rfw

First question: Gog and magog are mentioned in Ezekiel, magog in Genesis. Ezekiel calls them up as a kind of buzzword for any barbarous, strong people out of the north. In Barnes Notes, Gog is considered to be the king, Magog the nation. He also mentions places identified with these people that would fall within the region of Russia, but explains that a particular people is not necessarily meant, but a general opposition to God and His people. I've heard a few evangelists identify these peoples with those modern nations, but that was more during the height of the Cold War, when it was easy and "logical" to put these together in a supposed prophetic connection. I'm not saying there isn't a connection, but I tend to lean toward seeing Gog and Magog as spiritual shorthand for man's sinful and rebellious nature let loose. And in fulfillment of prophecy, this may be manifest through those modern-day nations. Second question: Some modern day place names are essentially continuous (they've been around since their founding): Jerusalem, Damascus, etc. Others are archaeologists best guess based on historical records, digs, local tradition, etc. And some are lost to antiquity. Most Bible maps try to place ancient important sites, but if there is uncertainty, a question mark is placed in parentheses on the map.

Therefore, do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:16-17 If you cannot eat it with a clear conscience, then don't eat it. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23 As a Christian, I know that God has made everything good. I also know that He is my Shield and Salvation, and there is nothing in or of this world that can touch me for evil. (I'm not speaking here of sinful choices like adultery, or recreational drug use, but food). I receive food with thankfulness to God, and enjoy it without concern for what someone else's "prayers" may accomplish, trusting that by His Grace, I can enjoy all things. "It is for freedom Christ has set us free..." Galations 5:1

OK, God says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". But He also says "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while were were still sinners, Christ died for us." He LOVES all sinners, and provides the means for us to be set free from the RIGHTEOUS PENALTY of that sin. He never hated us, only the sin. Again, He hates SIN and what it does in His Creation. He loved us as His own special treasure, even in our ruined state. He demonstrated that Love in the sacrifice of the Christ. Our salvation was accomplished in that sacrifice. His love is not conditional at all, but His righteous judgement will fall on those who reject that sacrifice. Agreed that those who preach a "universal" salvation that simply overlooks sin and our sinful nature have totally missed the boat, are completely wrong. This is what the Bible says: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body." Ephesians 5:29-30 agnew, I highly recommend the book of Ephesians to you, as it speaks to the struggles we each have with our sinful nature. A key thing to remember is that the Christian walk is just that: a journey. When you began life in the flesh, your world was extremely limited by the things you couldn't do: You couldn't walk, or talk, or control anything in your life. But you didn't stay there. You grew, and learned, and developed. As a Christian, you are in a similar process. As an old song says, "I ain't what I ought to be, I ain't what I'm gonna be, But Thank God, I'm not what I was." Continue in the journey, strive to resist sin (Hebrews 12:4), focus your mind, heart and desires on the things of God (Colossians 3: 1-10), and remember: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

Prayed for you this morning.

The issue Jesus is directly addressing here is personal attacks on us, and our respone to them. It is not about standing wimpily by the side while injustice or violence is perpetrated on another. It is about living out the character of Christ, who personally demonstrated these qualities, yet He took a whip to the money changers in the Temple, and had many choice, even insulting, words for the religious elite of His day. The disciple of Jesus is LEARNING to be like Him. We don't always reach the ideal, but that doesn't change the ideal, or our reasons for striving for it. We need to continue to strive to be like Him, that we may demonstrate the difference between man's abilities and God's.

VeggieTales videos are very good (even though I'm grown, I still find them funny) Focus on the Family has a series called McGee and Me (Haven't seen it, but heard it's good) You might also check out some of the creationist websites. There are some that will loan out age-appropriate videos. I think Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research do that. Try www.creationism.org, there are many links, and some also have magazines/books for download. Rick

Continuing the horse metaphor, I've heard of a working ranch in the American west, where every morning when the cowboys (or girls) come to the corral, they find the horses quietly waiting in line, ready to be chosen for the day's work. Biblical brokenness is purposeful, and results not in a ruined life, but a rescued one. Then when we are employed for the Master's work, we are useful, not contrary.

. Some interpret "sons of God" as angels, some interpret it as descendants of Seth - the Godly line, with the descendants of Cain - the ungodly line - being called the daughters of men. My opinion: since Jesus said that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage, that excludes them as a possibility. So I would tend to lean toward a differentiation between those who sought after God and those who sought only after the things of the flesh. I also saw one commentator who believed that the word translated "giants" in this passage actually referred more to attitude (conqueror) than stature.

What we think about any of these men is less important than what God thinks about them. However, Billy Graham early in his ministry realized the need for financial accountability, and has always kept open books, unlike Hinn and many others. He has been proven faithful and trustworthy in his ministry, and doesn't try to pick the pockets of his listeners. He has indeed been a counselor to many presidents (including the present one), but I doubt that any of them considered him their chief spiritual advisor, and most of them probably ignored his best advice. Bush's statement about all worshipping the same God just demonstrates that while he may be the commander in chief, he is not qualified to be the theologian in chief. He needs our prayers far more than our criticism. I'm certain that the Holy Spirit will lead him into the truth about this and many other things, just like He will any of us.

Jesus said For most of those who post here, the answer to that question is "none". We have found that same emptiness you mentioned, which is common, and found that we have it filled in Christ. Jesus also said As the others would testify, we have found Him to be true, and trustworthy. The very fact that you are seeking is a step in the right direction. We hope you will follow the advice and direction given, and we expect that God is already at work in your life to reveal Himself to you, perhaps through people you already know. We look forward to hearing more from you.

There are too many CHristians I've known who need the framework of a "method". It is not that they don't have compassion, or even knowledge, they need a plan. THere's nothing wrong with having a plan, plenty of Proverbs speak to that. Without the help of a method, most will not dare to share. The Holy Spirit is able to use the willing and available, and for many, the comfort of training and preparation makes them far more willing, and thus more available to get out there and witness. That doesn't mean we should limit the Gospel to a presentation: it can't all be contained in one. But if we have a beginning, we have a place to grow from. So while I understand your opinion, I don't agree with it. Having been an EE trainer, and still use the framework, I know its value, and its limitations. Just because I can't use a saw as a hammer doesn't mean I should throw it away if it still does the job it was designed for. I just have to add more tools to my box to handle the different problems that arise.

We all have different tastes, and I believe it is possible to praise God and to be moved by Him through many styles. My first and foremost word is that much of entertainment oriented music has lyric issues that the Christian should be aware of. The old computer saying "garbage in, garbage out" is true for the most complex and bug-free computer ever invented: the human brain. If you fill your heart with only what is vile, then that's what will come out of your mouth and out of your life. Something I've noticed over the years, listening to music from various genres, there are common themes, love and hope chief among them. I've begun to believe that many songwriters and performers who follow such themes, even when they are focusing on sinful indulgence, are actually seeking after a Love that will not fade, and is not subject to the ravages of time, or fickle feelings. Much of what has been popular music is actually a hungering and thirsting after the living God. Waddaya thunk about that?

First, let's define "disciple". A disciple is someone who is learning, and more than that is putting into practice the training from a master. As a disciple of Christ, with the goal of becoming like Him, I need to be learning some specific things. First, I need to be learning my Master's Words. As I fill my heart and mind with His Truth, I am more and more ready to face whatever comes in life. Second, I need to be learning my Master's Ways. Only by putting into practice the "What Would Jesus Do" mindset will I become effective as a Christian. Even gifted athletes must develop and hone their skills if they would succeed, and so must we. Third, I need to be doing my Master's Will. You mentioned a Scripture that speaks to that, and there are many more. Christian training is never complete until we reproduce. Too many churches and christians out there are content to be keepers of aquariums, when we have a higher and much more exciting call. Someone interested in the martial arts can find multitudes of books, videos, magazines on the subject. He might even begin to teach himself some of the basics in that way, but odds are he will never be adept unless he submits himself to a master. In the same way, a convert will never be adept or effective until he becomes a disciple, and part of that discipleship is passing on what you have learned.

They do!! Most of the creationist websites have credentialed scientists and not laymen providing the information. And they provide documentation of both their information sources and their credentials. I recognize we may not convince you. You seem determined to receive only the indoctrination you had before coming here. But there is light, if only you will see it. I urge you to examine the online book linked from my previous post, and see if there might not be some alternate explanation to what you have been taught.

The basic premise of evolutionism denies any purpose or meaning in life, or any responsibility to yourself or your neighbors, other than to please yourself and pass on your genes. If there is no God to give an ultimate answer to, there is no valid evolutionary reason to hold to any moral standard that does not forward those goals. Thus you have Nazism and Communism, and a few other "-isms" that arise with the idea of a Master Race subjugating the rest of the world and excusing all sorts of monstrous actions because their focus is "sub-human". Opposed to that, you have true Christianity, ideally devoted to sacrificial love that values even those we disagree with. Does faith in the theory of evolution immediately destroy society, or even those who believe it? No. But the seeds of their destruction are in their blind faith in the aforementioned basic premise. And there will be payday someday.

Evolution Here's your chance Double d. I'm no scientist, but the information I read in the above link seems very compelling to me. Check it out. See if what you've been taught can stand against it.

Actually, guys like me really think that way. That's why God gave us women, to keep us from being comfortable in our slovenliness The grass ISN'T greener on the other side. It's BROWN! Because of that tooth-brushing thing.

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. Gal. 6:7-8 There seem to be a lot of people out there who think that they can indulge their sinful desires, and then attend some religious observance, perform some small act of "penance", and everything will be OK. But the truth is, you cannot continue in willful sin without consequences. Your friend may not want to hear it, but that's the way it is. Numbers 32:23

12 Quotes from Leading Evolutionists This page may be freely copied: http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm Evolution is science? It is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth. The following 12 quotes are from leading and well known scientists and researchers. A larger work with 130 similar quotes is available: "The Revised Quote Book", edited by Dr. A. Snelling, PhD, pub. by: Creation Science Foundation, Australia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'." Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'. "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'" Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." Pierre-Paul Grass

Ron Lyttle is a volunteer Animal Talker at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, specializing in bats from around the world. In fact, he is usually referred to by his colleagues and tourists as: Batman. He has written the article below, and has agreed to allow its inclusion on this web page. Ron is also an active member of DSA, Oregon's "Design Science Association" for the study of creation/evolution issues. Please notice the copyright information in the Introduction: http://www.creationism.org/ (see link below). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COULD LIFE "JUST HAPPEN"? by Ron Lyttle THE STORY Millions of years ago, evolutionists will tell you, many chemicals were swirling around in lifeless seas (or ponds, or puddles) here on earth. Methane gas was in the atmosphere being bombarded with cosmic rays from outer space, and powerful lightning bolts arced through the skies, lighting up the desolate landscape. Given enough time, cosmic rays, and lightning bolts, a "primordial soup" gradually formed which contained amino acids. These in turn got hooked together to form simple proteins, the "building blocks" of life. At some point these proteins happened to get connected in just the right way, and a threshold was crossed: the proteins started reproducing themselves, and simple life was "born". During uncounted eons, this simple life gradually became more and more complex as chance modifications of the original proteins combined with external conditions of moisture, temperature, food supply, etc., to eventually produce all the varied and complex life forms inhabiting first the oceans, then the land, and finally the air, that we see today. Homo sapiens is seen as the topmost branch in the evolutionary tree of life, but the tree is still growing, and who knows what the next branches will look like? REALITY CHECK While the above is an interesting story, and variations of it (with many imaginative details added) are taught in most schools and universities around the world as the scientific explanation for the origin and development of life, more and more people are asking, "Is that really how we came to be? Do those people who call themselves scientists really know what they are talking about?" After all, nobody was around millions of years ago to watch the stirring of the primordial soup, or to see the first fish crawl out onto land, or to see the first winged creature take to the air in powered flight. The story of evolution is a pretty one, but is it supported by the facts? RNA & DNA Every living thing, from the most simple virus to the most complex animal, contains in its cells very complex compounds called nucleic acid . There are two forms, called ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Viruses contain only one or the other, but cells contain both. While RNA controls protein production, DNA is the main component in chromosomes, which provide the blueprint or pattern of heredity. Every time a cell divides into two, the RNA in the cell body and the DNA in the nucleus must be exactly copied, with one copy going with each cell. DNA is an incredibly complex molecule, resembling a long ladder that has been twisted into a spiral. The sides of the ladder are made up of compounds called phosphates and sugars , while the "rungs" are composed of two of four possible bases in all the possible combinations. The exact make-up and order of "rungs" varies from one kind of living thing to another. Each DNA "ladder" has about 20,000 "rungs", and each chromosome contains many thousands of DNA molecules. RNA has a similar structure, but the sugar is different, and one of the four bases is also different. Since it is the chromosomal DNA (and in some cases RNA) that provides the blueprint for each cell and individual, if any of the thousands of rungs gets damaged, or if different combinations get substituted in the copy, that cell will be defective. Contrary to popular belief, most changes in the DNA structure (mutations) at best weaken, and at worst kill the cell. Only a very few are neutral, and beneficial changes are virtually non-existent. To produce a healthy, fully-functional individual, each copy of DNA and RNA must be identical to the original, down to the last "rung". THE POINT That such complexity could arise from "primordial soup" by random-chance chemical reactions is statistically, bio-chemically, and thermodynamically impossible. 1) There are too many connections in a DNA molecule to ever occur by chance, no matter how long you allow. 2) When biochemists have managed to produce simple amino acids in simulated "soup", it was by carefully controlling the conditions; there was nothing "random" or "chance" about the process, and the leap from simple amino acids to a DNA molecule is astronomical . 3) The second law of thermodynamics says that order moves toward disorder, and complex moves toward simple (not the other way around), unless acted upon by a higher force . Lightning bolts (the supposed driving force behind the chemical reactions) are actually great randomizers. The notion that anything as complex as a DNA molecule could arise by accident is therefore a non-scientific absurdity! YEAH, BUT... For the sake of discussion, suppose that a strand of DNA did somehow come together, and suppose further that thousands united to form a functional chromosome, and many chromosomes all joined forces (and no lightning bolt blasted the whole collection apart). You still only have a blueprint, a list of instructions telling how to make a living organism. It takes a living cell to use that blueprint, but it takes that blueprint to make a living cell. (To this seeming paradox evolutionists can only mumble, "it must have happened somehow . Life exists, doesn't it?") AN EXAMPLE I work in a manufacturing plant. We buy raw iron and brass castings that our machine shop turns into finished parts that our assemblers put together to make pumps. The machinist gets a blueprint created by the Engineering Department that shows all the dimensions of the finished part, and special instructions like how smooth a surface has to be, what thread size for tapped holes, "start machining here," etc. You can lay that blueprint on a raw casting and watch it for a billion years and it won't make a finished part. But the machinist picks it up, puts the casting in his machine, and when he is done a part is ready for use. He needs the blueprint to tell him how to make the part, and the blueprint is worthless without the machine and operator. So it is with DNA and living cells. Each needs the other to function, and together they can make new cells. IN CONCLUSION Far from being a logical, scientific, provable explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, Evolution appears to be a belief system held to with as much religious faith as any other creed, with the added difficulty of being contrary to known facts. To believe in evolution, a "scientist" must throw out the scientific method, suspend his common sense, and twist or ignore the facts. That so many continue to do so, and belittle those who dare to challenge their belief, shows the strength of their faith. Far from being open-minded seekers of truth, evolutionists appear to be closed-minded, dogmatic "defenders of the faith". Did life "just happen"? What do you think? "COULD LIFE 'JUST HAPPEN'?" is Copyright 1998, by Ron Lyttle ronlyttle@iname.com <http://www.creationism.org/batman/> Go to the Introduction of: www.creationism.org

ERLC The url above is a link to a place where you can buy materials that relate to your question. Here is a little more food for thought: Dr. David Heimbach, quoted in Faith and Family Values magazine, July/August 2005 Many people have taken Yoda's advice to heart "Trust your feelings young jedi" But feelings have a way of changing, and being affected by everything around you, from the weather, to what you had for lunch, to the cologne someone is wearing. So many divorces in America begin with the phrase "I just don't love you anymore." which translates as "I don't FEEL the same attraction for you that I used to". Love for your future spouse should outlast the original attraction, and actually begin before you meet, as you keep yourself pure for the one you will be joined with.

Does anyone love you more than God does? It is not unusual for those facing long-term illness or death to question (as in John the Baptist or Jeremiah). God is neither surprized nor disappointed in you. He is longing for you to prove what you have been taught about Him. And His peace will really guard your heart and mind in Christ Jesus. Don't let your temporary circumstances upset your vision of your eternal joy in Him.

A quick search revealed 193 hits on the word "joy" in the Bible. That's not counting words like gladness, rejoice,etc. That tells me that it's a significant spiritual expression. That doesn't mean that only Christians experience joy, but I have noted that most of the replies so far have to do with feeling, or what we would consider positive events. But the Christian can (and does) experience joy even in the midst of pain, sorrow, and suffering. I don't always express joy in my daily living (especially in traffic ), but it is always available, accessed by faith in the One who created it in me. The little book of Philippians is an interesting study. Only 4 brief chapters, written to a small group of struggling believers from a man with many groups on his mind. What makes this little book special is the number of references to joy in its short space. Oh yeah, and when Paul wrote it, he was in prison yet again, and not a relatively cushy comfortable modern western prison. I guess we shouldn't be surprized. If you can take a beating, be locked in stocks in a dungeon among all kinds of criminals, with open wounds on your body, and have a Praise-athon at midnight (Acts 16), a little jail time for your faith doesn't slow you down much. When stuff happens to upset your plans, when you fail, when trouble comes, that is the very time to rejoice, "...for the joy of the Lord is your strength." Nehemiah 8:10

Be sure you've got the whole armor. If asked whether you'd like to join, remember that oaths are forbidden for the Christian (let your yes be yes and your no be no). If you won't swear to their bloody and secret oaths, they should let you be. This is indeed the gritty stuff. And they will almost certainly play a PR game with you, pointing to "church men" in their midst, and emphasizing the good works that is their public face. Remember that Satan played games with Eve, downplaying the clear command of God while emphasizing the "benefits" of forbidden fruit. But don't be afraid. The Lord will sustain you and give give you all the grace you need in time of temptation. Be strong in the Lord.

It's too bad he didn't have better preparation, but then again, he's not the Theologian in Chief, but the Commander in Chief. By the way, I'm glad to hear that you are standing up for Christ. The Truth in Love is a mighty weapon!