All posts for the month July, 2011

Forget what you heard, dinosaurs didn’t become birds

If you’ve ever taken a class covering dinosaurs, you know one of the theories about their disappearance is that some of them evolved into birds.  But a close look at bird anatomy says differently.

The respiratory system of birds is rather unique.  Mammals, amphibians, and reptiles have a two-way lung system.  When air is taken in, it goes down the trachea, through the bronchi, and into the lungs.  When air is exhaled, it just goes out in the opposite direction of how it was inhaled.

A bird has an elaborate system of nine air sacs throughout its body as shown in the diagrams. Its respiratory system has a one-way lung system and its lungs do not expand. Inhaled air goes down the trachea, through the bronchi, into posterior air sacs while stale air enters its anterior air sacs, waiting to be exhaled.  When exhalation occurs, all air sacs collapse, forcing the stale air up the trachea and out of the body as inhaled air is pushed into the lungs.  This causes a continuous flow of air through the bird lung so the lungs remain rigid and don’t expand.

If air sacs as seen in birds were to ever develop in mammals, amphibians, or reptiles, this would be a mutation creating dead space in their respiratory systems which would cause deficiencies in the flow of air through the lungs leading to death.  Such air sacs would be prone to burst and air would escape out of the respiratory system into other tissues.  If an embryo in these animal groups developed such air sacs, the lungs would either fail to develop causing the death of the embryo, or it would lead to deformities in other systems of the body, or render lungs prone to severe lung disease.  Furthermore, lungs that expand like the lizard’s could not survive morphing into a rigid lung like the bird lung because this would kill the animal.

Pterosaurs and some bipedal (walking on two feet) land dinosaurs have evidence of possessing air sacs in their abdomens like birds, so Darwinian scientists have concluded these dinosaurs probably became birds.  But the construction of the bird’s joints throws a monkey wrench into this theory.  The joints in birds cause each rib to have two sections.  One section connects to the spine, while the other connects to the breast bone.  Such joints allow birds the flexibility to move their chest wall outwards and backwards.

These joints make it possible for any air sacs in the abdomen to inflate.  And here’s the kicker–none of the dinosaurs (archaeopteryx pictured above included) having evidence of air sacs in their abdomens possess these special joints so their air sacs could not inflate.  But that’s only part of the problem of their theory.

Air sacs in the abdomen would collapse from negative pressure from chest expansion if they are not provided the correct rigid support.  Birds don’t have this problem because their femurs support the side of their abdomens and it hardly moves.  This is due to the fact that a bird’s movements rely on the knees and ankles so the femur remains virtually stationary. This gives the required rigid support to the air sacs.

On the other hand, femurs in bipedal dinosaurs were moveable and would not have given the rigid support necessary to prevent the collapse of the air sacs in their abdomens.  So scientists have concluded that air sacs in the bipedal dinosaurs would have been minimal and could not have functioned to move air through the lung system as the air sacs do in birds.  Therefore, dinosaurs could not have had the same type of respiratory system as birds.

When you add to all of these facts that there are no transitional fossils demonstrating how dinosaurs evolved into birds, the truth becomes rather clear.  Birds didn’t evolve.  They were made in the same form as they appear today.  Dinosaurs were also created separately and they were created after the birds.  And that truth is revealed in Genesis 1:21-25–

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

Source: Sodera, Vij. One Small Speck to Man: the Evolution Myth. 2nd revised edition. Vija Sodera Productions, 2009, pages 303-308.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

6 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 27, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, creationism, evolution, religion, science
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 27, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/forget-what-you-heard-dinosaurs-didnt-become-birds/

Unity–but at what cost?

I recently watched a Christian conference on a Christian station where a dynamic speaker with a military background urged Christians to get together and unite since we are facing some strong enemies coming against us at this time in history.  He implied it was high time to set aside our differences and doctrines to rally around what we agree on whether we be Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, or whatever.

This seems to be happening quite often recently with Christians welcoming the likes of Glenn Beck (a new ager claiming to be Mormon) to speak to them or seminaries that hire imams to their staff.  Is this the type of unity that Christ and his apostles had in mind?

I’m reminded of what Paul said in Ephesians 4 about unity–

1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,  2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;  3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; …

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;  12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

The unity that so many are talking about today in religious circles is nothing more than a call for compromise.  We are being taught to look for areas to agree on with those we want to partner with and to ignore our disagreements because they don’t matter.  But the Bible teaches something different.  When Christ and the apostles spoke of unity, the focus was on unity of the Spirit and unity of the faith.  Unity is supposed to be the result of Christians walking worthy of our vocation, i.e. obeying Christ’s commandments through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Unity is supposed to mean that when Christians exercise spiritual gifts like prophecy and evangelism, and saints perfect their godly knowledge, and put their knowledge into practice by fulfilling their ministry, and build up the spiritual strength of the body of Christ, then we end up being like-minded and focused together on what pleases God.

So if an organization is teaching that you can pray to dead people and bow down before porcelain statues to pray, we cannot be united in Spirit.  If  someone teaches that our salvation can be lost if we don’t always do the right thing–a salvation based on works–then I cannot be united with them in Spirit.  If someone teaches that Jesus is only our elder brother, not God, and that we will one day rule over a planet when we die and have loads of spiritual children with multiple wives in paradise, I cannot be united with them in Spirit.  If someone teaches that there is no Trinity but God is Jesus only, the Bible says he who does not have the Father does not have the Son, and I cannot be united with them in Spirit.

If a unity being promoted among Christians is a unity that costs me the sound doctrine taught in God’s word, a unity calling on me to compromise what God commands, then that is a cost I am unwilling to pay for a unity that is false.  The apostle John summed it up so eloquently in 2 John–

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

I refuse to be partaker in the evil deeds of false doctrine for the sake of “unity,” so if I face an enemy that seems so overwhelming to me like a Socialist-leaning President or a Socialist-leaning court system or unjust laws, I will trust in the Lord to give me help from trouble, for vain is the help of man when he is not in unity with the Spirit.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

2 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 21, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, church, life, religion
Tagged ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 21, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/unity-but-at-what-cost/

Can the Quran be considered reliable?

If a Christian happens to find themselves in a discussion with a Muslim about who’s holy book is better, some Muslims will make the claim that since the Bible is older than the Koran, the Bible should be considered outdated.  They argue that God gives updated revelations to men over time and that the Quran is updated information to replace the Bible.  Their belief is that the Quran is the only truth and that the Bible has been corrupted by evil men since it does not agree with what the Koran says.

However, they seem to be unaware that even their prophet Mohammed in his earlier years claimed the truth revealed to him should be verified by the Bible.  If we were to follow their argument about newer is better, then both the Book of Mormon and the Jehovah Witness Bible, which came after the Koran, would make the Quran outdated. Here’s what was “revealed” to Mohammed–

We did indeed aforetime
Give the Book to Moses:
Be not then in doubt
Of its reaching (thee):
And We made it
A guide to the Children
Of Israel.

And We appointed, from among
Them, Leaders, giving guidance
Under Our command, so long
As they persevered with patience
And continued to have faith
In Our Signs. [Sura 32: 23-24]

And if they reject thee,
So did their predecessors,
To whom came their apostles
With Clear Signs, Books
Of dark prophecies,
And the Book
Of Enlightenment.

In the end did I
Punish those who rejected
Faith: and how (terrible)
Was My rejection (of them)! [Sura 35:25-26]

So Mohammed is told that the children of Israel were blessed with guidance when they followed the Bible and that rejection of the writings of the apostles in the Bible brought punishment. Basically, even Mohammed claimed he was told to follow the Bible.

The better question would then be which book presents facts accurately?  I will now give a few examples for how the Quran can’t seem to get it’s facts straight–

That they rejected Faith;
That they uttered against Mary
A grave false charge;

That they said (in boast),
“We killed Christ Jesus
The son of Mary,
The Apostle of God”;—
But they killed him not,
Nor crucified him,
But so it was made
To appear to them,
And those who differ
Therein are full of doubts,
With no (certain) knowledge,
But only conjecture to follow,
For of a surety
They killed him not:— [Sura 4: 156-157]

It is historically proven fact mentioned in the ancient writings of the Talmud, Cornelius Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed crucified and really died, so Mohammed obviously didn’t check his facts.

In Sura 37:100-108, the Quran claims Abraham took Ishmael to sacrifice him and not Isaac, as the Bible claims in Gen. 22–

[37.100] My Lord! grant me of the doers of good deeds.
[37.101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.
[37.102] And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones.
[37.103] So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead,
[37.104] And We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim!
[37.105] You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good:
[37.106] Most surely this is a manifest trial.
[37.107] And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice.
[37.108] And We perpetuated (praise) to him among the later generations.

The Koran says in Sura 19:23 that Jesus was born to Mary under a palm tree, not a stable as told to us in Luke 2–

[19.22] So she conceived him; then withdrew herself with him to a remote place.
[19.23] And the throes (of childbirth) compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten!
[19.24] Then (the child) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you;
[19.25] And shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates:

The Quran says in Sura 40 tbat Haman was in Egypt at the same time as Moses and that Pharaoh hired Haman to build the Tower of Babel–

[40.23] And certainly We sent Musa with Our communications and clear authority,
[40.24] To Firon (pharaoh) and Haman and Qaroun, but they said: A lying magician…
[40.26] And Firon said: Let me alone that I may slay Musa and let him call upon his Lord; surely I fear that he will change your religion or that he will make mischief to appear in the land…
[40.36] And Firon said: O Haman! build for me a tower that I may attain the means of access,
[40.37] The means of access to the heavens, then reach the God of Musa, and I surely think him to be a liar. And thus the evil of his deed was made fairseeming to Firon, and he was turned away from the way; and the struggle of Firon was not (to end) in aught but destruction.

However, both the Bible and secular history agree that Haman served under King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in Persia. The Bible says the Tower of Babel was built in Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq, not in Egypt. The Tower of Babel and Haman were also in completely different time periods from each other and from Moses and Pharaoh.

If the Koran says Muhammad’s revelations can be verified by the Bible, why doesn’t the Koran agree with the Bible? Muslims claim this is because all Bibles have been tampered with, but in reality the only Bible manuscripts that show any tampering are the manuscripts from the Alexandrian texts. The Masoretic and Textus Receptus have no evidence whatsoever of being tampered with. Furthermore, history recorded in ancient times by people who had nothing to do with the Bible, verify the existence of characters in the Bible like Haman, Mary, and Jesus and verify the culture or incidences mentioned in the Bible that affected their lives.

Passages from the Quran even show that it is scientifically inaccurate. Sura 18:86 says, “Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.” Everyone knows the sun doesn’t go down into a black sea.

There is only one book that can be counted on to convey reliable spiritual truths in addition to reliable history and reliable science and that’s the Bible. All other so-called “holy books” just don’t compare.

For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. [Psalm 33:4]

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

11 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 19, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, Islam, religion
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 19, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/can-the-quran-be-considered-reliable/

Playing both sides against the middle class

According to the popular cliche “If a dog bites you once, shame on the dog.  If it bites you again, shame on you.” Well the dogs in Washington are trying to bite again with the back-and-forth over the President and Democrats trying to raise our debt ceiling.  I have experienced a whole range of emotions from laughter to anger at this dog & pony show.  Some of these politicians from both sides of the aisle believe you can fool all of the people all of the time.  But they aren’t fooling me.  What they’re selling, I’m not buying.  I’m not going to let the dog bite me again by buying into their arguments.

The President has been trying to foment an “all-rich-people-are-out-to-get-the-middle-class” argument to push his tax hike and wants us to believe we’re headed for Armageddon.  The Republicans are claiming that closing loopholes in laws and regulations that the rich take advantage of amounts to a burdensome tax hike that will send the economy into a tailspin of massive proportions.  I believe they’re both wrong.  Why?  We’ve witnessed all of these fear-mongering arguments within the past three to four years to push the following:

  • Bank bailout of 2008: We were told by politicians from both parties that we had to bailout financial institutions with the “too-big-to-fail” argument.  The argument went something like “If we don’t bail them out, we’ll all suffer dire consequences.  We have to get the banks to lend again.”  And what happened?  For several months, no one knew where the money went until the citizens cried out for accountability.  Then we found out ridiculous bonuses were handed out within the organizations while small businesses and individuals could not get loans from those institutions as stated in the debates to pass the bailout.  And the middle class continued to shrink with the loss of jobs and skyrocketing home foreclosures.
  • Stimulus package of 2009: We were told that the Stimulus Package, or the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, was necessary to keep unemployment below 8% and to get shovel ready projects off and running for job creation or the unemployment would hit levels not seen since the Great Depression.  It would be nothing but doom & gloom if the Stimulus Bill didn’t pass.  What happened when it passed?  Unemployment stayed above 9% and the middle class has continued to shrink.  The housing market has not improved either.
  • Health Care Reform of 2010 (Obamacare): By this time, most Americans got wise to what was really going on in Washington.   Unfortunately, we allowed the Democrats the run of the ravenous dog sanctuary and they passed Obamacare in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans didn’t want Obamacare.  In their attempts to brainwash us, Americans were told there would be unnecessary deaths if Obamacare didn’t pass.  We were told it would be the only way to keep medical costs down.  We were told it was crucial that all Americans be required to buy health insurance so the poor wouldn’t have to decide between paying for life-saving medication or paying for food and housing. Then what happened?  As parts of Obamacare were put into effect, health care costs continued to rise and government debt was driven up because of the billions needed to start and continue Obamacare.  And the middle class continues to shrink, while the rich continue to get richer.  Obamacare has even promoted unnecessary death in the form of government money that can be filtered towards killing babies in the womb.

Now the dogs want us to believe their predictions of all hell breaking loose if we don’t raise the debt ceiling so they can spend, spend, spend some more while the middle class shrinks even more.  And they want us to believe that we should not in any way close loopholes in the laws big enough for a whale to get through that some of the super rich take advantage of to avoid taxes.  It’s no coincidence that the middle class always gets the short end of the deal whether it’s Democrats or Republicans that get their way.

That’s not to say the middle class is blameless.  Some of us have continued to live above our means even in this down economy.  We allowed our lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life run our bank accounts and credit cards which weakened our financial stability.  It’s also unfortunate that those of us who go to college to get an education buy into the lies of college professors who proclaim that capitalism is bad and socialism with its atheism/agnosticism is good, not knowing that socialism requires the killing off of the middle class to be successful.

But many of us in the middle class have been responsible stewards of what God has blessed us with.  We pay off our debts in a timely fashion and keep them to a minimum.  For instance, the only debts I have are a mortgage and a car note–a car note that will be paid off soon.

However, the fact that some in the middle class have been irresponsible is not a justification to kill it off like those in power want to do while they continue their own irresponsible, self-serving ways at the behest of organizations like the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission.  Texas Governor Rick Perry is right.  We need prayer to the one true God and we need to put God’s word into practice in our lives.  Otherwise, the current debt situation will be the least of our concerns in the future.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 16, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, economics, greed, politics, religion
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 16, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/playing-both-sides-against-the-middle-class/

Liberal media’s attacks on Michelle Bachmann

Hmmm…. So let me get this straight. (Yes, pun intended). ABC News (or shall I say ABC Skews?) paraded health professionals on their broadcast who claim that ministries like the one Michelle Bachmann’s husband are involved in are harmful to homosexuals for urging homosexuals to leave the lifestyle.

I guess instead of urging homosexuals to make the godly choice of being heterosexual, it seems the liberals would rather have a population with a higher rate of alcohol abuse or higher rate of  HIV that leads to a higher rate of anal cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer,  or Hodgkin’s lymphoma [see this TIME magazine article].  The science shows that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy, just as the Bible claims, but the liberal media wants us to believe telling gays to stop being gay is unhealthy?  I think I’ll stick with what the Bible says and the science that backs it up.

I pray Michelle Bachmann will be granted God’s wisdom & knowledge to fend off the attacks of the unrighteous and that her faith will be stronger as well as the faith of her husband.  And if it’s God’s will, I pray she will be that much stronger as a candidate for the Presidency.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

1 Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 12, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, government, politics, religion
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 12, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/liberal-medias-attacks-on-michelle-bachmann/

How God’s plans can thwart an enemy’s curse

The circumstances surrounding Moses’ birth were very grim, but in the midst of all the negative things happening, God’s hand was still clearly visible in the affairs of men.  The Hebrews, having sought shelter from famine in Canaan, came to Egypt when Jacob brought his whole family there toward the end of his life when his son Joseph was second in command after Pharaoh.  When they became fruitful and multiplied in population, a new Pharaoh who didn’t care about Joseph’s accomplishments felt threatened and made slaves of the Hebrews.

Even in the midst of slavery, God continued to increase the Hebrews to the point where, right before Moses was born, the reigning Pharaoh decided to commit mass infanticide by having all male baby Hebrews murdered.  Yet in spite of the curse of a powerful Pharaoh, God showed himself strong on behalf of his people to thwart the plans of the enemy.  He worked through the compassion of women to counteract the wrath of a powerful man.

Under Pharaoh’s no-Hebrew-male-child policy, it would have been easy for Moses’ parents to stop having kids after their son Aaron was born or to obey the law and allow their new baby to be taken and slaughtered, but their faith in God was greater than their fear of men and they had another child.  So Jochebed, Moses’ mother, knew in her compassionate, loving heart that she had a special child that she knew had to be saved.  When she could hide him no longer she made a basket called an ark, waterproofed it, put Moses inside, and released him into the Nile.

Then a whole string of ironies unfolded.  The ark was discovered by Pharoah’s daughter who decided to save the baby, which was a violation of her own father’s law.  Then Moses’ sister, who had compassion for her baby brother along the Nile, volunteered to find a “nurse of the Hebrew women” for the baby, to which Pharaoh’s daughter agreed.  So Miriam, Moses’ sister, ran to her mother and the baby she released into the Nile, who she probably thought she would never see again, was returned to Jochebed temporarily so she could nurse him.

Once he was nursed, the child was given to Pharaoh’s daughter and Pharaoh had a Hebrew male child (of the people he hated and who was ironically being raised in his own household as his grandson) receiving the full benefits of protection and educational training given to the first family of Egypt.  God was using the family of the Pharaoh who wanted to destroy God’s people to train the one who would deliver God’s people in the future.  As it says in the Psalm 9:15-16 “The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.  The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.”

Additionally, another irony is that Pharaoh’s daughter gave the child a name that was prophetic in nature, although she had no clue as to the prophetic nature of the name at the time.  She named him “Moses,” which means “drawn out” or “drawn forth,” because she drew him out of the water.  The fact that Moses was literally drawn out of the water has parallels to the spiritual symbolism of it as well.  Water is symbolic of persecution and hardship [Revelation 12:15-17].  Moses being “drawn out” of the water symbolized his deliverance from the persecution of the Egyptians.

Pharoah’s daughter was unaware that Moses, or “drawn forth,” would be the one to draw forth his people out of the bondage of Egypt to serve their God Jehovah.  The one Pharaoh accepted as his grandson, who was of the people he sought to destroy, would be the one who would “draw forth” the word of God and God’s judgments to destroy the house of Pharaoh in the future.  The people who Egypt robbed of their freedom would be “drawn forth” to “spoil the Egyptians” in the future [Exodus 3:22].

This is how God works on behalf of his people.  When we are drawn forth to God, exercising our faith in him in spite of what our enemies may do, God will work behind the scenes in the affairs of men to work it all out for our benefit.  We are not obligated to follow man’s laws that are in violation of God’s higher laws so when we are doers of the word and not hearers only, when we obey God rather than men, when we put our own lives in jeopardy for God’s glory, we will surely see the fulfillment one day of Psalm 58:10-11–”The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.  So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.”

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 11, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, encouragement, God, life, Moses, religion
Tagged ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 11, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/how-gods-plans-can-thwart-an-enemys-curse/

What the newly-signed trucking agreement with Mexico means

Well, the news outlets have done it once again.  While they had us preoccupied with the Casey Anthony case and other news, they barely, if at all, mentioned the U.S.-Mexico trucking agreement signed yesterday in Mexico City by US and Mexican officials.  The agreement ends a standoff both sides have had since NAFTA took effect in the mid to late 90s.

Mexican officials have agreed to make Mexican truckers abide by U.S. safety standards and to install devices that monitor truck usage and all required mechanical services to the trucks.  The agreement was signed under the guise of creating more jobs, to the delight of the U.S. agriculture, business, and trade industries but to the chagrin of American truckers who will probably lobby Congress to do something about it.  Bill Reinsch of the National Foreign Trade Council expressed his wish that the U.S. Congress will “refrain from any action that would derail the program or fall short of our commitments under NAFTA.”

This move is the culmination of the plans of the New World Order (NWO) groups such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  Incidentally, the National Foreign Trade Council is the offspring of the Bilderberg Group.  It will probably be true that the new agreement will bring some positive results, but at what cost to American citizens?  Here are some of the negative results that I suspect will happen:

  1. Mexican cartel drug wars will continue and ramp up on American streets. The Mexican government has failed to get the drug wars under control on the streets of Mexico and the drug cartels have their hands in all types of businesses, including trucking.  This new deal opens the door to the expansion of their turf in the U.S. and don’t be surprised if homicides on America’s streets show an uptick.
  2. More human trafficking.  Mexico is known worldwide as a major hub of smuggling humans for sex and labor.  The drug cartels and other organized crime organizations will take advantage of the new agreement to increase their slave trade between Mexico and the U.S.
  3. Increases in use of illegal drugs.  Since the drug cartels will expand in the U.S., they will seek more customers and with America increasingly hardening its heart against God, they will find more customers without much effort.  With the increase in drug addicts will come the increased pressure from liberals to legalize narcotics as a false remedy since the liberals will use the higher numbers of addicts and homicides to “prove” that the war on drugs is a failed policy.
  4. Erosion of the sovereignty of individual nations.  Let’s be honest.  NAFTA and everything tied to it, including this trucking agreement, are orchestrated by the Bilderberg Group and their partners of the NWO to form their North American Union to eventually overturn the constitutions of  Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. so its citizens will bow down to one world governance.
  5. An uptick in traffic accidents involving trucks.  Since the cartels are into trucking and have no regard for the law or for government unless they’re bribing officials, they will find ways around abiding by U.S. safety standards and accidents on our roadways will take place no matter what guarantees our government promises.
  6. Easing of U.S.-Mexico border enforcement/protection.  The U.S. government has for decades neglected to protect the U.S. border with Mexico with the urgency that they should.  The hearts of both Democrat and Republican administrations aren’t really into protecting the border because it would go against the orders they have been given by the NWO to eliminate North American borders at some point in the future.  This new agreement will be used to promote Mexico as our responsible, trustworthy neighbor and to pooh-pooh the need for strict border controls.

I pray that none of these things will come true, but judging by the path America is going down, it won’t surprise me if these things happen, and it will disgust me as well.

“…thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD. …

Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. …

The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery… And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.” [Ezekiel 22:12, 27, 29, 30]

Source: Howard LaFranchi, Landmark US-Mexico trucking agreement resolves 15-year conflict, Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 2011.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 7, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, government, law, politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 7, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/what-the-newly-signed-trucking-agreement-with-mexico-means/

Taking photos of crash in her front yard lands woman in jail

On the night of Sunday, July 3, 65-year-old Massachusetts resident Judith Davis-Scott heard a car come crashing into her front yard and it ended up in her driveway. As any homeowner is told to do by their insurance company, Mrs. Davis-Scott grabbed her Nikon camera to photograph the damage to her property. Massachusetts State Police officers told her she was interfering with their investigation and ordered her to stop taking pictures.

The elderly woman, knowing her Constitutional rights, told the police she was on her own property and had the right to take pictures on her own property of her own property. Subsequently, an officer grabbed her, arrested her, took her camera, placed her in handcuffs and carted her off to jail.

Mrs. Davis-Scott was awakened in her second floor bedroom by the crash and looked out to see a car crashed into her Ford Escapade. She then dialed 911, grabbed her camera, and ran outside as flames had engulfed the vehicles. The crashed car had two people in it, both of whom had been shot and one of them was dead. After the flames were put out, she began photographing her property.

Her husband, a disabled veteran, expressed his shock at her arrest the next day when he said, “This is ridiculous. You try to live a decent life and this is what you get. It’s upsetting.”

Unfortunately, this is a taste of what the future of America will be if citizens do not rise from their apathy and realize that with freedom comes the responsibility of holding authorities accountable to abide by our Constitution, which was forged in the shadow of much sacrifice and bloodshed by people clinging to godly Christian principles.  I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement officers, but when they violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, that’s where my respect ends.  Since when is it against the law to take photos on your own property of things that belong to you?  But the authorities feel it’s perfectly okay for them to spy on law abiding citizens, even when citizens are on their own private property whether it’s them keeping track of citizens’ internet activity or moving forward on plans to use aerial drones to monitor neighborhoods in U.S. cities. 

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [John the Baptist], saying, And what shall we do? And he [John the Baptist] said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. [Luke 3:14]

Source: Carlos Miller, Massachusetts Woman Arrested For Taking Pictures From Her Front Yard, Pixiq.com, July 5, 2011.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 6, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, government, human rights, U.S. Constitution
Tagged

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 6, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/taking-photos-of-crash-in-her-front-yard-lands-woman-in-jail/

Doubts demolished: more Bible errors resolved

In my previous post I tackled a few scriptures that are used to argue that the Bible is contradictory.  If the enemies of the cross of Christ can find factual errors or contradictions in the infallible word of God, then they can argue that the Bible cannot be trusted to tell us the truth and that it is unreliable.  We can rest assured that this is just the age-old tactic inspired by Satan to get those of us in the faith to doubt what God says.  Since God’s word is above his name [Psalm 138:2], we can have confidence that there aren’t any mistakes in his word.  I will now resolve other issues raised by the doubters at this website brought to my attention by a doubting commenter here at my blog.

————————-

Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Genesis 5:5 “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”

The argument is that Adam was told he would die physically, not spiritually, as soon as he ate from the tree, but he lived over 900 years.  The critics are so foolish that they can’t see that Genesis 5:5 fulfills what God was talking about in Genesis 2.  God was talking about both physical and spiritual death.  He let Adam know that if he would eat from the tree, he would no longer be immortal and would be susceptible to dying at some point.  Not only would his body become corruptible but his spirit man would no longer have spiritual fellowship with God, i.e. spiritual death.

Furthermore, the term “thou shalt surely die” is a term that not only speaks of the moment at which the action is taken, but also speaks continuously of what the future holds.  In other words, it was saying he would have death hanging over his head at every moment after eating the fruit. So Genesis 5 is the confirmation, not the contradiction and the whole argument is rather weak.

————————-

Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

Luke 3:23 “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,”

So who was really Joseph’s father?  According to Hebrew traditions, both of them were.  When a Hebrew man married, his father in law considered him as his son [see 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:21] and a son in law could be included in the genealogy of his father in law.  This is especially true when a man like Heli had only daughters [see Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12].  So one of these genealogies would be  Joseph’s line while the other is Mary’s.  The purpose of the genealogies was to show Jesus was from the line of Judah in fulfillment of Messianic prophecy and they don’t provide the names of every individual in his line.

This proves the accuracy of the writers in that they were familiar with the practices of the times and did their research thoroughly to get their facts straight so the authenticity and reliability of God’s word would be preserved.

————————-

Genesis 22:1 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham,”

James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:”

So why does the Bible say God tempted Abraham when it also says he doesn’t tempt any man?  The explanation for these statements lies in the context of each scripture.  The context of Genesis 22 is that God was testing Abraham to see how loyal he would be.  It was a test for good to see if Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything for God, for as Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.  He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me,” [Matthew 10:37].  God must be number one above everything and everyone.  This is ultimately for our own good and for his much-deserved glory.

James 1 is talking about temptation to do evil.  God is not in the business of leading man into sinning against him, so man only has himself to blame when he gives into evil temptations.

The critics got it wrong again.

————————-

Genesis 6:19-20 “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.”

Genesis 7:2-3 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.”

Did Noah take in animals in pairs or in sevens?  Again the critics have overlooked the details.  Both accounts are accurate.  God told Noah to pair off the animals, the male and his female.  If he took in seven of one kind of animal, one of the animals doesn’t have a mate.  So obviously God wasn’t talking about taking in seven of one kind of animal.

He was telling Noah how to load the paired off animals.  The clean animals and birds were to be loaded in pairs in groups of seven pairs.  So the clean animals were loaded 14 at a time.  The unclean animals were to be loaded two groups of pairs at a time so they were loaded four animals at a time.  Duh!

————————-

1 Kings 7:23 “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Critics point out that the circumference (πd) of the molten sea would have to be greater than 30 cubits to go around it, so they claim a mathematical error is in play here.  However, the line would only have to be over 30 cubits if it is around the brim.  This scripture never says the line is around the brim, so clearly the line is somewhere below the brim where the circumference would be smaller since the molten sea gradually increased in circumference from the bottom to the top like a bowl.  So the math in the Bible is accurate.

————————-

Leviticus 11:20-21 “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;”

The contention here is that fowls don’t creep on all four because they only have two feet.  However, the critics in a rush to tear down God’s word failed to do their etymology.  The word fowls was originally used for all winged non-insect creatures and the definition for this word used in this context is provided in v. 21 when it says “every flying creeping thing.”  So fowls included bats and they go on all fours.  Sorry Bible-haters, there’s no error here.

————————-

Leviticus 11:6 “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”

Critics argue that the hare doesn’t chew the cud and it divides the hoof.  They assume chewing the cud means an animal must have several stomachs and regurgitates its food.  But chewing the cud actually means an animal has to send partially digested food more than once through its digestive system.  Hares do exactly this with a process called refection, or coprophagia.  When it consumes food, it can only partially digest it so the hare excretes it out its back end and eats the partially digested food in its feces.  Sounds gross, but its chewing the cud nonetheless.

Hares don’t actually divide the hoof all the way through to form separated toes.  Their hoofs are only partially divided, so partially divided wasn’t good enough to make God’s cut and the Bible remains accurate.

————————-

Matthew 13:31-32 “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”

Didn’t Jesus know there are several seeds smaller than mustard seed and the mustard plant stays small?  But context determines what he meant.  Jesus is talking about mustard seed being the smallest crop seed that a farmer in his region planted at that time, not the smallest seed ever on Earth.  Additionally, mustard plants have been known to grow up to 12 feet tall.  That would definitely make it the greatest of herbs where Jesus lived and birds could nest in them.

————————-

Jonah 1:17 “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.”

Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Why would Jonah call a whale a fish when a whale isn’t a fish?  This has to do with the word usage at the time Jonah was written.  Just like fowls were any creature that flew, a fish was considered anything that lived in water.  So Jonah used the general term while Jesus used the more specific term.  They were both correct.

————————-

Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”

The criticism for this one is that it is impossible to see all the kingdoms on Earth even if you go to the highest mountain.  But Luke’s account of this incident gives us more details.  He said Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms “in a moment of time.” So the devil used his supernatural power to show all of the kingdoms of the world in a format similar to our movie screens or holographs to give Jesus a quick glimpse of them, as if Jesus didn’t already know what they looked like.  If one understands that even fallen angels have supernatural abilities, then it isn’t farfetched to realize that Satan used them in this instance and the account of what happened is accurate.

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; [2 Corinthians 10:4-5]

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

5 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 2, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, religion
Tagged , ,

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 2, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/doubts-demolished-more-bible-errors-resolved/

Divinely doubleminded?: Bible contradictions debunked

A great number of well-educated secular academics find great pleasure in attacking God’s word to convert others, especially those with Christian backgrounds, to their atheist/agnostic mindset.  One of their main tools is to highlight what seem to be contradictory or erroneous statements written in the Bible.  But careful observation and research prove neither God nor his human writers made mistakes when writing the Bible.  And those who made copies were very meticulous to avoid copyist errors.  Even though people in Christendom have caved to the critics in attributing these so-called mistakes to copyist errors, this isn’t the case at all.  Here are a few of the so-called errors they enjoy highlighting:

——————————

2 Kings 8:26 “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.’

2 Chronicles 22:2 “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”

Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he began to reign?  The answer to this question depends on which part of his reign you’re talking about.  But to get some idea of Ahaziah’s reign (he was also called Jehoahaz and Azariah), we have to take a brief look at the reign of Jehoram, king of Israel and son of Ahab.  Jehoram was Ahaziah’s uncle and brother to Ahaziah’s mother Athaliah.

We get a good understanding from Jehoram’s reign, first of all, because Jehoram and Ahaziah were both killed on the same day by Jehu who was sent by God to punish Ahab’s wicked family.  In 2 Kings 1:17, Jehoram (also called Joram) is said to have begun his reign during the second year of Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram, who reigned in Judah.  So we have two Jehorams reigning at the same time.

Another reason to look at the reign of Ahab’s son Jehoram is because 2 Kings 3:1 says this Jehoram began his reign the 18th year of the reign of Jehoshaphat in Judah.  How could this be when it says in 2 Kings 1 that this Jehoram began his reign in the second year of the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son?  The reign of the kings in this part of the world at this time was not in linear succession like the kings of Europe.  In other words, it was standard practice to have a king and his successor to the throne reigning at the same time instead of the successor waiting for his predecessor’s death to reign.  Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram were co-regents in Judah.

Therefore, when Ahab’s son Jehoram took the throne, Jehoshaphat was in his 18th year as king of Judah at the same time that his son Jehoram was in his second year as co-regent of Judah.  Then in the fifth year of Ahab’s son Jehoram over Israel, Jehoshaphat’s Jehoram in Judah began another phase of his reign, according to 2 Kings 8:16.  And co-regents did not necessarily reign in Jerusalem.  2 Samuel 2:11 says David reigned in Hebron 7 1/2 years before he reigned in Jerusalem, so this is something else to take into consideration when reading these scriptures which seem contradictory at first glance.

So in 2 Kings 8:16-17, people have assumed that Jehoram was 32 when he became king and 40 when he died (since he reigned eight years in Jerusalem), which would make Ahaziah older than his father when he took the throne since 2 Chronicles 22 puts Ahaziah’s age at 42 when he began to reign.  This clearly seems to be a mistake.  However, taking into account that co-regents probably reigned from Hebron before reigning from Jerusalem, then Jehoram could have become a full-fledged co-regent at 32, then years later when Jehoshaphat died, he moved to Jerusalem and reigned at Jerusalem for eight years and could have died in his mid to late 50′s since kings at this time married as teenagers.  Then Ahaziah’s age of 42 would be no problem.

2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 were two different historians giving two different viewpoints on the same thing.  Yes, Ahaziah reigned over Judah.  The historian who wrote 2 Kings decided to start Ahaziah’s reign when he became co-regent with his father Jehoram at the age of 22.  Ahaziah most likely reigned in Hebron at this age.  The historian for 2 Chronicles 22 decided to start Ahaziah’s reign when his father  Jehoram  died and Ahaziah became the main king 20 years after the start of his co-regency.

Therefore, both accounts are correct and not contradictory.  If critics who attack the Bible did thorough research, they would see how such writings bring different details into play to give an accurate, well-rounded account of the facts.

——————————

2 Samuel 6:23 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.”

2 Samuel 21: 8 “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:”

In 2 Samuel 6 David danced out of his royal garb before the people as he gave exuberant praise to the Lord and Michal,  the daughter of Saul who was also one of his wives, despised him because of it and rebuked him for his behavior.  Their disagreement was so great that David determined that he would not have offspring by her.

2 Samuel 21 tells us that the father of Michal’s sons was Adriel the Meholathite.  His name was first mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:19 as being the husband of Michal’s older sister Merab.   The verse in 2 Samuel 21 says Michal “brought up” his sons “for” him.  Michal was actually their aunt and raised them as her sons apparently through some form of adoption.  Since she adopted them, that means her sister and brother-in-law died somewhere along the way.  They were not her natural children so both passages are correct.

——————————

2 Samuel 8:3-4 “David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.”

1 Chronicles 18:3-4 “And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.”

Did David kill 700 or 7,000? 2 Sam. speaks of the horsemen as 700 units of 10 soldiers while 1 Chron. is numbering each individual horseman.  Both accounts are correct.

——————————

1 Kings 4:26 “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

2 Chronicles 9:25 “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

This is the same type of numbering system that was used for the number of horsemen that David killed as mentioned above.  One writer decided to count each individual stall while the other counted a stall as being a unit of 10 stalls.  This is similar to how we use the word “troop” today.  In reality, a “troop” is a group of soldiers.  It is only in recent wars that the news media changed the meaning of “troop” colloquially to mean one soldier.  So it is now used to designate both a group and an individual just like the word “stalls” in this passage, so both accounts are correct and do not contradict each other.

——————————

2 Kings 25:8 “And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:”

Jeremiah 52:12 “Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,”

Is this a contradiction?  The Bible here is clear about what happened by using detailed language in each verse to help us understand.  Once again this is a case of two different historians giving their own point of view to highlight different details that are both right.  The writer for 2 Kings 25 tells us Nebuzaradan came “unto” Jerusalem on the 7th day of the 5th month with the purpose of leveling the city.  The word “unto” is designating the day he arrived at Jerusalem.

Jeremiah then tells us Nebuzaradan came “into” the city of Jerusalem on the 10th day of the 5th month to level Jerusalem.  Nebuzaradan arrived at (came … unto) Jerusalem on the 7th day, probably surveyed the city for a couple of days to come up with a plan of execution on the best way to destroy it and to make sure they evacuated all inhabitants, then on the 10th day he entered (came … into) Jerusalem to carry out its actual destruction.  So both accounts are correct and they aren’t contradictory.

——————————

1 Samuel 31:4-6 “Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.”

2 Samuel 21:12 “And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa:”

Did Saul kill himself or did the Philistines kill him?  In 1 Samuel 31, we are told the Philistine archers severely wounded Saul in battle.  When he realized he was going to die, he wanted his armorbearer to finish him off but his armorbearer refused so Saul thrust himself through with a sword.  But it was the Philistines who put him in the circumstances that led to his death.  So they slew him in the sense that they defeated and mortally wounded him in battle.  So this isn’t a contradiction.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

5 Comments
by Harry A. Gaylord on July 1, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible, Christianity, religion

Posted by Harry A. Gaylord on July 1, 2011

http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/divinely-doubleminded-bible-contradictions-debunked/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 177 other followers