hitchcock and Ice admit, "Of course, the series is fictional; what we have here are immensely entertaining stories." With many "Left Behind" fans belligerently insisting that these books portray an authoritative scenario of future events that cannot be questioned, it is very important to make this point - these books are fiction, and the future is not necessarily going to unfold exactly in this manner!

Hitchcock and Ice insist that there is a basic core of biblical truth behind the fiction, and they attempt to provide a theological basis for that thesis. Like most books of this nature, they make the case that their interpretation of Bible prophecy is correct because they interpret Bible prophecy literally, while their opponents interpret it in a non-literal and allegorical manner.

However, they, in common with all other prophetic interpreters, are forced to admit that much of the imagery in the book of Revelation is symbolic and not to be taken literally.

The Russians are Coming - Or Are They?

In their discussion of the invasion of Israel in Ezekiel 38-39, they specifically reject a literal interpretation of that passage. To accept literally the reference to transportation by horses (38:15) and the use of bows, arrows, shields, war clubs and spears as weapons (39:9) would mean that this battle took place in ancient times and has no reference to an alleged future Russian invasion of Israel.

Since such a literal interpretation would conflict with the teaching of the Left Behind novels, which Hitchcock and Ice regard as authoritative, therefore the literal interpretation must be rejected. If it is wrong to interpret any prophetic passage in a non-literal manner, Hitchcock

and Ice are just as guilty as those they criticize for doing that.

Concerning the Hebrew word rosh in Ezekiel 38:2-3, 29:1, Hitchcock and Ice admit that "The word rosh in Hebrew simply means head, top, summit, or chief" (p. 49) but they insist that Ezekiel uses it as a proper noun and that it means Russia. In a significant admission, on page 54 they state that Meshech and Tubal are references to regions in modern-day Turkey, rather than to Moscow and Tobolsk as taught in the Scofield notes.

They refute the notion that the predicted invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 was fulfilled by the events in the book of Esther (5th Century BC), but they make no mention of the interpretation found in many well-regarded commentaries, that this prophecy was fulfilled by the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd Century BC. This view would fit well with a literal interpretation of the weaponry and travel by horses as described by Ezekiel, but as we have seen, Hitchcock and Ice reject a literal interpretation of the passage since it would conflict with their preconceived scheme of prophecy.

No Proof for the Pre-Trib Rapture

Readers hoping for a scriptural proof of the pretribulational rapture position will be disappointed by this book. On page 27 Hitchcock and Ice state, "No single Bible verse says precisely, in so many words, when the Rapture will take place in relation to the Tribulation or the Second Coming. At least not in a way that would settle the issue to everyone's satisfaction."

Nevertheless, they feel that the pre-trib rapture position can be logically deduced from various statements in the Bible. For instance, they say that since the Church is "strangely absent from the earth" in Revelation 4-19, this shows that the Church will not be present on earth during the Tribulation.

The only thing "strange" about this "proof' is that it ignores the frequent and clear references to "the Church" or Christians in Revelation 7:9-15, 11:3, 14:1-4, 12, 15:2, 18:4, etc. Hitchcock and Ice insist that Christians are exempt from God's wrath, which they interpret to mean the Tribulation of Revelation 4-19. But whatever is going on in that passage, it is clear that Christians are in the midst of it and that the Bible does not promise Christians exemption from times of tribulation (Acts 9:16, 14:22 John 16:33, Philippians 1:29, Revelation 1:9, etc).

The authors believe in an imminent, any-moment coming of Christ. Not all prophecy teachers agree on this, but admitting for the sake of argument that Christ's coming is imminent, this in no way proves a pre-trib rapture, since an imminent coming of Christ is compatible with other eschatological views such as amillennialism.

The authors cite Revelation 3:10 as proof of a pre-trib rapture, but here they are guilty of the allegorical method of interpretation that they condemn when used by others. This verse is a promise of deliverance to a literal church in the literal city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor in the First Century AD, and tells us nothing about whether there will be a rapture of all Christians 2000 years later.

The authors do not even bother to cite the "come up hither" reference in Revelation 4:1, which is a tacit admission that this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with a pre-trib rapture.

Hitchcock and Ice are definitely right about one thing - there is no clear teaching in the Bible about a pre-trib rapture that would settle the issue to everyone's satisfaction. This reviewer is puzzled that anyone would make the pre-trib rapture theory a dogma of the faith. The doctrinal statements of the Baptist Missionary Association of America, American Baptist Association and Southern Baptist Convention make no mention of a pretrib rapture, and in my opinion, that is as it should be.

No Proof for 7-year Tribulation Period

On page 96 the authors make a significant admission: "The Book of Revelation never specifically mentions a 7-year period of time. That point is clear." They insist that John must have gotten the idea for his 3 ‘/2 year periods from Daniel 9:27, but that does not necessarily follow - there is no logical reason why John's 3 1/2 year time segments must match up with anything in the Old Testament. Hitchcock and Ice place a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week and insist that the last week corresponds with the Tribulation period of Revelation. They never explain why it is okay to put a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week but not between his first 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

When they quote Daniel 9:27, they insert the word "Antichrist" there which is not in the original Hebrew text or any English translation I know of. Most interpreters over the centuries have taught that it is Christ, not Antichrist, who makes a firm covenant with His people during the first half of the 70th week (His 3 1/2 years of earthly ministry). Of course, this interpretation does not square with the Left Behind novels, so it is necessary for Hitchcock and Ice to throw in the word "Antichrist" in order to make this passage fit the "Left Behind" screenplay, and to insist that this covenant-maker will breakthe covenant in the midst of the week, even though Daniel says nothing about that.

Hitchcock and Ice do not deal at all with the strange teaching in "Left Behind" that there will be a time period of more than one year between the Rapture and the beginning of the Tribulation. Apparently there is "no truth behind" that notion, so they just pass over it in silence.

UN Headquarters to be Moved to Babylon?

One of the most bizarre teachings in the Left Behind novels is that the Bible predicts that the United Nations headquarters are to be moved from New York to Babylon. Actually the Bible does not teach that at all, but Hitchcock and Ice are duty bound to try to find some justification for that notion.

They insist that the prophecies of doom against Babylon in Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 were not fulfilled when Babylon was overthrown in the 5th Century BC. They insist that these prophecies will be fulfilled in the near future, which would require that Babylon be rebuilt and then destroyed again. How such a rebuilding of Babylon would imply the relocation of the UN headquarters to the new Babylon is never explained.

They ignore the statement by C.I. Scofield, commenting on Revelation 18:2, that "The notion of a literal Babylon to be rebuilt on the site of ancient Babylon is in conflict with Isaiah 13:19-22."

They ignore the evidences from Isaiah 13 that this passage refers to ancient times (references to use of swords in warfare, and to the Medes and Chaldeans, peoples who no longer exist). They insist that since the constellations of stars were not literally destroyed (Isaiah 13:10) therefore the prophecy was not fulfilled in the 6th Century BC. However, no dispensational commentators maintain that all the stars will be literally destroyed during the future. Tribulation period, either.

They ignore the massive evidences that Jeremiah 50- 51 is talking about events in ancient times: references to idolatry (50:2, 38, 51:17), to ancient obsolete weapons (50:14, 16, 29, 35-37, 42, 51:3, 11, 20, 56), to all of the invaders using horses (50:42), to the release of Jewish captives (50:19, 33-34).

In typical wooden literal fashion, they insist that the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 must be the original Babylon in Iraq, while admitting that other interpreters have seen this passage as a reference to Rome, Jerusalem, New York City or the Roman Catholic Church. They admit that the book of Revelation is filled with symbolical references such as "Sodom and Egypt" in

Revelation 11:8 which clearly refers to Jerusalem. The authors staunchly dismiss any possible interpretation of Babylon which might conflict with the authority of the Left Behind novels which they admit to be "fiction."

Verses Quoted Out of Context,

With Apostolic Interpretations Ignored

Hitchcock and Ice freely rummage through the Old Testament in search of obscure references that can be used as "proof texts" for their Left Behind theory. They quote Joel 2:32 to "prove" that there will be a great revival after the Rapture, but the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:21 quoted that verse and that entire passage from Joel, applying it to the revival that took place in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

They quote Amos 9:15 in support of their belief that the ongoing regathering of Jews in Israel is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that were not completely fulfilled by the return of the Jews from Babylon after 538 BC. However, in Acts 15:15-18, the Apostle James applied that passage from Amos to the ongoing gathering of a people for God's name from among the Gentiles.

They cite Ezekiel 20:33-38, Ezekiel 22:17-22, Ezekiel 36:22-24 and Zephaniah 2:1-2 as predictions of a gathering of the Jews to Israel in unbelief. All of these prophecies were given at approximately 600 BC, just before the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians in 586 BC and then restored to Judah by the Persians after 538 BC. These passages must be interpreted in the historical context in which they were originally written.

It is very clear that in Ezekiel 22:17-22, God is threatening to gather the Jews into Jerusalem in order to have them judged by the besieging Babylonian armies, which took place in 586 BC. To snatch verses such as these out of their historical context, and use them to speculate about possible events more than 2600 years in the future, is absurd, but it is typical of the method of Biblical "interpretation" used by Hitchcock and Ice.

The Left Behind system of prophecy depends on the assumption that almost no Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in ancient times nor at the time of Christ's first coming. By some amazing coincidence, almost all of these prophecies, given thousands of years ago, are to be fulfilled in our own time in the early 21's Century, in the space of just a few years. Ancient empires that crumbled into dust centuries ago must be resurrected and reconstituted, so that they may be destroyed yet again in our own day, in order to conform with the Left Behind script.

A Thicket of Conflicting Prophetic Interpretations

In this book, Hitchcock and Ice deal with a rather confusing and overwhelming volume of prophetic interpretations that contradict the teaching of the Left Behind novels, and attempt to refute them. Each reader will have to decide for himself how good a job they have done of defending the Left Behind theology.

My personal impression, after reading and studying this book, is that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the exact course of future events, and much disagreement on this issue among Christians of good will who fully accept the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Therefore, these things should not be made tests of fellowship. While we must attempt to understand and explain the prophetic passages of the Bible, and are certainly free to propose and defend our interpretations of future events, we should not fight or excommunicate each other over differences of opinion on this issue. True humility will admit that we do not know for sure exactly what is going to happen or when it will happen.

In my opinion, the school of interpretation represented by Hitchcock and Ice (and LaHaye and Jenkins) is one that tends to take prophetic passages in an overly wooden literal manner, which is refuted by the way that the New Testament interprets Old Testament prophecies. (Compare Isaiah 40:3-4 with Luke 3:4-6. Did John the Baptist literally ride through Judea on a Caterpillar tractor, constructing highways and filling in every valley with landfill from the mountains?)

Global Warming Update

Peru's mountain people face fight for survival in a bitter winter

Annie Kelly in Pichccahuasi The Observer, 1/3/10

Climate change is bringing freezing temperatures to poor villages where families have long existed on the margins of survival. Now some must choose whether to save the animals that give them a living, or their children...

In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers...

Their faith demands idotiac explanations.

From the Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist letter.

* CONFUCIUS SAY, BEWARE OF BIG GOVERN-MENT. -Confucius . . . accompanied by several of his pupils, passing through rugged and deserted mountains on their way, were surprised to find an old woman weeping beside a grave. Confucius sent Tsze-loo to inquire the cause of her grief ‘My husband's father,' she answered, was killed here by a tiger, and my husband also, and now my son has met the same fate.' When Confucius asked why she persisted in living in so dangerous a place, she replied: ‘There is no oppressive government here.' My children,' said Confucius to his students, ‘remember this. Oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger.— -Will Durant, in "Our Oriental Heritage"

BEWARE OF POLITICIANS WHO WANT TO REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH. "From the exaggerated license which people call liberty, tyrants spring up as from a root ... and that at last such liberty reduces a nation to slavery. . . . For out of such an ungoverned populace one is usually chosen as leader . someone bold and unscrupulous . . who curries favor with the people by giving them other men's property.- - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 54 BC.

NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIAN YOGA - ALL YOGA IS HINDUISM. "Is Yoga a religion that denies Jesus Christ? Yes. Just as Christianity denies the Hindu MahaDevas such as Siva, Vishnu, Durga and Krishna, to name a few, Hinduism and its many Yogas have nothing to do with God and Jesus (though we do respect that others believe in this way).

"As Hindus who live the Yogic lifestyle, we appreciate when others understand that all of Yoga is all about the Hindu religion. Modern so-called ‘yoga' is dishonest to Hindus and to all non-Hindus such as the Christians." - Danda, Dharma Yoga Ashram, Classical Yoga Hindu Academy, via Lighthouse Trails web site.

To Your Health

It was the Sorcerers in ancient times who mixed the magic potions. Any medicine {potion} that would offset the effects of stale food really would be a magic potion. Could that be why new drugs are often called "miracle" drugs, until their side-effects or ineffectiveness become known?

Today's causes of most of our ill health are based on the food we eat. Consequent ailments which have been described at length in Biochemical literature and also in some medical journals make the point. Studies have been made of the food in our markets. We know the deficiencies cause sickness and we know the packaged, processed foods are deficient. Biochemists know suchfoods are unhealthy. They know the difference between fresh and stale food. Unfortunately the great majority of the general public does not know this, thus they eat "junk food" and the sickness bill mounts. The public has been mis-educated about food by many sources.

The medical monopoly ignores food. There is no money in telling people what to eat and in teaching prevention. The Newspapers do not tell people the basics of good healthy food. They have to serve their advertisers. Sadly, also, many Biochemists are beholden to their jobs making processed food more salable, with longer shelf life. Even University professors are not immune because of research grants. Our preachers shirk their ancient duty to tell people what is fit and not fit to eat. American housewives, thinking their grandparents from the Old Country were "old fogies" and overwhelmed by the erroneous theories taught in Home-Ec classes, or brainwashed by newspaper and T.V. food ads, have no understanding of the importance of diet. They accept the Calorie Theory, trust the newspaper and T.V. ads, and are happy with the convenience of canned, frozen and chemically preserved packaged foods. The religious leaders are ignorant and/or silent. We end up with food lacking quality, a disastrous medical bill, and according to H.E.W. with children mentally retarded - estimated to involve 20% of that age group.

People who are ignorant of the necessary qualities of good food and of what constitutes UNhealthy food, are ready prey for the false theories and the "cons" of ignorant hucksters. After all, if the food advisor does not know that food must be fresh and what the illnesses are that follow from stale food, he has no business being a food advisor. {American Cancer Society, please note.}

From Unhealthy Food = Unhealthy People. Ancient Rules for Modern Food. "The Basic Rules of Eating for Health." Simpson, Harold. (Biochemist) Pp 15, 16

Special Alert Newsletter


[Someone passed the following along to me]

Dear Friend:

Karen and I trust you had a joyful THANKSGIVING, and that you and your family are coping satisfactorily with the strains and stresses of this sick world in which we live. Despite all the evil with which we are surrounded, there is still so much for which to be thankful!

It can be said with a great deal of accuracy that thehistory of mankind is mostly a history of wars. The Biblerecords that the first "war" was one between two broth-ers — Cain and Abel. It has been mostly downhill sincethen. For example, the history of the last century is a chronicle of nations fighting wars, paying for wars, clearing up after wars, or preparing for wars: World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the alleged wars on drugs, crime, and terror have all been fought over the last 100 years. All these wars were fought — at a cost of untold billions of dollars — for the alleged purpose of "defending" America from a multitude of "enemies." Yet, over those decades of what Churchill once termed "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," America has been systematically reduced to a bankrupt, virtually defenseless, shadow of her former self. However else they may be described, these wars failed to achieve their supposed objectives.


It's interesting to note that originally, the United States had a War Department. It was created in 1789. In 1949 its name was changed to the Department of Defense. Under the War Department, America was involved in very few "wars" apart from those fought within the territorial limits of what is now known as the United States. Since it became the "Defense" Department we have only been engaged in wars that have been fought in other, frequently isolated, parts of the world. One would be hard pressed to find good reason why any of these "wars" could honestly and factually be described as being in defense of the United States. As thoroughly documented in our books, Fourth Reich of the Rich and Descent Into Slavery?, the majority of these wars were planned, by design and execution, to have the exact opposite effect — the systematic destruction of the United States.

It's long past time to acknowledge that, if one starts off with a false premise, one will automatically end up with a false conclusion. Most people have been preprogrammed to see "war" though the eyes of old definitions. In the past wars were accepted as being fought between "good guys" and "bad guys" — with little middle ground. That was mostly true, in the past! But today, if we accept that definition we find ourselves operating off a false premise.

Today, in order to clear the way for their planned new world order, all too frequently the truly "bad guys" are found to be masquerading as "good guys." They present their victims—usually regimes they clandestinely helped establish and covertly financed (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc) — as being despicably criminal governments that need to be crushed. In Orwellian doublespeak, it's called "regime change."Yes, things have certainly changed since the "old days." Presently, it would be unwise to assume that what we see and hear on the "news" is the way things really are. In fact, reality may be almost the exact opposite to what you see and hear. It is a fact that truth is the first casualty of every war. As a result we would do well to ponder the words of Edwin Stanton, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of war, regarding the purpose behind most wars. In his partly written autobiography, finally published in 1941, he states, "Wars are not fought to defeat an enemy. Wars are fought to create a condition."

Some historians believe Stanton (1814-1869) was involved in Lincoln' s assassination. Although nothing was ever proven, it is interesting to note that within hours of Lincoln's murder Stanton was in charge of the apprehension and prosecution of the conspirators involved. These proceedings were not conducted in a civilian court, but by a military tribunal. They were therefore completely under Stanton's personal control. When the number of suspects in the assassination was reduced to eight, Stanton took the unprecedented step of ordering that heavy canvas hoods be made, padded one inch thick with cotton, with one small hole for eating, and no openings for eyes or ears. He further ordered that the bags be worn by the seven men day and night to prevent conversation. (Fearing a public uproar, Stanton excluded Mary Surratt, the only woman involved, from such cruel treatment). A ball of extra cotton padding covered the eyes so that there was a painful pressure on the eyes lids. Stanton forbad baths or washing of any kind. As a result, during the hot weeks of the trial the prisoners' faces became increasingly swollen and bloated. Stanton adamantly refused to give the prisoners any concessions. Nor would he allow the removal of their rigid wrist irons and anklets, each of which was connected to an iron ball weighing 75 pounds. Four of the eight, including Mary Surratt, were found guilty. They were hanged. Three of the others were sentenced to life in prison. The eighth got 6 years.


Webster's 1828 dictionary defines war as, "A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, either for defense, or for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce or the acquisition of territory, or for obtaining or establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other... Very few of the wars that have deluged the world with blood have been justifiable."

Let's examine a few recent wars in the light of Edwin Stanton's observations regarding their probable purpose.

For example, history books, movies, and TV programs present World War II as an epic struggle between the forces of good and evil: on one side were the "noble and magnanimous" British and, later, Americans. On the other, "the savage, goose-stepping Nazi hordes ... the bloodthirsty Huns who were bent on conquering the world."

As shown in the June, 2009, AlertNewsletter the official history of World War II and the reality of what actually transpired are poles apart. Britain's Winston Churchill (one of this writer's early "heroes") — at the command of his nefarious hidden backers — was the first to take aggressive action. Though Hitler, according to British war historian Liddell Hart, was actively seeking to avoid a major clash and hoped to enroll British help in destroying the communist Soviet Union, Churchill launched deadly air attacks on German civilian targets.

As documented in Descent Into Slavery; Churchill led Britain into the war in order to, as Edwin Stanton declared, "create a condition" that, at that time, was known only to a few. That desired "condition" was to set the scene for the destruction of sovereign nations world wide in preparation for their absorption into the planned new world order. That plan, unrecognized by most, began to unfold following America's entrance into the war.

Following the victorious North African campaign in 1942, the invasion of Sicily in July, 1943, and the invasion of Italy two months later, the Allied forces were on a roll. Little appeared to stand in their path as they swept Axis forces out of the way. There was talk of being "in Berlin by Christmas." In his book, Calculated Risk, General Mark Clark takes up the story. He relates that, as a result of orders received from the highest level "our team was soon broken up and the Fifth Army was sapped of a great deal of its strength. A campaign that might have changed the whole history of relations between the Western world and Soviet Russia was permitted to fade away... These were decisions made at the highest level and for reasons beyond my field and my knowledge... [I]n my opinion... [this] was one of the outstanding mistakes of the war...

"Naturally, I am a prejudiced witness in this matter because it was my team that was being weakened, but I believe there is plenty of evidence from other sources to support my attitude. For instance, there was (German) Marshal Kesselring, whose intelligence section was completely mystified in coming weeks when our great forward drive failed to take advantage of its chance to destroy the beaten and disorganized German Army in Italy... Kesselring's army could have been destroyed if we had been allowed to shoot the works in a final offensive" (pgs.368-370).

What were the "reasons beyond (Clark's) field and knowledge"? This is where the profound nature of Stanton's statement (that "wars are fought to create a condition") takes on a startling new meaning. To understand the "reason," we turn to Robert Sherwood's book, Roosevelt and Hopkins. At the Quebec Conference of Allied leaders in 1943, a new war strategy was agreed upon. Based on a document titled Russia's Position, ascribed to "a very high level United States military estimate ... [Communist] Russia's postwar position in Europe will be a dominant one... IS ]he will dominate Europe at the defeat of the Axis" (p.748)

That is the reason for General Clark's amazement and frustration. On orders received from the highest level (President Roosevelt, through the Pentagon) Clark's "tremendous fighting machine ... with horizons unlimited" was officially banned from sweeping on to victory. You see, it was planned that Russia be allowed (with the help of 12 billion [1940] dollars in American aid) to capture all eastern Europe and thus establish grounds for the planned "cold war."

Then, following the Normandy (D-Day) landing on June 6, 1944 — and the "break out" led by General Patton that followed — the famous general was denied fuel and ammunition when he was about to sweep into Germany and achieve an early victory. Obviously, the Russians needed more time to conquer eastern Europe and grab, with Roosevelt's secret approval, half of Germany. Later, because Patton wanted to "take care" of Russia — and thus do what historian Liddell Hart stated Hitler originally wanted British cooperation in doing — he was assassinated (hear the CD set, Deadly Assassins). We shouldn't overlook the fact that all these nefarious activities contributed greatly to the deaths of tens of thousands of American military personnel. These were probably considered "collateral damage."

A few years later we became embroiled in a war in Korea (1950-53). Here again, something nefarious was happening behind the scenes. The "war" wasn't fought as should have been expected. In his autobiography, General Douglas MacArthur wrote: "I was ... worried about a series of directives from Washington which were greatly decreasing the potential of my air force. First, I was forbidden ‘hot' pursuit of enemy planes that attacked our own. Manchuria and Siberia were sanctuaries of inviolate protection for all enemy forces and for all enemy purposes, no matter what depredations or assaults might come from there: Then I was denied the right to bomb the hydroelectric plants along the Yalu. This order was broadened to include every plant in North Korea that was capable of furnishing electric power to Manchuria and Siberia. Most incomprehensible of all was the refusal to let me bomb the important supply center in Racin... Racin was a depot to which the Soviet Union forwarded supplies from Vladivostok for the North Korean Army. I felt that step-by-step my weapons were being taken away from me" (Reminiscences, 1964, p.365). The war ended in stalemate, and Korea was divided at the 38th parallel. Thus, communism was allowed to spread further in Asia.

Then came the notorious Vietnam War, a conflict which JFK was endeavoring to avoid prior to his assassination. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, reversed his policies and expanded the conflict by sending more than 500,000 troops to that "theater of war." As in Korea, the powers-that-be were not interested in winning the war. They planned to use the conflict for their own diabolical purposes, thus creating yet another desired "condition." Although, as Senator Barry Goldwater documented in the Congressional Record in 1985, the war could have easily been won in a couple of months, Washington allowed it to continue for more than eight years. Goldwater produced Air Force reports showing that "rules of engagement" hampered and restricted operations by the Armed Forces... The air campaign against North Vietnam was centered upon attacking enemy lines of communication well below Hanoi while primary targets in the northeast where the bulk of North Vietnamese war-supporting resources were located, remained almost untouched.... Joint Chiefs and commanders in the field repeatedly transmitted to the President and Secretary of Defense proposals for putting more pressure on North Vietnam. Over and over the Chiefs protested the artificial limitations impeding our Nation's objectives in the war..." These limitations "provided the North Vietnamese with numerous opportunities to recuperate from the effects of the air strikes. Facilities were rebuilt and reconstructed and dispersal of massive material aid from communist countries continued." Air surveillance photos showed that tens of thousands of tons of war material from other communist countries were piled up in or near cities. But, on strict orders from Washington these targets were declared off limits. More than 58,000 of "America's best" were killed in Viet Nam, with hundreds of thousands more physically maimed, or scarred psychologically. All this, as a result of "directives from Washington" that "tied their hands" and denied them the right to win the war.

Think! What was the "condition" the hidden manipulators wanted to create through this manifest betrayal of our own armed forces? American society was torn apart by anti-war riots and other social upheavals, sponsored by agents of the Establishment (The Strawberry Statement, in Fourth Reich of the Rich, pgs.106- 109). The Vietnam War was also used as a cover to introduce and promote socialism and the welfare state — ideas that revolutionized American society, and moved it toward participation in a new world order.

In the years that followed we were "sold" numerous other "wars" — wars on all types of alleged enemies. As H.L. Mencken stated, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed (and thus clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Consider the alleged "wars" on poverty, drugs, crime etc. All phony. All used to expand government, add to the debt, and reduce personal freedoms.


In 2002, we witnessed the traumatic events of 9/11 which dovetailed perfectly with a 1996 plan laid out by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. This declared that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event —like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed in order to "create a condition" that would lead to control of the Middle East and the greater Islamic world. Voila, 9/11!

This led to passage of the "Patriot Act" and the "Homeland Security" legislation which, without Congress being given an opportunity to read their contents, eliminated many of our constitutionally-guaranteed Rights. Then came the phony "War on Terror" which was used as an excuse to invade the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Consider! How were those events used to "create a condition" favorable to the plans of the internationalists? As planned, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, with the death of over 1,000,000 civilians and the displacement of millions more, served the purpose of giving the United States a "greater military presence" in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the "war on terror" paved the way for the alleged "overthrow of the Taliban." But stop! Two decades earlier the CIA had created and funded both AI Qaeda and the Taliban for its own nefarious purposes. The "war on terror" enabled the CIA (reportedly the biggest trafficker of drugs in the world) to resume poppy (heroin) production which had previously been outlawed under Islamic Law. Drug money is used to fund these "black" operations. According the Lt-Col Daniel Marvin (Secret Assassins, see below), US troops are being used to protect those poppy fields. It might be said that, "there's big money in them thar poppy fields"!

One other vitally important "condition" was created under cover of these devious activities. Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, testifies (in Murder In Samarkand) that what he discovered there "changed (his) whole world view in an instant." Following 9/11 Uzbekistan allowed the Pentagon to rent military bases (for $500,000,000 a year in "aid") from which to hunt for Osama bin Laden in neighboring Afghanistan. At these bases, captured "terror suspects" were subjected to almost unspeakable torture. Murray also says that US and UK troops are being used to guard an oil pipeline being built by American oil companies in that region.

We are all engaged in one kind of war or another. In the final analysis, our ultimate battle is spiritual in nature (Ephesians 6:10-19). We wage spiritual warfare against our own flesh (human nature), the world around us, and Satan who has "deceived the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). We can't win those battles by shadow boxing or "beating the air" (I Corinthians 9:26). We must "go for the jugular." "[T]he weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:4).

Ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Romans 14:1 1; Philippians 2:10-1 1). That is the "condition" to which we should all be looking forward.

Best Wishes, Des Guiffin

Note: As I identify the WWII Color images I have posted at, I get quite distressed over the horrendous waste of time, money and lives that took place in that war.

In That Day

Here are some men and women who mocked God: John Lennon (Singer): Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said: ‘Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966). Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ): During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

Cazuza: (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet): During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:'God, that's for you.' He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner...

The man who built the Titanic: After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said: ‘Not even God can sink it' The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.

Marilyn Monroe: (Actress) She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: ‘I don't need your Jesus'. A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

Bon Scott: (Singer) The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang: ‘Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'. On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

Campinas:(IN 2005) In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friendThe mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:
‘My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.' She responded: ‘Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside HereIt's Already Full ‘ Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact. The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

Christine Hewitt: (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer) said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written. In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. (copied.)

* Who Says We're Not rich?

Silver in the Hair Gold in the Teeth. Stones in the Kidneys Sugar in the Blood. Lead in the Feet.
Iron in the Arteries.
And an inexhaustible supply of Natural Gas.
I never thought I'd accumulate such wealth.

* I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.-- Mohandas Gandhi

* A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. --Albert Einstein

* The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. --Albert Einstein