My son and I sometimes have theological discussions in which have minor disagreements.
I say minor because we are in complete agreement on the theological majors such as God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – is One God. Jesus is both fully human and fully God. God emptied Himself of His Divine attributes and became incarnated as a man to save humanity from the sin of Adam passed down to all humanity by approving Satan rather than obey God. Jesus as the Son of the Father died on the Cross was buried and was Resurrected in human bodily life reacquiring the Divine attributes that He removed to be a man. In receiving His Divine attributes again the man-God Jesus was Gloried and sits on the Right Hand of the Father ever interceding for the saints in Christ. All who hear, receive and Believe the Good News of Jesus Christ are Saved from the grasp of Satan’s wicked lease on this planet and are transferred into the Kingdom of God.
Frankly it is the minor theological disagreements that wars have been fought over through the years after Christ’s Resurrection. This is not the case between Adam and me.
The following dialogue has been edited with spell check, the removal of personal information as well as the removal of short trivial answers and/or statements.
Gap Theory and Pre-Adamic Civilization Dialogue
Dialogue: Adam and John Houk
Posted March 4, 2012
Adam: February 07, 2012 10:28 AM
[Editor: I had sent a link of a KCM Ministry broadcast that discussed the point of theological disagreement between us: http://www.kcm.org/media/webcast/gloria-copeland-and-billye-brim/120202-gods-plan-for-a-glorious-church]
Ok, I watched the part of your video that explains her reasoning [Creation]. I’m sorry to say but she is incorrect. What she stated is a clear indication that will lead to this conclusion. She states that she believes the earth is as old as true science needs it to be. Now let me start with this. I am willing to bet that the Pre-Adamic age as she refers to it, came out of a light of trying to explain why science is finding the earth to be really old. The problem with this and the way her comment was stating is that both are trying to match the Bible to science and not the other way around. The Bible is the authority on real life, and truth. For many thousands of years there was no talk of a Pre-endemic age. There was a consensus not to be worried about. The Bible has a blood line that dates all the way back to Adam and we have written history to Jesus which accounts for all of human time. Science claims humanoids all the way to 3 million years ago, the Bible does not. Let’s add some more to this. Scientists are heavily disproportionally liberal/atheistically heathen to the population. Satan influences the findings of these types of people. With such a majority of them under such an influence it is easy for them to subvert any true science from being practiced or from being published or made public. This puts doubts into many of their findings. Another note to be added, data is easily manipulated to support the agenda. Just look at evolution and it is easy to see this. Only 33% of the population [believe in evolution], even though scientists have been teaching it as fact for 40 years or more. And yet they are super hostile and label anyone who is a dissenting scientist of evolution as not a real scientist. And scientists succeed at this type of propaganda. I, as a scientist [Editor: MA Physics], have looked at many of the young earth ideas and theories and they have merit, and have much valid evidence to support their findings.
There are only 3 foundations to old earth science which I will put much doubt into NOW.
1) Evolution: I already know you disagree with this one so won’t say much – mutations almost always negatively impact, and the likelihood of sequential stacking of positive mutations to create just a human is so unlikely that it would take trillions to much more than quadrillions of years to happen. There are no transition fossils even though teaching illustrates many transitions.
2) Distance of light traveled:
a) We have committed no experiments beyond our solar system to confirm that light is constant or that it indeed takes a certain time to travel that far.
b) In recent years there has been much evidence to suggest the speed of light varies in speed including stars moving at unpredictable rates, physics not appearing correct in far off galaxies, recent particle traveling faster than speed of light.
3) radioactive dating: 3 improper assumptions:
a) The amount of parent element in a substance in order to make the calculation.
b) No variation to the decay rate over history
c) No historical written records are dated far back enough to confirm the validity of dating. Even the written records of Pharaoh RA had [the time frame] dating it back to a much older [time] in radioactive dating than the event to start with.
Being that there is much doubt in what scientists use as the most concrete evidence of an old Earth and there is a lot of evidence for the New Earth, I would say that many are being mislead by a group of liberalistic, atheistic, and heathenistic scientists.
John: February 07, 2012 10:39 AM
Her conclusions are actually based less on science and more on the Bible and the etymological meanings of ancient Hebrew words. This is Billye Brim asserting the Bible agrees with science and not science proving the Bible incorrect. I am with her 100%.
The key is the Bible is intended by God for the sons and daughters of Adam with a road map of how original sin entered humanity and the earth. Then the road map points to the coming of Jesus.
Jesus is the God-instrument Redeeming humanity from the sin of Adam & Eve in the human spirit. The road map continues to point to Jesus’ second return that will restore God’s recreation of the material earth back to the Glory of God shortly followed by the union of the glorified new earth with the new Heaven becoming one.
Adam: February 08, 2012 9:35 AM
There are 2 problems.
One the conclusion that one must account for how old science is saying the Earth is, so one goes into the Bible and reads under the lens of this belief in order to find a loophole in which the Bible might suggest the world is this old.
Two that one has to say the Bible agrees with science and not that science agrees with the Bible. From a Biblical standpoint one must always understand that God’s Word is perfect and therefore cannot be wrong and also understand that humans make many errors and many are under the influence of Satan. From this understand the primary source of truth is the Bible. Science only helps us to understand more about the truth of what God gave us. You still haven’t told me when Pre-Adamic age started to be talked about.
John: February 08, 2012 11:00 AM
I have not told you because the Bible only gives clues because the Bible is written for the sons of Adam. The Bible says little to nothing about anything that does not have anything to do with the sons of Adam that are promised Redemption which is eventually revealed in Jesus Christ.
Adam: February 09, 2012 9:20 AM
This answer doesn’t address the issues I point out.
Adam: February 14, 2012 10:27 AM
The lack of understanding of saying the Bible agrees with science rather than science must agree with the Bible. When did the Pre-Adamic age talk start? How science is under the massive influence from Satan, in the current history, making it necessary to take a much more critical view of it.
John: February 14, 2012 4:29 PM
The Pre-Adamic age was before the creation of Adam. I whole heartedly agree that modern science is under the influence of Satan.
John: February 15, 2012 12:59 PM
I do not know when it became a debate. Then I saw the Billye Brim episode of the Believer’s Voice of Victory and realized the Pre-Adamite info was planted into me at RHEMA. RHEMA was not dogmatic; however a couple of teachers were. The Pre-Adamic Theory seemed to allow things to fit with secular science and the Bible. The Pre-Adamite thinking and Scripture is revealed in the etymology of words in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.
[Editor: I am adding this for clarity:
Genesis 1: 1-2 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Below is some Pro-Gap Theory information excerpted from Kingdoms in Conflict: Origins of the Conflict:
The “Gap Theory” was first postulated by G.H. Pember in Earth’s Earliest Ages in 1876 and popularized in the footnotes of Dr. C. I. Schofield’s Bible commentary. It helps us understand how the angelic origins of evil carried over to God’s creation in Genesis 1 but is not without some well-founded critical observation.
1. Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created (Heb. “bara” means to create from nothing. “Asah”, used later in Genesis 1 means to “make” from pre-existing matter.)the heavens and the earth. The adherents of the Gap Theory believe that all of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth occurred in Genesis 1:1 citing as a scripture reference Rom 4:17 “…even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” God creates from nothing by the word of His faith. And the earth was without form and void: (Heb. tohu wabohu). This Hebrew idiom is used only to depict scenes of God’s awful, terrible judgment in Isa 34:11 in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and in Jer. 4:23.”Tohu” is used to depict desolation in Deut 32:10, Job 6:18, Job 12:24, Psa. 107:40, Isa 24:10, Isa 40:23, Isa 41:29. Finally in Isa 45:18 we are told that God did not create the world “tohu”. Therefore the earth depicted in Genesis 1:2 is distinctly different than in verse 1 where everything God creates is good. Opponents of the Gap theory state that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement and that what follows is how God did create the earth. They also question the efficacy of a new doctrine discovered in the Scriptures that has eluded even the greatest Christian teachers of the past. This fact alone should put us on guard against any alleged “new revelation”. Pember and Schofield would simply respond by saying that this is no new revelation but has always been available to us. Early Christian scholarship would have discerned it with more focus on God’s Word and less emphasis on philosophy that began enmeshing the Christian Church during the latter part of the second century, AD.
2. On the second day when God separated the firmament from the midst of the waters, this is the only day that is not noted that “God saw that it was good”. This expression appears to summarize all of the other days of creation except the second day.
3. The word “bara” (to create”) is used after Genesis 1:1 only to refer to sea monsters in verse 21 and man in verse 27 where God both makes (asah) man (his body from pre-existing clay) and creates (bara) man in His own image. Verse 1:27 is in direct opposition to any teaching on evolution. These concepts are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled. Although some have made attempts to do so (e.g. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man), such attempts are unscriptural and foolish. The Gap Theory makes no such attempt.
4. In Genesis 1:2 the earth was (Heb. “hayetha”) can be translated as “became”. This word is used 264 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “became” 6 times and as “was” 258 times. Critics of the Gap Theory accurately point this out.
5. The Gap Theory postulates that Gen 1:2 was the aftermath of God’s judgment on the earth and that the remaining days of creation are a “re-creation of the earth with the new additions of sea monsters and Adam. The theory postulates that the earth was populated by a pre-Adamic race which was led by Satan and judged with Satan. These pre-Adamic creatures are the demons referred to in Scripture. Demons (Greek: daimon, daimonian implying greater and lesser forces) appear to differ from angelic majesties mentioned in Jude 9.
Angels fly and walk whereas demons walk (Matt 12:43). Demons are disembodied spirits whereas angels have angelic bodies and have no need to indwell other created beings unless they choose to do so for strategic reasons. In Mark 5:12 demons exhort Jesus to cast them into a herd of swine. Angelic majesties would not do this. Demons are not the spirits of the departed dead men. Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that “it is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment.”
In full disclosure a huge majority of theological and scientific experts do not support Gap Theory or a Pre-Adamic Civilization. An example of some criticism to Gap Theory and the use of the etymology of original Hebrew words can be found at The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory; by Bruce K. Waltke. Restitution Theory is simply a scholarly variant of the more recognizable “Gap Theory”. Waltke’s refutation of Gap Theory employees another interpretation of the word etymology via grammar and similar uses in other Biblical texts. The problem I have with the majority scholar rejection of Gap Theory is the method is nearly exact to Gap Theorists and is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete refutation.]
I have since discovered my thinking on a Pre-Adamite civilization has acquired a name – Gap Theory. The link below is a pro-Gap Theory explanation that I might disagree with a bit but agree with in most cases.
Adam: 2/16/2012 11:58 AM
Here’s the main problem which was just confirmed by reading your link. The timing of the theory coincides with timing in ancient earth philosophy of science. This makes it highly suspect because it is trying to conform to science which is made by humans that are commonly in error instead of science agreeing with the Bible. Also I want to tell you something personally. After getting a degree in physics and rereading genesis there was something awesome about it. I could literally make physical connections to the literal words of the first chapter.
Genesis 1:1-2 Consider the word void: basically means empty without matter. So the universe had no physical matter at all.
Genesis 1:3-5 Let there be light: basically the creation of all matter. Note that all matter emits light as anything with a temperature emits light Genesis 1:6-8 Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters: Here we see a dividing of space which is called heaven from air or atmosphere Genesis 1:9-10 Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: Here oceanic and sea bodies are actually finally formed along with the land that we live on.
Genesis 1:11-13 Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according…: Here finally plants of all types are brought into the picture Genesis 1:14-19 Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night: Here the Sun and the Moon are finally made. The Sun called the greater light which guides the day and Moon the lesser light which guides the night. He also made the stars, the point in which the rest of the universe other than our solar system is made.
Genesis 1:20-23 Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens: The first sighting of living creatures made up of birds and sea/ocean life.
Genesis 1:24-25 Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind: land animals and insects appear.
Genesis 1:26-28 Man is made
So you can see an actual account of all existence as we know it being made from absolutely nothing. Before 1:6-8 there would have been nothing to breath. Before 1:9-10 there would have been nothing to float in or stand on. Before 1:11-13 there would have been nothing for herbivores to eat. Before 1:14-19 there would have been nothing to keep warm.
There is so much in science, even the order of existence listed above, that just do not coincide with popular science today. I underline popular because it is clear they are just mistaken. Even in the past few years there is a number of discoveries that are making people rethink even the most basic philosophies of science as we know it. For example observations of far distant galaxies are suggesting the something is wrong with the basic understanding of physics there. Recently a particle moving faster than the known light speed is putting doubts on the constancy of the speed of light. fossilized trees standing straight up from a cataclysm doesn’t have any ages that would match up with the oldest trees known today which go back all the way to the flood.
Humans are hugely fallible and the fact that there hasn’t been any other suggestion up until recent years of a biblical philosophy for a very old earth questions the validity of that doctrine in the first place.
John: February 16, 2012 5:47 PM
Bucko [Editor: My nickname for Adam] I guess this is one we are going to have to agree to disagree. Fortunately the disagreement will not determine either of our Salvation. We both believe the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and raised on the third day as the Savior of humankind and is sitting on the Right Hand of the Father forever interceding for the saints that are Believers.
I still think you are missing the point that there is an etymological point between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
In either case I am going to work up a post incorporating my Pre-Adamite thoughts and the literal Biblical timeline of 6,000 years. [Editor: Which I have not done]
Adam: 2/17/2012 1:48 PM
This knowledge is kind of important to me because it can accomplish something great. If one can scientifically prove the earth (which I believe has already had some great beginnings) is somewhere between 6000-7000 years old, it would totally obliterate any possibility of big bang or of evolution. Allowing for only one possibility-creation. Well you and I already know this is true, but this would also allow for some changes in education curriculum that has sought to deceive children for years.
In Scripture, God said he made, is clear to any objective observer that all was created. This is the single philosophy that would do that. It is the only one that leaves no wiggle room for atheistic notions. That along with the literal description of all creation along with a precise definition of day and night and how it was guided suggests Biblically that this is the age of the earth. In fact I have made it all the [way] to 99% sure now.
John: 2/17/2012 7:12 PM
Adam I just can’t wrap my mind around a six to seven thousand year old earth. So when you find that 1% to add to the 99% you will be awesome. You will be better known than old Einstein. Godspeed on your path to prove a literal timeline for the Bible. I do hope you succeed, until then I am going with the Pre-Adamite Gap Theory.
Dialogue between Adam and John Houk
Edited by John R. Houk
© May 10, 2011
This is part one of an interchange between my son Adam Houk and myself that began as thoughts on the acceptability of Mitt Romney being the GOP nominee for the 2012 election against President Barack Hussein Obama.
Along the way the discussion merged with thoughts on the filter Christians should be using with their American right to vote.
Subject: Mitt Romney
I have noticed in my readings that this is the leading candidate to make the Republican Party ticket so I went on to read about his political views. After this I was very disappointed and came to the conclusion that I would rather put a write in for the presidential candidate than vote for this guy and I will do a write in instead of voting for him. In hopes of not being forced to do this I thought I would send you 2 an email in hopes that you could spread the information in order to vote for someone better in the primaries. Here are the reprehensible views of why I would rather vote for someone else. Here is some info I have found on Wikipedia.
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. “
A baby is a baby no matter how it is created whether it was incest or rape and should never be destroyed. It even gets much worse than this as I have found and will show.
Romney was photographed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994, and his wife made a $150 contribution to the organization.
It is my opinion that anyone that donates to Planned Parenthood supports their racist views and their driven need to abort babies.
In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that “regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal.”
And more Statements by Romney
“I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.”
And another statement by Romney when accused of being multi-choice
“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. “
The last statement is the same as saying I don’t believe one human being should murder another but I have no right to impose my beliefs on someone else so murder should be legal. It is ridiculous. I in no way believe that Romney would ever sign anything into law that would protect the innocent life of the unborn. This is not a pro-life stance at all but pro-choice.
Help us get a better candidate to vote for.
Subject: RE: Mitt Romney
Yes Mitt Romney is what is known as a Republican in Name Only (RINO). Personally I doubt he will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. The primary reason is that Romney as Governor of Massachusetts set up a mandated healthcare system in his State. With a majority of Americans showing that Obamacare is not favorable I doubt Republicans will place the man who invented Romneycare will win the nomination. The secondary reason is the power of the Christian Right. You see Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is regarded as a cult spinoff of Christianity that does not believe Jesus is coequal with the Father. In fact Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being along with Lucifer, thus making Lucifer out as Jesus’ brother. Lucifer erred in his ways and became Satan. Mormonism is a kind of battle between good and evil in the Gnostic sense.
On the other hand, if Romney does pull an upset and win the nomination I will vote for him. Trust me he will be the lesser of two evils in which President Barack Hussein Obama is an uber-evil American Leftist. Obama must be voted out so he does not have another four years of transforming America into the Leftist vision of a socialist utopia.
Subject: RE: Mitt Romney
I’m done voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If we cannot put a righteous candidate up for election we deserve our fate. I will only vote for a candidate that is holding with God’s principles. Ask yourself this would God vote for the lesser of 2 evils, no God would give us up to our evil ways and let us destroy ourselves and start judgment as he did with Israel. I send this email out in order to avoid having Romney as the Republican Candidate, but if this fails I will try and popularize a write in President. This is a possible win. Just look at Alaska, they did it.
It is time we draw the line. Until we stand up for beliefs wholeheartedly and replace this congregation of corrupt politicians we aren’t ever going to be able to turn our country back to God. It is time we proclaim the word of God openly and everywhere publicly as God has told us when he told us to go into the world to seek and save the lost.
Subject: RE: Mitt Romney
Don’t get mad because I disagree with you. The last time I voted for the righteous cause instead of the lesser of two evils, President Slick Willie Clinton became President. The Republican was incumbent George G.W. Bush (aka Bush 1). The Dem of course was Clinton. I voted for third Party candidate Ross Perot who had the righteous cause back then. I distrusted Bush 1 because of his involvement with Watergate and a questionable CIA stint. I knew Clinton would be a Leftist politically and anti-Social Values. I loved Perot. So did many others. The reality though was Perot siphoned off Conservative voters that allowed Clinton to squeak out a win. The evil Clinton went to be so popular with the voters he was reelected, then impeached and then received a not-guilty from 40 Dem Senators and enough Republicans to score that victory for Clinton (I am uncertain but I think it was 12 Republicans).
I cannot allow my conscience to be responsible for helping Barack Hussein Obama win a 2nd term. Regardless though, as the nominee selection process narrows done to a winner, I doubt that it will be Mitt Romney. He was the favorite for awhile for the nomination in 2008 as well. He ended finishing behind Huckabee and the eventual winner John McCain.
Subject: RE: Mitt Romney
I’m not mad, but I am frustrated. I think you place the responsibility on the wrong person/people. It is not the fault of those that voted for Ross Perot that Clinton was elected but those of evil and ignorant hearts that voted for Clinton. God’s path is a narrow and most will choose the wide gate. To choose the path of a lesser of 2 evils is still that evil. There are many paths to evil but only 1 path to God. Until the Christian community overwhelmingly stands up for what it believes in we will not be heard. Did the apostles listen when they were told not to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem? They said they had to do what God had in store for them to do. If any one candidate has major policies that are incredibly out of line with God’s word, we as Christians have a duty to communicate with each other and pick a candidate that is within the Word of God and write them in. We cannot compromise when it comes to the word of God. That which you feed will grow. Even if we feed sin ever so minor it is a seed that can grow and it has grown abundantly in our country. It is time we kick out the compromising population of politics and put in place candidates that are bold and will hold their ground. Only then can we turn America around politically. Of course this won’t happen until we start turning America around at the base level, with the people.
As I said before if we can’t put forth a candidate that is in holding with God’s word then we deserve our fate as a nation, and as Habakkuk said as he cried out to the lord about why he hasn’t judged Israel for its wickedness “for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgement proceedeth.”
And like in his day, we here in the latter days are starting to experience the birthing pains of this world as the wrath of God is upon us. If we cannot turn this nation around now by standing for God, our country will then be consumed as the rest the world.
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
RE: Mitt Romney
Adam your stick-to-it-ness is quite admirable. You are correct in one thing, people get what they deserve. Whatsoever is sown is that which is reaped. Consider this though:
1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (I Tim. 2: 1-6 NKJV)
In these days of libertinism it is up to the Believers to pray for those in authority. As ghastly as it sounds this even means President Obama as he is in the Office of President. Nonetheless, if the majority of Republicans miss it on the best nominee to replace Obama with, it is up to you, me and other Believers to pray for Mitt Romney. If Romney is the too wrong for the Office of President, the Father will allow Obama to be reelected as the just deserts to those who miss the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I am guessing Romney if selected would be God’s choice much like the likes of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Ahasuerus (aka Xerxes) were choices of God as instruments of God’s will toward bringing His Chosen People back to repentance.
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. (Rom. 13: 1-3 NKJV)
Even many of the Righteous Kings of Israel and Judah had sin in their life but were still used as instruments of God, especially the big dog of Jesus’ human bloodline King David. David had a problem with lust and so did the wing ding with another man’s wife – adultery. Then David attempted to cover-up his adultery by having Bathsheba’s husband come home from war so that he would have conjugal relations to cover David’s impregnation of Bathsheba. Then when that failed, David had Uriah the husband sent back to the battle line with instructions for Uriah to hand to General Joab. The instructions were to order Uriah to lead the frontline of an offense which ended as David had hoped with Uriah’s death – murder.
Again I have to make the point I would be very surprised in this climate of the Tea Party Movement that a Republican with a mixed bag of politics to offer as his bona fides would win the Republican nomination. My mind could change but my support currently is in the hope that Sarah Palin will run for President. She espouses both fiscal and Biblical values (growing up in the Pentecostal Assembly of God in Alaska) in the Conservatism she has to offer. As realist though I am sad to say Palin does not hold broad Republican support even though she was instrumental in getting many long shot Republicans elected that were Tea Partiers as well as making long shots make a close run even though the long shots barely lost.
Where am I going here? I am going with it is more important for Believers to pray than it is to vote even though there is also a responsibility to vote. In praying for those in authority we need to pray for the best candidate to win nominations and to win the political Offices so that whatever the will of God is, we as Christians may live a peaceable and fruitful life in Christ.
END OF PART ONE
Part two will be delivered tomorrow. In writing this interchange between Adam and I spell check and personal editing were involved to make up for both of our quick jotting of thoughts via email. All links even in Adam’s are provided by the Editor.
Check This for Evidence
Adam D. Houk
12/17/2010 10:32 PM
I remember having an argument about the meaning of the word “fact” with a friend of my a few months back. Basically I stated that a fact is something that has actually happened, not something that has been theorized and or highly accepted amongst many as the truth. My argument was: Without an actual being to observe it there is no way to show that something is fact because we might later find out down the road there is another perfectly good explanation that fits all experiments and contradicts the current belief which also fits all the experiments. Without being able to distinguish which is true there is no way of proving one or the other is a fact.
Definition of current online Webster’s Dictionary of the word “fact”:
a. thing done: as an obsolete: feat
b. crime <accessory after the fact>
c. archaic: action
2. archaic: performance, doing
3. The quality of being actual – actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
a. Something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b. An actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5. A piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact, in truth
My 1996 copy written Webster’s Dictionary of the word fact:
1. A deed, esp. a criminal deed [an accessory before (or after) the fact]
2. A thing that has actually happened or is really true
3. Reality; truth
4. Something stated to be true – as a matter of fact in reality; also in fact
Notice how the 3rd definition was added in the newer version. By my 1996 version my statement is absolutely true. In the newest version this thing where people want things to be called “facts” which is best on quality of being actual instead of what is really actual is a matter of redefining our language to fit an agenda that is bent on removing God from this world. Yes when I had this argument it was because the Big Bang theory has been talked about as a fact when it is not a fact just by the mere impossibility a being actually being there to observe it, a fact is something that you can’t refute. I can, God created the universe.
Adam is a Physics Graduate Student at Texas Tech University.