After filling out over 100 pages of application/information.
After having an investigation of my past.
After waiting for almost as long as I waited for my CHL from the DPS.

I finally have my board interview with the DPS on Thursday morning.

With the blessing from the Good LORD above, I'll soon be embarking upon a new career and after being in the car business since 1972 I'll finally be out of a dealership!

Pray for me people that this is God's will for me!

Thanks
Russ

I was asked this question: Many times, in distant galaxies, we see a supernova. This is the dying flash of a star that blew itself out of existence. The star is often millions of light-years away, and so the light must have originated millons of years ago. If not, God created light on the way to Earth, having faked evidence for a star that never existed.
Since there is no scriptural basis for a young universe, I would have to conclude that God is not deceptive,and the Universe is quite old. Do you agree?


And someone else said: I think you are neglecting the fact that we do not know how light actually operates in space. Also, expansion theory postulates that as the fabric of space expands, light is carried along with it.

Bing bangers postulate that during the formative period of early galaxies that the fabric of space expanded, in all directions, the matter furthest away from other expanding matter appeared to be expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, yet the light from those galaxies was visible the entire time.

Fact is, it appears now that the speed of light is not the constant it was once thought to be."

So I was lying awake last night thinking of this.

How to explain this here... hmmm...

Ok, FIRST: Drop a rock in a pond... that would be the big bang (Creation of the universe by God)... ok?

Second: Watch the ripples go out from the point of impact, that's the expanding universe... OK?

Third: Pick a point--any point--inside that expanding wave, and let that be as the point where the planet earth is right now.


Fourth: Measure a point from earth directly across the point where the rock hit the surface to the expanding ripple opposite. That would be a point where science says they can see to the edge of the universe, some 13 billion years or so.

Fifth: Notice that it took time for the ripple to eminate from the point of impact to that point where we say we see light from 13 billion years ago.

Conclusion:
So it, likewise, must have taken time (untold trillions of years) for the galaxies to migrate from the point of creation to the point where we see light that is supposedly 13 billion years or so.

Discussion:
So, if the scientists are correct and we're actually seeing light from 13 billion years ago, how long did it take for these galaxies to reach that point, knowing that the light previously eminated in that journey would have transversed past us long ago?

That kept me awake all night last night.
Russ

The Tenth Commandment:


Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,

thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,

nor his manservant,

nor his maidservant,

nor his ox,

nor his ass,

nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Exodus xx:17
KJV
Who covets and what does it mean to “covet”?
When do I covet and where do I covet? And, most importantly, how do I know when I’ve coveted?

But, before we get into these questions, I feel compelled to make this remark:


“Words are a means of communicating ideas.”[1]


One of the tools that I use is available on the web for free and it’s called E-sword[2] [3]. In Hebrew, in Greek and in English, words are different. While I am no, I repeat, NO scholar in the Hebrew, the Greek or even in English, nor do I claim to be; I simply possess the wisdom that God Himself gave me and use the tools that are out there for anyone to use. Therefore, I humbly offer this paper for your use.



T
he Old Testament (in Hebrew) uses the word chamad (for instance) (H2530)[4] in Exodus xx:17. E-BDB[5] demonstrates that chamad has two basic meanings:

1) to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in (verb)

1a) (Qal) to desire; 1b) (Niphal) to be desirable; 1c) (Piel) to delight greatly, desire greatly

2) desirableness, preciousness (noun feminine)

The Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures - the Septuagint (e-LXX) - uses the word epithumeo (G1937). I cannot say that is the only word used to translation chamad in every instance; however, it is here. This Greek verb, carries the idea of:

1) to turn upon a thing
2) to have a desire for, long for, to desire3) to lust after, covet

3a) of those who seek things forbidden. (e-Thayer)
So the problem we are dealing with is resolved pretty much from this evaluation of the basic component parts of this discussion. The English term covet can have a range of meaning. Usage (context) is key. The Hebrew and Greek words have similarity in meaning, and also have the same breadth of meaning, which does not automatically mean a evil desire for that which is unlawful; the passage in 1 Corinthians xii:31 comes to mind where ζηλόω (zēloō / dzay-lo'-o ) is translated in the KJV with the English word "covet," but it seems to be the only translation that does so as other translations use such words as: “earnestly desiring” (ALT), “let your desires” (BBE), “desire the best gifts” (CEV), “But be zealous” (DRB), “strive” (EMTV), “zealously strive” (MKJ), “you should be eager for the greater gifts.” (NET) , “eagerly desire” (NIV) and “seek to excel” (WNT) to name just a few. But, with that, the word ‘covet’ is usually intended to show a negative want, i.e.: a sin.
We need to also notice that the English word “COVET” is used for more than one Hebrew words; they, according to Wilson[6], are:

1. ('âvâh H-183 which is tied to ta'ăvâh H-8378)to desire earnestly, a desire for something. ((to explain the Hithpael conjugation of the word would be to akin to this example: the word ‘kill’ would become under the Hithpael to mean “to kill ones’ self.”)))

2. (betsa‛H-1215)to cut and tear away, to plunder; to get by dishonest (covetous) means. (b) rapine, prey –any unjust gain.


3. (châmad H-2530)to desire strongly, to take delight in; used both in a good and bad sense. KAL


Just a few of the usages in the Old Testament (KJV) according to Wilson are:


Exodus xviii:21
2

Exodus xx.17
3
Deuteronomy v:21
1

Joshua vii:21
3
Psalms x:3
2

Psalms cxix:36
2
Proverbs xxi:26
1

Proverbs xxviii:16
2
Isaiah lvii:17
2

Jeremiah vi:13
2
Jeremiah viii:10
2

Jeremiah xxii:17
2
Jeremiah li:13
2

Ezekiel xxxiii:31
2
Micah ii:2
3

Habakkuk ii:9
2
(the numbers correspond with the Wilson’s usage)


Webster’s has two meanings for the English word “covet”, one good one bad:

1. To desire or wish for, with eagerness; to desire earnestly to obtain or possess; in a good sense.

2. To desire inordinately; to desire that which it is unlawful to obtain or possess; in a bad sense.

Oxford’s English dictionary defines ‘covet’ as:

“A burning desire for a thing [anything] that belongs to someone else.”

It means something can be coveted or someone could be coveting something (anything) that someone else had.

Synonyms for the English word “covet” include:

· Lust for
· desire
· want
· wish for
· long for
· hanker after.


So, just like Hebrew, we can have several words in the English language that could (and do) mean the same as ‘covet’.


Context in the original languages, must be the key determiner in all cases. Check out what Vine’s has to say about the different words for ‘covet’. Here we find that in the Greek, we find at least nine[7] different words that have the English meaning of ‘covet.’ So, we must realize that the Biblical languages MUST take precedence over our English word meanings.

In the preface in Volume #1 of Albert Barnes notes, he included a several page lecture on how with 15 major points and many sub-points on how to ‘read the Bible for all that it’s worth’ (which also happens to be the name of a book by a more modern author). The volume is at home right now but context is at the top of the list. What did the author mean when he wrote the passage? What were the customs at that time, and how did they effect the writing? Who was the message being written to and why? Context determines word usage and interpretation. Scripture interprets scripture and many more, but one major rule was that modern language does not determine how word usage was in the day of writing. For instance when these rules were written (published in 1830’s originally with updates later) gay meant happy.

Some say that translations can sometimes be misleading if they translate several words from the biblical languages with the same word. To be fair, most of the more recent committee translations have done a great deal to minimize this confusion; regrettably, it cannot always be done. And this is probably due to an economy of words - i.e. the attempt to boil down a phrase's translation to the smallest number of words. So as always, the point is: if we have not given the biblical languages proper attention (even a very basic one), then we are bound to have problems in our understanding of a passage - or even our theological constructions.


For example: One of the best known instances is all of the different Greek words that are translated into “Love.” (ADD PROPER WORDING HERE FOR LOVE: EROS, AGAPE, PHILOS, ETC.)

Now, since we know the meaning of the word ‘covet’ and we have also learned that many different words may be used in. not only. English but also in the Greek and Hebrew as well, many words in order to more accurately express the meaning and context so that we may correctly understand the meaning of any particular passage that used a form of the word covet.

Sometimes looking behind the word give many more clues to the meaning of something. Many times we look at something, and we put a meaning on a word because of the context that it is in, only to find out that we were only part right. We had the rest of the context correct, but we also only had a partially correct meaning to the ‘unknown’ word. Knowledge is a good thing. Wisdom is a good thing, but we need to apply wisdom to knowledge and knowledge to wisdom to make it work correctly. That partially correct meaning that I’d given to ‘covet’ some 40 years ago stuck. It stuck until just about two years ago when I became acutely aware of the true meaning of the word ‘covet’ one day while simply reading the passage in Romans that I’ll discuss in a moment. In a ‘twinkling’ of an eye I knew what the total and true meaning was—even without lexicons, for at that time I had none. But to express the meaning to others, I was going to have to ‘prove’ it to them—for I found out that they had the same ill-conceived meaning that I had, and I was going to have to show my proof. Therefore, I purchased the books that are necessary to back up what I say. In science there must be a formula to back up the theory, in religion there must be lexicons and dictionaries to back up the revelation to keep one from heresy! How do we do that? Well, we need to remember that in English class, way, way back there in grade school, that we were taught the six points of investigation, revelation and proof, and they are: “Who, How, What, When, Where and Why.” So: (1)How do we covet? (2)What do we covet? (3)When do we covet? (4)Where do we covet? (5)Who covets? And finally, (6)Why do we covet?
………………………………………….
Lets tackle the last question first, then we’ll look at the rest; So:
Why do we covet?

Here’s that passage in Romans that I was talking about earlier:

“…I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said,
You shall not covet. …”[8]


That’s what the apostle Paul wrote. And, you know what—neither would I! Simply put; “It’s the unbridled, uncontrolled desire for—the unabated lusting for—anything that you don’t already have or possess.”

It’s the uncontrollable urge to go out and acquire something that you really want—to get something that you don’t have. It’s a transgression against the Law of God, and anything that transgresses against the Laws of God is a sin.

I remember way back in the seventh grade, I wanted a pair of walkie-talkies really bad. They were in the “Christmas Catalog” from Sears that year. They were black, they had telescoping antennas and they even had a battery condition indicator! I wanted them so bad I cut out the picture and description of them and carried it around with me for a month. I remember them well and to this day I remember what the crinkled up ad looked like! Now, why did I–a single child–have a need, a desire, a lust for walkie-talkies? Something that you would have to have had someone to share them with. An only child on a farm—miles from nowhere, not even a close neighbor my age. I had no one that I could have talked to. I don’t know why I wanted them so, so bad, all I can say is I just did. Maybe it was a precursor to my ham radio days, I don’t know for sure, but boy-oh-boy did I lust for them! I did not realize then what coveting was, you see, nobody had ever explained that coveting was the burning desire for something. I always thought it was a man’s desire of the neighbors donkey (the bible uses another word here), not having anything to do with my lustful wishing for my walkie-talkies. I realize now how wrong that way of thinking was.

Simply put: “When we want anything that we don’t have; we covet.”

How, what and who covets?

Do we covet today? Is coveting still in effect for us Christians? Paul wrote in Romans xiii:9 “…Thou shall not covet…” To me this means that the 10th commandment is still in effect today for those who live under the law, for it is written in the New Testament.

Do you realize that advertisers makes us all covet! We covet anything from ‘Big Macs’ and ‘Whoppers’ to shrimp and lobster dinners. Did this happen in the Bible?

Open your Bibles to Numbers xi and follow along. Verses four through six:


“And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting[9]
and the children of Israel also wept again, and said,
Who shall give us flesh to eat?
We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely;
the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks,
and the onions, and the garlic:
But now our soul is dried away:
there is nothing at all,
beside this manna, before our eyes.”[10]


The LORD had given them manna, and the Hebrews wanted more. They lusted for something more than what they had. What happened to them that lusted? Lets see (same chapter verse thirty-four:

And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah:
because there they buried the people that lusted.[11]

They died because they had broken the law. Breaking of the law is sin and the wages of sin is death[12].


We covet everything from underwear to the latest fashions. We covet toys when we are children…we covet toys when we’re adults. Remember this saying: “The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys!”? We covet cars, computers, PDA’s and cell phones. We covet CD’s, DVD’s and Ipod’s ®! This is what it means to break the 10th commandment: “We simply desire something!”

Therefore, to ‘covet’ is to desire something—the wanting of whatever it is—really, really bad.


When and where do we covet?

When did we first covet? Eve was tempted by Satan in the Garden of Eden. How did Satan tempt Eve to sin? By making her want something she didn’t have. He made Eve covet! She ate and then told her husband, Adam, about what she now knew, and made him covet for the same thing. Then they lied about it to the LORD and hid from Him. So the original sin was that of coveting what they didn’t have.

Do we sin when we want something we don’t have? After all, that is what coveting means! Does watching television make you covet? Let’s take simple commercials for example. Does that car commercial (no matter what brand) make you wish for a new car? Does anyOld Testamenther commercial make you desire for the product that they’re selling? After all, that is what commercials are designed to do—to make us want something (anything) that we don’t have. To make us hunger for, to want, to wish for that product, no matter what it is; from a Big-Mac to a Lexus to an I-pod and everything and everything in-between. We covet a bowl of Cheerio’s, and therefore we sin without even knowing it. We covet, we sin; we covet, we sin it’s a never ending cycle over something as simple as the burning desire for stuff we don’t have.

We covet, we sin; we covet, we sin; we covet, we sin; it’s an endless cycle!

My wife asked, “Are you sure wanting a ‘Big-Mac’ is a sin?”
I answered, “To be hungry is not a sin, to eat to survive is not a sin. To go and make something in the kitchen is not a sin. The induced ravenous desire for the ‘Big-Mac’ that you saw on television, however, is indeed a sin, for it becomes an unbridled desire for something that you don’t possess and that is covetousness in it’s most basic form!”
But we who have professed Jesus as our Saviour, we are now under Grace and so we are no longer under the law[13]! And, what does that mean? Does that mean that we can covet that Big-Mac and not worry about it? Heaven forbid, for that Big-Mac will make you fat! But, what about all theOld Testamenther stuff; the Lexus’, the I-pod’s? They are all still sins under the law! But Jesus takes us away from the law! We no longer live under the law, but under Grace! Do we still sin? Yes, we do! But, sin is no longer our master, for our master is now Jesus[14]. We are given freedom from the Law by Christ’s sacrifice for us on the Cross[15]. We are assured of that because of the love that God has for us. He demonstrated that love for us when He gives us His unmerited gift of forgiveness called Grace[16].


When we covet, we must repent[17], just as if we had committed adultery or stolen something. We must ask God for forgiveness, and we must try our best not to do that again. So many have been taught that even though they are Christians they will STILL go to hell because of sin(s) that they commit. They are taught that they must live "perfect" lives--as their master lived, and if they don't then they must repent for each and every transgression. This kind of teaching puts salvation upon the sinner and their ability to purify themselves. This ‘confession of sins’ then becomes 'work'--the 'work' of repentance![18]We learned from the Old Testament that this was not possible, for man kept on sinning no matter what.We learn from the N.T. that it's not works that saves ourselves, but we are saved by the love of our Father. That love is called Grace![19]We learn from the N.T. that we no longer have to pay a price for our sins, that we are saved through His love.I still sin, of course I do (we all do)[20], but now my sins are not because I love sin--for sin is no longer my master! But, I still sin because I can't help it. Sin is indwelt in my human nature. However, my fellowship with God is not put to the test because of my sins, for He knows me and has already forgiven me of each and every sin that I have done, am doing or the sins that I ever will do! Jesus did that some one thousand nine hundred and thirty odd years before I was born!
[1] Some might say that I have overstate the case about words, because vulgar words or bad words are inherently wrong; however, I would simply like to observe that bad words were given such a meaning by usage. For example, there have been words in the Bible to describe a donkey, that have by usage become relegated to vulgarity; i.e. Balaam’s ass. (Numbers chapter xxii), or, the name of an illegitimate child given the name "bastard" - however, “bastard” is hardly commonly used to mean such. It is usage by society and culture that I view as the leading influence for a word's vulgarity or rudeness, not the words themselves. Having said that, such usage for certain words is, unfortunately, necessary, at times, to make one’s point because, quite simply, there remains noOld Testamenther way to make some people understand outside of being just plain rude, crude, blunt and vulgar.

[2] Available for free download at: http://www.e-sword.net/

[3] Granted some of the tools on E-Sword are abridged in the extreme with no examples of certain meanings, particularly in the lexional material, but, using E-sword led me to purchase the full printed copies of Brown Driver Brigg’s Hebrew to English Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek to English Lexicon, Smith’s Biblical Dictionary, Nave’s Topical Bible as well as many, many more reference books that allow me to make full use of these materials as originally intended by the the original authors of these reference materials. Because of e-sword’s abridgement some errors can creep in, this is where the use of the printed version is mandated for the serious student, but for a quick, on-the-go type of study they function in a rudimentarily sort of way.


[4] Numbers inside the ( ) are those keyed to Strongs, which in turn is usually keyed to a large group of lexicons. G = Greek and H= Hebrew.

[5] All tools taken from E-Sword will be pre-fixed by an "e-" for electronic.
[6] Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies; William Wilson; Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, Massachusetts 01961; ISBN 0-917006-27-5; p. 101 (strangely enough, this book has no copyright date.).
[7] The New Strong’s Concise Concordance & Vine’s Concise Dictionary of the Bible, Two Bible Reference Classics In One Handy Volume; C. 1997, 1999 Thomas Nelson, Inc; Nashville, Tennessee. ISBN 0-7852-4254-6. p. 74 of the Vine’s Dictionary half of the volume which includes: epithumeo, zeloo, orego, epithumetes, epithumia, pleonexia, pleonektes, philafguros and aphilarguros all of which are definitions of the Greek words that have been translated as “Covet, Covetous and/or Covetousness in the New Testament.

[8] Romans vii:7b, paraphrased (HCSB)

[9] (H8378 ta'ăvâh (tah-av-aw') ((we might remember that this was one of the words discussed earlier)) BDB p. 16: a physical appetite, longing for dainty food. cf. Job xxxiii:20; ):

[10] (cf. Psalms xvi:14)
[11] (cf. Psalms cvi:26)

[12] Romans vi:23
[13] Romans vii:6
[14] Romans vi:14-15; Romans viii:1-2
[15] Romans vi:18
[16] Ephesians ii:8-9
[17] Matthew iii:2
[18] Romans iv:4-5
[19] Ephesians ii:8-9
[20] Isaiah lix:7-8; Psalms xiv:1-3; Psalms liii:1-6; Psalms cxlvii:20; Romans iii:9-18

Castle Doctrine -- the right to shoot first, or is it the right for self-defense?

Let's say that your daughter is at the grocery store. She's putting her groceries away in the trunk when a rapist comes out of nowhere, grabs her, and throws her to the ground. She picks up a rock and bashes the would-be attacker in the head, stopping him.

She's no-billed by the grand jury, meaning no criminal charges will be filed. However, the rapist winds up being severely brain damaged from her defense from his attack.

The rapist's family then sues her in civil court for his loss of wages, and for the care he'll need for the rest of his life. Is that her fault?

Well, in today's civil court system she loses, and must pay two million dollars to the family.

Now, that is what the castle doctrine bill is all about!

Legitimizing self defense, anywhere you can legally be.

It's about protecting people who obviously defend themselves from the cost of friviolous lawsuits. The Castle Doctrine laws allow for protection against such friviolous lawsuits as well.

Even if your daughter was sued and won, she'd have thousands of dollars of legal bills. IS that right? The Castle Doctrine also allows for: If the attacker's family sues and looses, then they must pay all of the court costs as well as your legal fees for your successful defense.

The Brady folks are against this, I'm not, and I hope that you aren't either.

Russ

The Olivet Discourse on Grace Forums.doc

[quote=Justin]
It should be noted that the NIV has “Race” as an alternate translation for “Generation.” However, due to the many references of “This generation” in GoMatthew referring to the generation then alive, and the (TTBOMK) utter lack of any other source using genea for “race,” I have severe doubts fo this alternate translation.)
[/quote]

[quote=PastorKen]
…Being as the “this generation…” statement is followed just 2 verses later by the statement that, at least at this time, even the “Son of Man” (that would be Jesus) does not know the timing of His second coming, it seems highly unlikely to me that “this generation” is a reference to the generation of the apostles. Given the context (that he was describing the events of the “Great Tribulation” it seems fairly certain that He was using the term “this generation” as a reference that is seeing the events of the great tribulation taking place in order to emphasis his statement in the previous sentence that the “end of age” would be “near—at the doors.”
[/quote]

Pastor Ken,
I agree…

Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled.
(Matthew xxiv:34 KJVR)
_______________________________________________________

ἀμὴν[1] λέγω[2] ὑμῖν[3],
οὐ[4] μὴ[5] παρέλθῃ[6] ἡ[7]
γενεα[8]̀ αὕτη[9] ἕως[10]
ἂν[11] πάντα[12] ταῦτα[13] γένηται[14].
------------------------------------------
I tell you the truth,
this generation[15]
will certainly not pass away
until all these things have happened.
(Matthew xxiv:34 NIV)
**********************
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
ὅτι οὐ μὴ
παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ
αὕτη μέχρις οὗ
πάντα ταῦτα γένηται.
Mark xiii:30
***********************
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ
ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως
ἂν πάντα γένηται.
Luk 21:32
******************************

I must say, if you followed my footnoting of the Greek (I only posted the translation of the Greek for the passage in Matthew but I did provide the Greek for Mark xiii:30 and Luke xxi:32 and you will see that they use the identical wording in Greek), that I concur with Adam Clarke[16] for he writes:[17]

“γενεα αυτη, this race; i.e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled. Some translate γενεα αυτη, this generation, meaning the persons who were then living, that they should not die before these signs, etc., took place: but though this was true, as to the calamities that fell upon the Jews, and the destruction of their government, temple, etc., yet as our Lord mentions Jerusalem’s continuing to be under the power of the Gentiles till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, i.e. till all the nations of the world should receive the Gospel of Christ, after which the Jews themselves should be converted unto God, Romans xi:25, &c., I think it more proper not to restrain its meaning to the few years which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; but to understand it of the care taken by Divine providence to preserve them as a distinct people, and yet to keep them out of their own land, and from their temple service. But still it is literally true in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. John probably lived to see these things come to pass; compare Matthew xvi:28, with John xxi:22; and there were some rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these words who lived till the city was destroyed, viz. Rabban Simeon, who perished with the city; R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it; R. Zadoch, R. Ismael, and others. …

γενεα αυτη : This very race of men. It is certain that this word has two meanings in the Scriptures; that given in the text, and that above. Generation signifies a period of a certain number of years, sometimes more, sometimes less. In Deuteronomy i:35; Deuteronomy ii:14, Moses uses the word to point out a term of thirty-eight years, which was precisely the number in the present case; for Jerusalem was destroyed about thirty-eight years after our Lord delivered this prediction. But as there are other events in this chapter, which certainly look beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, and which were to take place before the Jews should cease to be a distinct people…[18]

The war began, as Josephus says[19], in the second year of the government of Gessius Florus, who succeeded Albinus, successor of Porcius Festus, mentioned Acts xxiv:27, in the month of May, in the twelfth year of Nero, and the seventeenth of Agrippa, mentioned Acts xxv and xxvi, that is, in May, a.d. 66.

The temple was burnt August 10, a.d. 70, the same day and month on which it had been burnt by the king of Babylon[20].

The city was taken September 8, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, or the year of Christ 70[21].

That was the end of the siege of Jerusalem, which began, as Josephus several times observes, about the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or our April. …” [22]

So we should become conscious that this is not the generation of just a few men—the men who lived at that time—but the generation of mankind as a whole, i.e.: the race of mankind. We need to realize that the race of man should not come to a close, until the execution of all of these things that Jesus foretold in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke actually happen.

Thus, it is therefore proved that this passage refers to the last days as well as the position of the Jews at that time. Just as with all other parts of God’s Word, we must both use them literally and symbolically for the passages do contain the mystery, the mystery that eludes us. This is the very reason that Jesus taught in parables, remember?

The events of the time past since the Lord uttered it confirm this thought. Neither in 1260 days, nor in 1260 years, after the days of Titus, neither in 38 days or 38 years after, did any event take place which could be the completion of the days spoken about in Daniel. Those periods are gone by many, many years ago now.

While Israel has been reunited in her homeland, She has not yet been delivered. Nor has Daniel stood in his lot at the end of days. So, we are all ‘standing by’ and waiting, but we should not be idle, but productive for the LORD.

[quote=NE Trips]
…Clearly some of the disciples themselves misunderstood this point. In the earliest knows Christian document, the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul seems to envisage that he and the Christians he was writing to would see the resurrection of the dead within their own lifetimes…
[/quote]

I remind thee, that we (along with Paul and the other disciples) have an everlasting, eternal life now that we are true Children of God, and we will indeed “see” the resurrection of the dead during our (now) eternal, everlasting life. It’s all in perspective, and my perspective does not end at the earthly grave but that our mortal death is just the beginning of our wonderful lives in Heaven with Jesus.

Pastor Ken… I learned a lot from your discussion of which tree that you loved (January 3, 2007 post), while leaning against a tree and describing the tree in your backyard… It was a very enlightening parable in its self.

And also, the fact that three questions were indeed asked and three questions were indeed answered, it is most reasonable to separate questions and answers in the proper context.

I am your brother in Christ, a child of God,

Russ

-------------------------------------------------



[1] ἀμὴν (amēn / am-ane') A word of Hebrew origin; properly firm, that is, (figuratively) trustworthy; I speak the truth; adverbially surely (often as interjection so be it): - amen, truly, verily.

[2] λέγω (legō / leg'-o) A primary verb; properly to “lay” forth, that is, (figuratively) relate (in words usually by using a systematic discourse; whereas ἔπω (epō / ep'-o) and φημί (phēmi / fay-mee') generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while ῥέω (rheō / hreh'-o) is properly to break silence merely, and λαλέω (laleō / lal-eh'-o) means to lecture earnestly and at length. Λέγω, here by implication, is to mean: - describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. Compare with Λόγος (logos / log'-os) which is something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

[3] ὑμῖν (humin / hoo-min') Irregular dative case of ὑμείς (humeis hoo-mice'); to (with or by) you: - ye, you, your (-selves).

[4] Ου (ou / oo) Also οὐκ ouk ook used before a vowel and οὐχ (ouch ookh) before an aspirate. Ου is A primary word; the absolutely negative (compare μή (mē / may) adverb; no or not: - + long, nay, neither, never, no (X man), none, [can-] not, + nothing, + special, un ([-worthy]), when, + without, + yet but. See also οὐ; μή (ou; mē / oo; may) as well as μῆκος (mēkos / may'-kos).

[5] μὴ ́ (mē / may) A primary particle of qualified negation (whereas οὐ (ou / oo) expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) not, (conjugationally) lest; also (as interrogative implying a negative answer [whereas οὐ expects an affirmative one]); whether: - any, but, (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise in), none, nor, [can-] not, nothing, that not, un [-taken], without. Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations.

[6] παρέλθῃ (parerchomai / par-er'-khom-ahee) From παρά (para / par-ah') and ἔρχομαι (erchomai / er'-khom-ahee) to come near or aside, that is, to approach (arrive), go by (or away), (figuratively) perish or neglect, (causatively) avert: - come (forth), go, pass (away, by, over), past, transgress.

[7] ἡ (hē / hay) In feminine form, the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

[8] γενεά (genea / ghen-eh-ah') Is from a derivative of γένος (genos / ghen'-os) which means a generation by implication a period of the persons (in OT times 100 years, in the NT 40 years and in more modern times 20 years) or the “kin” it can do this either abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively, individually or collectively. In this manner γένος can mean an age, a generation, a nation, or a much longer period of time. It can be used metaphorically to mean a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits and in character especially in a bad sense such as a perverse nation. γένος may also be used to signify the men of an age or time, as contemporaries and in this usage. γενεα may also mean the race of man as translated by the NIV, especially when taken with γένηται, which is the last word in this verse, (ginomai / ghin'-om-ahee) which gives us cause to take a further look into the proper meaning of γένος as it will come to pass, as in a future tense, not necessarily in a shorter span of time; such as in an age of time not as a measure of merely a lifetime during the first century.

[9] αὕτη (hautē / how'-tay) the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

[10] ἕως (heōs / heh'-oce) Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).

[11] ἄν (an / an) A primary particle, denoting a supposition, wish, possibility or uncertainty: - [what-, where-, whither-, who-]soever. Usually unexpressed except by the subjunctive or potential mood.

[12] πᾶς (pas / pas) Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

[13] ταῦτα (tauta / tow'-tah) Nomitive or these things: - + afterward, follow, + hereafter, X him, the same, so, such, that, then, these, they, this, those, thus.

[14] γένηται (ginomai / ghin'-om-ahee) A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

[15] Or race

[16] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke Adam Clarke (1760 or 1762–1832) who was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar. He is chiefly remembered for writing a commentary on the Bible which took him forty years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological resource for two centuries

[17] (Shock as Russ agrees with a non-Calvinist, but this only goes to prove that I listen to what each man has to say and not how he is particularly aligned)

[18] From Adam Clark’s discussion on Mark xiii:30
[19] Josephus Ant. b. xx. c. 11. s. 1

[20] op cit. Ant. b. xx. c. 11. s. 8
[21] op. cit. Ant. b. vi. c. 10
[22] Adam Clarke Commentary on the Bible via e-sword.

There was another shooting by a teen yesterday, this time in a crowded shopping mall in Utah.

This time, however, violence was thwarted by an off duty cop who was carrying a sidearm; an honorable man who stepped forward and was able to contain the situation so that further loss of innocent life occurred.

This 18 year old Bosnian Muslim, Sulejmen Talovic, who carried a backpack full of ammunition and wore a black trench coat, apparently wished to take quite a few with him.

More can be found here: There was another shooting by a teen yesterday, this time in a crowded shopping mall in Utah.

And I wonder why… why we should not be allowed to do more racial profiling?



And next... Who watched the Grammy's the other night?

Can you believe the Dixie Chicks winning?

I couldn't!

But, knowing the politics of the country, this was a direct stab at our President, nothing else--nothing more either.

I still won't have anything to do with Alex Baldwin, Al Gore or the Dixie Chicks.

Just my feelings...
Russ

I’m bored!

I’m the System Administrator of the company at which I work, and I am,
quite simply, bored to tears.

I’ve already hit the end of the Internet twice and I’m working on my third pass.

My network is setup and working just right, it seldom requires any attention, we’re not a growing company, so new additions are not happening. My attention is required when someone does not know how to type in their old password and then type in a new (and previously un-used) password twice. Then my services are required.

How can these people be expected to do their job when they can’t reset a simple password?

Or, they need to print, but they ignore the window that tells them they’re out of ink… duh!

Reminds me of the IT story that went around years ago:

One day an IT guy got a call from a customer, it went like this:

IT guy: “Hello, this is #3!! Computers, how may I help you?”
Customer: “My computer just went blank!”
IT: “Well is it plugged in?”
Customer: “Yes.”
IT: “Is the monitor turned on?”
Customer: “Yes.”
IT: “Are you plugged into a power strip, or directly to the wall?”
Customer: “Power strip.”
IT: “Is the power strip plugged into the wall?”
Customer: “I can’t tell?”
IT: “Why?”
Customer: “Well it’s dark back there!”
IT: “Try turning on a light.”
Customer: “Well… That won’t work, we’re in a power failure.”

IT:

Oh, well; I’ve applied for a new job. Now just waiting is killing me. If I get it I’ll be real happy, if I don’t… well I’ll just have to look some more.

Until then, I’m bored.

Russ

How is it that the bleeding heart liberals of our nation, i.e.: the Democrats, want to blame George Bush, and the Republicans, for the state of our country?

I mean, in 2005 (the latest year that figures are published for) unemployment is down and that is George's fault. The Republicans must apologize for this after all there are fewer people on welfare today than 10 years ago; Oh, who was the president ten years ago? That's right a Democrat, a guy named Clinton, a man who's wife wishes to return the country to the glory days of unemployment and higher government debt because of unemployment claims.

What's wrong with this picture.

I’ve had this blog for a while, I’ve posted some of my religious writings here, as there is nothing before anything but God Himself.

But, I do enjoy reading the posts of one Lawdog.

Nobody does it better.