The Chaotic Earth Theory

The Chaotic Earth Theory
Vol: 96 Issue: 22 Tuesday, September 22, 2009

One of the areas of Scripture I ve always been least comfortable with in terms of my understanding is the first two chapters of Genesis. I am a Bible literalist I believe the Bible is intended to be taken literally unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

The problem, so to speak, with being a Bible literalist is self-evident some of it is difficult to visualize literally. And there are some things in our existence that difficult to reconcile with the traditional understanding of Genesis.

I know that the earth bears scars that aren t explained by the young earth theory. At the same time, there is no room within Scripture to allow for evolution without tearing the first five chapters of Genesis out of the Bible.

Here s the deal. The Garden of Eden story, as related in Scripture, is either literally true or our redemption is founded in a myth. You can t have a literal Redeemer that shed literal Blood as the price of redemption for a mythical Fall.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, (1st Corinthians 15:45) The last Adam is Jesus.

That pretty much demands there be a first Adam. And the first Adam could not have evolved, and the Bible still be both literal and true. Neither could Eve. Paul slams that door shut in his first letter to Timothy.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1st Timothy 2:13)

Here we have two literal statements. They are not only literally stated, but taken together they form the bedrock doctrine of Christianity, as we ve already discussed.

The first Messianic prophecy, that the Redeemer would be the seed of a woman, is made in conjunction with the Fall.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel. (Genesis 3:15)

So the first five chapters of Genesis must be a literal account if there wasn t a first Adam, there would be no need for a Second.

On the other hand, it is literally true that there are things on this earth that are unquestionably older than six thousand years or even twelve thousand years, assuming the thousand years is as to one day theory of creation.

In that theory, each of the six days of Creation is really 1,000 years long, plus the six thousand years since Creation would allow for a 12,000 year old earth.

There are the remains of humanoids that are undeniably different than modern humans, but are also different than apes. But they are also not the so-called missing links of evolution, since they can t be old enough for evolution s timeline.

The earth bears the scars of an Ice Age scars much older than six thousand or even twelve thousand years. But there still isn t room to allow for evolutionary theory — without having to throw out the doctrinal foundation of Christianity.

If man evolved, there was no first Adam, no original sin, no fall of man, and no promise of redemption. The Bible cannot be true, Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and I remain yet dead in my sins.

Evolution, like Creation, must stand alone one worldview cannot accommodate the other. Fortunately, there is FAR less evidence for evolution than there is for Creation.

The fact is that birds build nests as they have done throughout the history of mankind s experience. Beavers build dams as they always have. Bears hibernate, bees nest together in hives to honey, ants build anthills, and so on.

There is zero evidence of a fossil in transition from one life-form to another and there is no evidence of the evolutionary process at work evolving higher forms of animals within the collective 6,000-year memory of human existence.

Over the course of 6,000 years, man has progressed from plowing the earth with a piece of wood to the development of modern farm implements like the modern combine.

Along the way, we can retrace the various steps that took us from a plow to the combine. We didn t jump from a stick in the earth to a combine/harvester in a single leap.

And whatever is in use today will likely be replaced by an improved version later on. There is a trail that leads all the way back to the plow and points forward to the next great improvement in farming technology.

There are no examples of creatures in the process of evolving, and no evidence of mankind evolving into the next higher order over the course of our six thousand years of human history.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that says the earth is older than six thousand years. It is a conundrum.


If one goes back to reexamine the actual text of Genesis, one discovers a lot that isn t there. The Bible does not say, for example, that the earth was created in its present form.

It says that, in the beginning, the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. (1:2-3)

But the Bible does NOT say that the light was sunlight. Sunlight doesn t make an appearance until the Fourth Day (Genesis 1:14) But Genesis 1:5 says that God divided the light from the darkness and the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Chaotic Earth Theory finds a prehistory here in the first few verses of Genesis, primarily based in what Scripture does not say in Genesis.

A young earth creation is not necessary to the creation of Adam and Eve the way the Fall of Man is necessary to the Redemption Story.

Isaiah 45:18 says, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, he created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The RSV renders it this way; Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; He is God; that formed the earth and made it; He established it. He created it NOT A WASTE, He formed it to be inhabited.”

The Bible doesn t specifically say what caused it to be a waste after the original creation, but it seems clear that sin pre-existed the Garden of Eden. Satan was already there when Adam and Eve arrived on the scene.

The Bible s timeline demands that Satan and his angels were cast into the earth at some point before the Garden which would be at some point before God said, Let there be light.

A re-examination of 2nd Peter 3:5-6 suggests an alternative understanding to the world that then was and to the flood Peter spoke of:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, BEING OVERFLOWED WITH WATER, perished.”

This is generally understood as referring to Noah s Flood, but that understanding doesn t necessarily touch on any essential point of doctrine the way that dismissing a literal Garden of Eden does. Maybe Peter was referring to Noah’s Flood, but if so, he took some liberties with the text. Peter refers to a world that then was, but that perished when overflowed with water.

Oddly, Peter says nothing of Noah. And historically, the world didn t perish.

God preserved Noah, his family and the seed of all living aboard the Ark. But the Genesis account described the pre-Adamic earth as without form and void.

Peter does refer to the heavens and the earth which are now and says that this creation will also eventually be replaced with a new creation.

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? (2nd Peter 3:12)

Peter speaks of this creation being destroyed by fervent heat. God promises Noah that never again will He destroy the earth by a flood. While it is by no means definitive, there is no reason to believe this was the only time the earth was destroyed by a flood.

Just that next time, it would be by fire.

Although I ve found nothing in the text that would preclude the Chaotic Earth Theory, the prophet Jeremiah describes the following scene that seems to describe something very much like it:

“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was WITHOUT FORM AND VOID; and the heavens, and they had NO LIGHT.

I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they TREMBLED, and all the hills MOVED LIGHTLY. I beheld, and, lo, there was NO MAN, and all the BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS WERE FLED.

I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a WILDERNESS, and all the CITIES thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. (Jeremiah 4:23-26)

It is entirely possible that the evidence that suggests an old earth refers to this period before Adam and Eve. The geological history reveals the earth has spent much of prehistory in cold storage.

Genesis records God saying let there be light on the first day, but the light from the sun, moon and stars doesn t appear until on day four.

Is it possible that the earth pre-existed and that it, and its inhabitants, were destroyed in some pre-Adamic judgment period in a manner similar to the Flood?

There s nothing in Scripture that says it is impossible.

Isaiah describes the fall of Lucifer this way: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)

The timing seems odd. Isaiah seems to imply that Satan is cast from heaven for weakening the nations yet Satan was already here when Adam was created.

If one reads through Isaiah 14, it is a judgment against Satan for some very specific actions. I ll synopsize for the sake of space you can follow along, starting with Isaiah 14:12.

Satan is judged for his five I wills in which he speaks out against God. For his sins, he is cast out of heaven, and brought down to hell, not into it, but to the sides of the pit.

There, Isaiah says, he was visible to the nations, whom he deceived, where they mock him, saying, Is this the one that caused all this trouble?

Satan is then cast out of the grave (v 19) and judgment pronounced, thou shall not be joined with them (presumably those who now mock him) because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people (v.20)

So, it is at least POSSIBLE that there was something before the Garden that involved Satan, destruction and death.

And there is no doctrinal damage done to either Judaism or Christianity by the acceptance of a chaotic earth theory into prehistory.

Indeed, it sorts out the interpretive problem with there being light four days before there is sunlight. The earth coming out of deep freeze also explains both the Ice Age and the placement of a firmament to divide the waters .

It explains the findings from Arctic core samples that suggest the Arctic once supported tropical vegetation. It explains a lot of things.

So, what about the Chaotic Earth Theory is it true? I don t know. It could be. So why bring it up? Unlike evolution, the Chaotic Earth Theory could be true and still allow for both a literal interpretation of Scripture and the inclusion of a long geological history.

But I don t know. It is but a theory. I am presenting it as such, and not as doctrinal truth, so please don t ask me to defend it.

There is nothing that necessarily argues against it from Scripture and there is plenty of Bible that seems to lean that way, if not necessarily rising to the level of proof text.

I know that we don t know everything Paul says that we see through a glass darkly but I know that the Bible is true.

It says that God created the heavens and the earth. But nowhere does it tell us exactly when.

Things That Are Different Are Sometimes the Same??

Things That Are Different Are Sometimes the Same??
Vol: 96 Issue: 21 Monday, September 21, 2009

On Sunday, President Obama launched a desperate media blitz of the Sunday talk shows, hoping to gin up some public (or at least some media) support for his failing health care reform platform.

President Obama chose to appear on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Univision to make his case. However, the White House announced that he would not appear on FoxNews, evidently hoping to punish the network.

A White House spokesman said Fox wasn t included because we figured that Fox would rather show Dancing with the Stars .” One wonders about the logic of mocking the very audience Obama is ostensibly trying to reach.

Most of the Sunday hosts were excited about the opportunity, except of course, Fox News Chris Wallace for being excluded.

And maybe Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation on CBS.

“I’m not happy he’s appearing on four other shows — I just don’t like that very much,” Schieffer says. As for the succession of 15-minute tapings at the White House on Friday, Schieffer joked: “It’s kind of like going to Dunkin Donuts: You take a number and they call you when they’re ready.”

The first question posed by the five different anchors of the five different networks flagship news programs of the first post-racial presidency was, Do you think opposition to your health care reform packages is based on your race?

I want you to notice that in every variation of this question, posed by the best and brightest talent the networks had to offer, the assumption was that if there is any racism involved, the racist in the equation is you.

I am making the broad assumption that you don t favor the health care reform plan because it is expensive and ineffective and because the government track record includes Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office.

If the only reason you oppose the plan is because of the President s skin color then you are probably reading this as second-hand, forwarded from somebody else.

Because if you believe that, you aren t just racist, you are an idiot — and thus doubly unlikely to be a member of our fellowship.

There are far more pressing reasons to fear the health care plan than the president s race, which, incidentally, is an issue that only seems to be of interest to liberals. Every single liberal news broadcaster made race the top issue, as if that were somehow relevant to the question of health insurance.

Perhaps that is why Obama excluded Fox. They probably wouldn’t have fallen for the ploy of substituting race-baiting for facts about his agenda. Especially since Obama was clearly hinting the racists are conservatives who most likely watch FoxNews.

The president himself pretended to bat the issue away when George Stephanopolis raised it on ABC. Are there people who don t like me because of my race? I m sure there are, he said. Are there some people who voted for me only because of my race? There are probably some of those, too.

Question: What racial persuasion is Obama implying he is sure doesn t like him based on his race? Secondarily, what racial persuasion is Obama implying when he says that some people voted for him only because of his race, — probably”?

It seems clear to me that the ones Obama is sure oppose his health care plan on a mindlessly racial level are the white middle-Americans of the guns-and-religion variety.

As to the some people who voted for him strictly based on race . . . well, he got 95% of the African-American vote. And there are few serious and honest observers that would deny his race played a role in capturing the white liberal vote.

The narrative that Obama is building here is that the racial element here belongs to the conservatives that oppose his policies.

But logic dictates that the people whose racial prejudices cost Obama votes had to be liberal Democrats — not conservatives or Republicans who wouldn t have voted for a liberal Democrat in any case.


Candidate Obama promised to transcend the politics of racial divide. He promised to be a healer, a different kind of politician, one that would reach out and bring folks together.

So he goes on five different networks to suggest that race plays a role in conservative opposition to his agenda.

All in the name of swatting down Jimmy Carter s ridiculous charge that you didn t vote for Obama because you are a racist. Or that opposing letting the government dictate your health care options has anything to do with anybody’s skin color.

This is another one of those cognitive dissonance moments. Cognitive dissonance is that sense of confusion that comes from holding simultaneously contradictory views or opinions.

For example, in the real world, conservatives don t vote for liberals because they oppose the liberal agenda in favor of their own.

Everything about logic and common sense, combined with your own experience and knowledge, tells you the following statement is true. People vote in favor of their own perceived best interests.

Jimmy Carter s charge demands pretending that, if Barack Obama were a far-left Marxist liberal who was white, conservatives would vote against their own agendas.

And the next thing you know, the most important question the five best and brightest anchors of the five liberal networks is: Do you think conservatives oppose your agenda based on your race?

Behold, the power of semantics!

The question itself plants the subliminal suggestion that conservatives are racists who have no political principles of their own.

Then Obama s answer cements it. He is sure some oppose him based on his race, just as some probably voted for him based on his race.

Logically, the liberals that voted against him did so because he is black, since they otherwise would vote for a liberal. And the 95% of blacks that voted for him voted for him because he was black, since 14% of African-Americans voted Republican in 2004.

But for a master semanticist like Obama, logic is no barrier. For much of the past nine months, we ve been reeling under the heavy burden that cognitive dissonance places on one s ability to reason.

Reason says that when the government gets involved in business, the result is the Post Office, not Fedex or UPS. Obama says that his health care plan will be more efficient because the government is involved.

Reason says that the reason Medicare and Medicaid are in such a mess is because of government waste. Obama s solution is to give the government more money.

Reason says that when you can t pay your bills, the solution is to reduce spending and look for ways to increase your income. Obama s solution is to increase spending and pay for it by taxing the income increases out of existence.

The constant effort to hold simultaneously contradictory thoughts in one s head is wearisome it has the effect of wearing one down to the point where it is just to difficult to think without it making one s head hurt.

Obama says the Right is ‘divisive’ and so he punishes FoxNews by refusing to appear on its network. Why else? FoxNews draws more viewers, according to Drudge, than the other five networks combined.

Why did he launch the media blitz? To persuade his opponents. Where did he go? To the five liberal networks that ALREADY support him to the point of subservience.

Cognitive dissonance can be painful after months without letup.

The great propagandists of the 20th century all knew that, and they factored it in to their agendas.

After six years of non-stop cognitive dissonance, the most cultured nation in Europe went completely mad and murdered six million Jews. Only two decades of it and the Soviet Union murdered tens of millions more.

Cognitive dissonance demands one accept as a logic statement that things that are different are sometimes the same .

Men and women are equal, it is said. Anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. But your brain can’t shake the understanding that the statement cannot be true. If anything, women aren’t equal to men. They are superior.

Men can t have babies.

But just saying that men and women are different makes one a sexist, despite the certain factual statement that, if they were the same, biology says the human race would have ended with Adam and Eve.

And equality of the sexes doesn’t apply to Sarah Palin. She is incapable of public office because she is a mother.

Just ask the National Organization of Women that exists to defend women — unless they’ve either been sexually harrassed by a Democrat president or are themselves running for national office as a conservative.

But that s why you are a racist, because you think that way. . . so maybe there s something wrong with you, after all.

Because you didn t know you were a racist until after you found out on TV that otherwise you d have been a liberal Democrat and . . . is this all really happening in America???

Yes. It is.

Let Them Eat Cake . . .

Let Them Eat Cake . . .
Vol: 96 Issue: 19 Saturday, September 19, 2009

According to historical legend, Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, reacted to news of a bread famine, reportedly said, then let them eat cake. Actually, what she said was qu il mangent de la brioche, which means let them eat brioche a type of egg and butter enriched bread that was more of a luxury than regular bread.

The irony of the statement was in the fact both are made from flour it was infuriating to the masses and eventually cost Louis XVI the monarchy and both Louis and Marie Antoinette their heads.

The phrase stands in stark contrast to another statement known to have been uttered by the deposed Queen; “It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness”.

In all probability, the story is an historical myth. The quote was likely lifted from a statement from Marie-Therese, wife of Louis XIV 100 years earlier. But it was attributed to Marie-Antoinette because of its expression of royal callousness to the plight of the people.

Of course, the real story of what took place in 1793 will never been known. The monarchy was overthrown by what would today be called liberal progressives and history is always written by the victorious side.

In any case, the point is not whether or not Marie Antoinette uttered the phrase that resulted in collapse of Louis XVI s France or if it was assigned to her by historical revisionists. The intended message is clear: Even in a monarchy, rulers ignore their constituency at their own peril.


One of the most enduring narratives of the Obama administration since taking office nine months ago is its breath-taking arrogance. It was in evidence during the campaign, but I think that back then, most people misread it as confidence.

Ronald Reagan was confident. He believed in America — and he believed that Americans did too.

Obama’s first official sit-down interview was with an Arab newspaper and was the kick-off to Obama’s Spring Apology Tour. Obama doesn t care what Americans thinks and he s made no secret of it.

Some thought the pre-election guns and religion explanation of why redneck America is anti-immigrant must have been taken out of context.

They couldn t imagine that a mainstream political party could be so dismissive of the core beliefs of so many that the public figured that a display of such arrogant elitism as that comment seemed to reflect just had to have been misunderstood.

Since taking office, the administration has thumbed its nose at its critics as if they were all Far Right crazies. In fact, I take back the as if part the administration and its spokesmen have actually said that.

Opponents to Obama s health care agenda have been labeled angry mobs and un American , stupid , misled , Nazis Astrotruf — and more often than anything else, liars .

“I’ve got a question for all these folks who say, ‘You know, we’re going to pull the plug on Grandma’ and ‘This is all about illegal immigrants’ you’ve heard all the lies. I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution? And you know what? They don’t have one.”

That raises a question that I have for President Obama. Who do you think you are talking to? I intend that question without sarcasm. I really wonder who he does think that he is talking to. Who is he calling liars ?

The angry mobs of grannies that Obama seems to admit have a legitimate fear may have the plugged pulled on them . Obama s defense to the charge that Grannie has something legitimate to worry about is, Oh yeah? You got a better idea?

On the Friday before more than a million conservative protestors marched on Washington, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied knowing about the planned rally that Sunday, saying, I don t know who the group is.

The arrogance revealed by that statement takes one s breath away. The most consistent estimates of the crowds that day seem to hold somewhere between one and two million Americans. If that many Americans showed up think of how many more must share their view, but couldn t afford to make the trip?

Still, I see cause for some optimism, despite the growing sense of impending doom that began on January 20 (can it really have only been this year?) TIME magazine s new issue is out and Obama s face isn t on it.

Glenn Beck s face is.

Unto Whom Much Is Given

Unto Whom Much Is Given
Vol: 96 Issue: 18 Friday, September 18, 2009

Christianity, in the sense of a philosophy, is fraught with seemingly contradictory notions, as seen from the perspective of this world. For example, one attains victory over sin by surrender to Jesus.

Christian philosophy teaches that human weakness demonstrates Christ s strength. Victory by surrender and strength through weakness are not commonly practiced strategies.

It is our nature to attain victory by overcoming the opposition and develop strength by force. The carnal existence is driven, at its most base level, by the two prime motivators; the acquisition of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

In most human pursuit, the objective is to win and the prize is to live.

Paul writes to the Philippians; For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (1:21)

Of all the seemingly contradictory thoughts within Christian philosophy, it is this one that most of us have the hardest time with. And it completely baffles the world.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. (Revelation 14:13)

The New Testament begins with Jesus pronouncing God s blessing on the living in the Beatitudes. It concludes with this beatitude for those who die in the Lord.

God says that death is an enemy, the product of sin, but that for those who know Christ, it is not the end, but rather it is the beginning. Here is another seemingly contradictory analogy. When a baby is born, it is both the end of a pregnancy and the start of a new life. For a Christian, death is like that.

The Bible says that when we die, we are immediately received into the Presence of God. It doesn t happen at some time in the future, or at a faraway place or a faraway time. Your soul, (your mind, will and emotions, the ghost in the machine that makes you You) does not cease when the body does.

Your soul is primarily shaped by the events of your lifetime. You are, to a large degree, the product of your experiences. That is how we are designed the Bible equates age with wisdom because there is no teacher like one s own experiences.

But it isn t your soul that has experiences, it is the body. Think of a person born deaf, blind and dumb and stuck in an iron lung, devoid of human contact. It s a horrible thought unimaginably horrible, really. To be stuck like that, a mind without a body, without sight, sound, touch . . . brrrrr!

The experiences of the body provide the majority of the input that makes you You, but the body is not You. It is your possession, not your essence. Your body is the gateway to the soul through which we receive input via the five senses of touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing.

The seeming contradictions between the carnal understandings of Christian philosophy like victory and death are the consequence of the Christian s sixth sense as expressed by the Apostle Paul.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (Romans 8:6)

The carnal mind has but the five senses of input. The sixth sense is spiritual; to be spiritual minded is to be able to see via your spirit, which was quickened or made alive, by the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1st Corinthians 2:14)

Do you see? It is more than simply the fact that salvation and the things of God seem foolish to the unsaved. It is that the spirit is stillborn, like the horrifying example of the active mind trapped in a useless body devoid of sensory input.

Saved or lost, that part of you that makes you You is immortal. When the gateway through the body closes at physical death, your soul now gets its input via the spirit. We receive spiritual insights now; our souls hunger for spiritual input now; but we also have the five carnal senses now.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1st Corinthians 13:12)

When the body s sensory gates are closed at death, that glass is no longer clouded. If one s spirit is alive, that is. If one s spirit has not been quickened, the carnal sensory input stops.

That is the first death. One s soul is in hell, trapped in a dead spirit, much as one might imagine being trapped in a dead body. Like being buried alive.

At the Great White Throne, the souls of the dead without Christ are assembled for final judgment and the resurrection of the dead.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (Revelation 20:13)

Those souls are now equipped once more with bodily, carnal sensory input capabilities. Now that they are reunited, body and soul . . .

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Revelation 20:14)

In truth, death is all about appearances. We see the grave and we sorrow, we mourn, we grieve but God sees it from the perspective of eternity to come. God grieves for us in our ignorance, telling us that;

. . .Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. (1st Corinthians 2:9)

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:18-19)

When we die, we don t wake up on the other side so much as we merely switch glasses. Both science and the Bible agree that there is both a visible and invisible existence. Quantum physics demands the existence of additional dimensions beyond the three dimensions we now occupy.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)

The invisible things of Him are as real as the three-dimensional creation that we currently occupy. What is the evidence for the invisible? Oftentimes I ll hear somebody use air as an example of something that is invisible but yet exists.

That s not entirely satisfactory. I can spray a colored substance and see air. I can see air through refracted light. Air has substance. Air is real.

But even more real than air is Me. I think therefore I am. There is nothing more real to me than Me, and everything about me that makes me Me is more invisible than air.

My soul has no mass. It cannot be detected by weight. It has no substance or shape or dimensions. But it is as real as . . well, it is as real as I am. And everybody has a soul. The invisible is very, very real.

Death is real. But it is real only in the sense that a pregnancy is real. The goal of the pregnancy is for it to end with the beginning a newer, richer existence.

Knowing all this information is empowering. But there is nothing in this world that comes without cost, and the price of this empowering and comforting knowledge is high, indeed.

I know what will happen when I die at least, in know in part. Right now, I see through a glass, darkly. I know I will see my loved ones again. And like Job, I know it will be in my flesh, and not another s. I will see my Savior in my flesh, with mine own eyes, and not another s. (Job 19:25-17)

That s the comforting and empowering part of this knowledge. But I also know what awaits those who enter eternity with their spiritual eyes closed. That s the price tag that comes with it.

That s why there is joy in heaven over one sinner who turns to Christ. (Luke 15:10) It is why God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2nd Peter 3:9)

It is why we should sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1st Peter 3:15)

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: (Luke 12:48)

Them That Dwell Upon the Earth

Them That Dwell Upon the Earth
Vol: 96 Issue: 17 Thursday, September 17, 2009

According to Webster’s dictionary, “tribulation” means “a state of great trouble or suffering.” The Tribulation is a period of time set aside for two purposes; the judgment of a Christ-rejecting world and the national redemption of Israel.

I’ve searched the Scriptures on this particular topic and nowhere can I find a third purpose that could involve the Church.

The twenty-one judgments of Revelation are the culmination of the Edenic curse; there are environmental judgments against the earth and sea, judgments against animals and fish, and judgments against those whom the Apostle John says “dwell upon the earth.”

Uniquely, Revelation uses this curious phrase “dwell upon the earth”. John is carefully distinguishing those that “dwell upon the earth” from those that are ‘dwelling’ elsewhere.

The word “dwell” means ‘to inhabit’ in the sense of a physical home and came to Old English from the Middle Dutch word “dwellen” which means “to stun or perplex” according to the on-board dictionary that comes standard on a Mac.

(I’m not doing an ad for Mac here — I want to be clear that my source here is an ordinary dictionary which has no point to make)

The phrase “they that dwell upon the earth” is used in Scripture exclusively within the framework of the Tribulation Period.

Revelation 3:10 draws a distinction between those who dwell upon the earth and those the Lord will keep from the trial specifically designed for them:

“Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

I’ve heard every possible refutation of that verse as it pertains to the Church and the Rapture. However, one cannot explain away the fact the Lord is drawing a distinction — those that dwell upon the earth will undergo a period of ‘trial’ whereas, somebody else will be kept from it.

In Revelation 6:10, the martyrs slain for the Word of God “. . . cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”

Again, we have a distinction between the martyrs for Christ and those that dwell upon the earth. The phrase “them that dwell on the earth” is used to describe those responsible for shedding the blood of the martyrs.

They “that dwell upon the earth” are identified in Revelation 11:10 as rejoicing over the deaths of the two witnesses;

“And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.”

In Revelation 13:8 they are identified as the unsaved who will worship the antichrist:

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

The Scripture says specifically that ‘they that dwell upon the earth’ during the Tribulation are those against whom the Two Witnesses prophesied, which is why they that dwell upon the earth during the Tribulation will rejoice.

It also links “all that dwell upon the earth” to the antichrist and says that their names are NOT in the Book of Life.

In Revelation 13:14 John says the False Prophet: “. . .deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”

Those that dwell upon the earth will be universally deceived by the means of miracles and will worship the beast as a god.

Meanwhile, Revelation 14:6 further identifies they that dwell upon the earth as those in need of salvation . . .

“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.”

Note also that while ‘them that dwell upon the earth’ are in need of the Gospel, there appears to be nobody around to preach it to them. That job has been assigned to an angel.

Revelation 17:8 provides further insight into both the Beast and who they that dwell upon the earth might be.

“The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

I believe John is identifying the Beast in all its forms, political, religious and systematic; Political Rome was, but then collapsed, went ‘underground’ so to speak, transferring power to the papacy temporarily — until the political Beast reemerges as leader of the revived Roman Empire.

John identifies “they that dwell upon the earth” once again as being those whose names are not in the Book of Life and who will join the Beast ‘in perdition’.


It is fairly obvious from these Scriptures that they that dwell upon the earth during the Tribulation Period are not Christians. Those who are Christians are pictured in heaven.

Those who get saved during the Tribulation, whether through the 144,000 evangelists of Revelation 7 or the angel of Revelation 14 cannot be included among those “that dwell upon the earth” because they will be executed.

“. . . cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. ” Revelation 13:15 says. That is another way of saying “all” — although John gets more specific on that point in the next two verses.

“And he causeth ALL, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that NO man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

That seems pretty inclusive. One can find within this structure those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, those who by taking the mark will have their names blotted out and those who are killed for refusing the mark.

But those who are killed are NOT those that ‘dwell upon the earth’ — they are the ones dwelling with John in heaven.

Last weekend, a crowd estimated at 1.7 million marched on Washington to protest the government plan to impose health care. Can you imagine the protest that would come if the millions of Christians in America were given the ultimatum of denying Christ and worshipping Obama?

However, if those millions suddenly vanished into thin air and Obama claimed credit for it, them ‘that dwell upon the earth’ would line up to get their mark as quickly as they lined up for Cash for Clunkers.

If one begins from the perspective that the Church is not uniquely exempt from judgment by virtue of being saved, then it isn’t really too hard to find verses in Tribulation that might be interpreted as the Church. Tribulation saints easily become born-again Christians in this view.

But if one begins from the perspective that judgment for sin means sins both forgiven and unforgiven, then again, it might be possible to argue that the Church qualifies for the twenty-one judgments of the Tribulation.

But if one simply tries to figure out who John is referring to when he speaks of “them that dwell upon the earth” it is abundantly clear that the one thing they ALL have in common is that their names are not found in the Book of Life.

And according to the Scripture, they are the only ones dwelling here. The Church is present with John from the moment that John hears a voice from heaven saying “Come up hither” in Revelation 4:1.

It would be a simple matter to delve into Revelation and interpret a few verses a bit differently and build an argument for a pre-wrath or post trib Rapture — I am anticipating getting a few in response to this column.

What is not so simple, however, is coming up with verses that suggest the indwelt Church is numbered among “they that dwell upon the earth” during this period.

And if the Church isn’t among those dwelling upon the earth, then where is it dwelling? There is only one answer that fits both the Scriptures and the chronological and logical narrative presented by Revelation.

“For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. . . .” (1st Thessalonians 4:16-17)

“. . . .And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:8)

The Tribulation is specifically set aside for “them that dwell upon the earth”. “Them that dwell upon the earth” are specifically identified as the unsaved whose names are not in the Book of Life.

The Church is not there. The Church left, along with John in Revelation 4:1.

“Wherefore, comfort one another with these words.”

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

I Know You Are, But What Am I?
Vol: 96 Issue: 16 Wednesday, September 16, 2009

By now, everybody has learned that there is a high price to be paid for free speech. Until January 20th of this year, that price was paid daily on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Since then, the only speech that is free is speech that is approved by the government.

Representative Joe Wilson s shout-out to President Obama during the State of the Union speech resulted in his being the FIRST member of the US House of Representatives to EVER be censured in US history for speaking against a sitting president — from the floor of the same House where George Bush was routinely denounced as a liar and a war criminal.

As Obama was assuring members of Congress that his health care plan would not add one dime to the budget deficit and would not cover illegal aliens, Wilson shouted out, you lie!

Well, of course Obama was lying. The legislation already passed by the House both increases the budget deficit and includes illegal aliens. That was the only health care plan he could have been referring to. It is the only one that actually exists.

But that was only the beginning. Now the whole party has come together to demonstrate what lying really is. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) went on record saying that if the House doesn t censure Joe Wilson, soon the KKK will be riding through the countryside.

Did you get that? Joe Wilson didn t call Obama a liar for lying. According to Clyburne, Wilson called Obama a liar for being black.

I was insulted on Obama s behalf. How dare James Clyburn insinuate that being black automatically makes one a liar? That s one of the most racist things I ve ever heard.

But I misunderstood Clyburn meant to insinuate that because Obama is black, that s why Joe Wilson called him a liar. Because Obama is black. Not because he was lying.

Since Obama was a) clearly lying, and b) talking about the budget, the whole Joe Wilson is a racist because Obama lied and Joe Wilson called him on it so therefore he is a racist thing is too complicated for me.

It has introduced an entirely new paradigm to American politics that could be expressed thusly: Only white Republicans are capable of racism and all white non-Democrats are racist.

To make this assumption, one must reverse history and ignore the present.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest following the Civil War and quickly spread throughout the South. They were formed to resist Reconstruction by assaulting and murdering freed slaves and white Republicans, known as carpetbaggers .

In the post Civil War era, the Union states were primarily Republican, the Confederate states primarily Democrat. It was a white Republican who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and it was a white Republican-controlled Congress who rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which a) abolished slavery, b) guaranteed equal protection under the law, c) gave blacks the right to vote.

The Democrats in the South created and nurtured what was a nearly century-long, legal racial caste system that relegated blacks to the lowest educational, political, economic and social strata.

The Ku Klux Klan was instrumental to white Democrats regaining political power in the South after the War. The Klan reformed in 1915. Its official platform was anti-black, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic.

In 1913, Democrat Woodrow Wilson introduced segregation into the federal government. By 1920, the Klan grew to include about 15% of the eligible US population among its members.

That same year, Warren G Harding ran on an anti-segregation ticket and fought for the passage of a federal anti-lynching law. Since Harding was a Republican, the simple process of elimination leaves the Democrats in opposition to both the anti-lynching law and Harding s efforts to undo Wilson s segregation legislation.

In 1957, Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, called out his state’s National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the city to escort nine frightened black teens into the school past riotous mobs inflamed by Faubus’ defiance of a federal court order.

Faubus was a Democrat. Eisenhower was a Republican.

It s often joked that if you remember the 60 s, you weren t there. Maybe that is true. Because as I remember it, George Wallace was a Democrat when he blocked the entrance to the University of Alabama.

It was Democrat governors and Democrat controlled-legislatures that ordered the Stars and Bars to fly above their courthouses.

Despite being forced by circumstance to send the National Guard in to escort the black students past Wallace, JFK voted with his party against the Voting Rights Act of 1957. It was Attorney-General Robert F Kennedy s FBI that harassed and wiretapped Martin Luther King.

It was Democrat Bull Connor who turned loose the dogs on black demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama. The Birmingham city officials, Democrats all, opposed the civil rights marches.

Martin Luther King s Letter from a Birmingham Jail was made possible, courtesy of the Democrats that put him in there. And although the information has been thoroughly scrubbed from official history, Martin Luther King Jr. was a life-long registered Republican — as was his father before him.

In 1960, Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia’s Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son’s life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release.

If King was freed, MLK Sr. vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrats, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. MLK Jr. later voted for Kennedy and in 1964, opposed Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was the Republican version of Barack Obama Goldwater was even to the right of Ronald Reagan. Not supporting Goldwater no more establishes King as a Democrat than not supporting Obama would establish somebody as a Republican.

But on such thinly sliced facts, a political myth was born. Since 1964, blacks have voted almost monolithically for Democrat candidates.

This, despite the fact that the list of the ten poorest inner cities in America and the ten cities that have been under exclusive Democrat control since the 1960 s are essentially the same list.


Indeed, merely saying that Dr. King was a Republican can earn one the title of racist . Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, sponsored an advertisement that reminded voters that King was a member of the Republican Party.

Reaction to the ad was exemplified by the title of the Washington Post column on the subject, Controversial Ad Links MLK to GOP and quoting Rice; They ve called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout and a traitor to my race.

It is not racist to quote history. But it is if it doesn t feed the popular mythology.

I can t say all Democrats were racist then or that all black Democrats are racist now. I didn t know all Democrats from US history and I don t know all black Democrats now.

What I DO know is that history is neither racist nor color-blind. It isn t partisan and doesn t favor Republican over Democrat. History has no agenda it is a record of events as they happened.

Historical revisionism doesn t change the facts as they happened, it simply changes the facts that are being taught to suit the prevailing political winds.

Racism is an ugly charge. It evokes images of Birmingham, Bull Connor, George Wallace and Orval Faubus, but through careful and systematic application of the Big Lie, those images have been scrubbed clean of their actual political affiliation.

The problem with throwing around charges like racism every time it is politically expedient is that it tends to dilute its impact. If everybody is a racist but nobody does anything about it, then it has the same affect as accepting the statement that ‘all politicians lie.”

Since they all lie, it is no big deal when one gets caught in one. And if everybody is racist, then it is no big deal when real racism begins to color public policy.

That is why James Clyburn can evoke images of the Ku Klux Klan and link them to a Republican and nobody gasps and reminds him that Clyburn is the one who is a member of the party that founded and nurtured the Ku Klux Klan.

Racism isn’t a crime against humanity any more. It is a political tool to be used and exploited by Democrats as needed.

For example, Jimmy Carter. (groan) Carter held a town hall meeting at his presidential center in Atlanta. When he was asked about Joe Wilson, Carter was instant with his assessment.

I think it is based in racism.” (Of course it is!) “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-America is not qualified to be president.

Did you catch that? Allow me to introduce you to the latest Democrat talking point. If you are a birther then you are also a racist.

If you believe Obama is not qualified to hold his office because the Constitution requires him to be natural-born, your Constitutional concerns are not rooted in policy or law, but rather, in race.

(Exactly what ‘race’ is a guy that is half white, two-thirds Arab and one third black African, anyway?)

Carter called Wilson s outburst part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.”

“Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” he said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Is it deeper than the sincere debate about George Bush, whose entire two terms were fraught with demonstrators depicting him as Hitler, a Nazi, a war criminal, a murderer and, of course, a liar?

Who can forget “Bush lied, people died”? Who can forget the Democrats who traveled to the enemy s capital in Baghdad to denounce their own president on the eve of war?

Did anyone consider censuring David Bonior or James McDermott for what amounted to open treason?

Why not? As Carter lectured his town hall audience at his presidential library: The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

Yeah. Like Carter treated George Bush?

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

Strongly Delusional

Strongly Delusional
Vol: 96 Issue: 15 Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Pew Research Center just released a national poll whose results are unlikely to surprise any long term-readers of the Omega Letter, but are nevertheless shocking to the senses.

About six years ago, we released an e-book under the title Bodyguard of Lies . It opened by making the provocative statement that probably half of everything you think you know is not true. You ve been lied to about almost everything by the mainstream media.

Most of what you ve been told about the Israel-Arab conflict is not true. Neither is most of what you ve been told about the history of the Middle East or the Palestinian people. In fact, much of what you know of American history is not true.

You ve been lied to systematically, about social issues by using manipulated polls. You ve been lied to about political issues through the use of a political sophistry called spin which is a kinder, gentler word for lie.

You ve been lied to in order to convince you to accept a new social agenda that is so radically removed from the social reality of a generation ago that anyone over the age of thirty suffers from culture shock every time they go out in public.

You ve been lied to about what you think, about what everybody else thinks and about what the smart people think for so long that you don t know what to think.

Everybody knows it you know it! The lies are so pervasive that you can t see them anymore, even when they stand right in front of you in all their glory. Many people, when confronted with the truth, would rather remain in denial than admit what they see before them.

That was back in 2003. George Bush was in office. Saddam Hussein was in hiding. Barack Obama was attempting a comeback, after a bruising loss to former Black Panther Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for Congress in 2000, by running for the US Senate.

Six years later, Barack Obama is in the White House. George Bush is in retirement. Saddam Hussein is in hell. And the mainstream media is now a recognized propaganda arm of the New Left Democrat Party.


The Pew study, released Sunday, finds that two-thirds of Americans believe news stories are often inaccurate, and three-quarters of Americans think they’re biased. That’s the biggest slip in attitudes toward the media since Pew began assessing press performance 24 years ago.

In 1985 when Pew began assessing media bias, 55% of Americans said that new organizations generally get their facts straight. In that same 1985 survey, 34% said the news was often inaccurate. In 1985, Ronald Reagan was president.

In the most recent Pew Poll, less than one in three respondents trust the mainstream media to be accurate in its reporting. Only 29% agreed that the press generally gets its facts straight and a whopping 63% — almost two-thirds agreeing that news reports are often inaccurate .

Only one person in five still believes that the mainstream media is independent and not under the control of special interests. And fully sixty percent of Americans believe that the mainstream press is politically biased which is the textbook definition for propagandist .

Propaganda is defined as communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community towards some cause or person.

There are various methods of propagandizing a population; selective omission of relevant facts; loading the message to evoke an emotional, rather than rational response, and, in the case of the current mainstream media, just lying outright whenever the truth is inconvenient.

One quick example is the mainstream s portrayal of the September 12th march on Washington as tens of thousands of conservative activists. Actual computerized crowd estimates put the number somewhere around 1.7 MILLION.

But it is hard to dismiss 1,700,000 American citizens concerned enough to attend the rally as irrelevant conservative activists. Even for the mainstream media. It s easier to maintain the Democrat fiction that they are Astroturf instead of a genuine grass roots movement when the numbers are smaller. Since it s easier to lie, that is what they did.

They lied about the numbers because they are too heavily invested in the Obama administration to back down now. The mainstream media painted Obama as some kind of messiah-figure from the New Left. To accomplish this, they had to pretend there was no genuine controversy about his birth place, for example.

Having invested themselves on one side of that argument, the mainstream media, (including Fox News, by the way) now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of pretending there is nothing unusual about a US president paying millions of dollars to lawyers whose only job is to hide the particulars of his birth and education.

The mainstream media has plenty invested in Al Gore and the whole global warming myth. So when the green jobs czar Van Jones story broke the mainstream media couldn t afford to investigate.

They were supposed to investigate beforehand that is why the free press is Constitutionally protected. So that they can vett government officials instead of letting those government officials vett themselves.

It was the mainstream media s job to vett Barack Obama. They didn t do their job even when the story was handed to them, as in the case of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or gift-wrapped, like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn.

The mainstream continues to do its best to ignore the ACORN story, by alternatively blaming the two filmmakers who taped ACORN officials helping set up a tax-payer funded brothel or by blaming Glenn Beck for investigating ACORN s irregularities.

Disclosing these facts would be inconsistent with the Obama myth they ve carefully fostered since the day Barack Obama first captured their liberal hearts.

Having debased themselves and their credibility thus far, they are now stuck within the boundaries of their own narrative.

In that narrative, Van Jones can t really be a Communist who signed a petition calling on the DoJ to investigate US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

ACORN can t really be a front organization for organized crime. Barack Obama can t really be associated with this many unsavory characters.

If the associations can t be denied, as in the case of Van Jones or ACORN, then the mainstream media has to either ‘clean up’ the association, or ignore the story altogether.

They tried (and failed) to ‘clean up’ Van Jones, so when the story broke, they ignored it. If you got your news from the NYTimes and MSNBC, the first time you heard of the Van Jones controversy was when he resigned.

ACORN is an organization that literally screams investigate me. No fewer than a dozen states are investigating them for election fraud, voter registration fraud, voter intimidation, etc., but the mainstream media pretends that ACORN really is an inner-city black community organization.

Even though they know it is run by two white brothers that share office space with the Service Industries Employees Union (SIEU).

If you look on today s Drudge Report, it shows last night s Neilsons during the prime time cable news race. The top five were all FoxNews. O Reilly had more than 3 million viewers and Glenn Beck had 2.5 million.

O Reilly s audience was equal to the combined audiences of MSNBC and CNN. Why? Because if anybody wanted to learn about the protests, they had to turn to Fox.

This isn t about Fox, it is about the trap the liberal mainstream press has set for themselves. Presumably, outfits like MSNBC and CNN aren t charities but non-profit businesses.

One assumes that they have people whose main job is to figure how what the competition is doing, avoiding what doesn t work and emulating what does.

Can it be possible that nobody at either of these outfits has figured out that the reason Fox News gets better ratings is because it doesn t filter the news according to political agenda?

If you step back and take in the Big Picture, what we re looking at is a textbook example of the Apostle Paul s strong delusion in action.

2nd Thessalonians 2:11 says, And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. To discover which cause that Paul is referring to, you have to back up a verse.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

The mainstream media didn t like the narrative that suggested the One was a Marxist with racist tendencies and a fascist agenda who may or may not even be eligible to hold his office, so they created a new one that was better suited to their bias.

Barack Obama would have the most responsive administration, he was a different kind of politician, he would have the most open and honest administration, he would ban lobbyists and special interests, etc., etc.

They didn t like the truth. And now their delusion is unraveling before their eyes.