Christian Nobility

Sitting in Church the other Sunday I sat under a preacher who taught us from the book of Nehemiah. He had some interesting points, but one of the things we read in the passage really hit home with me, and I quickly wrote down some notes in order to write this blog. First, let me give the passage below from Nehemiah chapter three:

1 Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests, and they builded the sheep gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors of it; even unto the tower of Meah they sanctified it, unto the tower of Hananeel.

2 And next unto him builded the men of Jericho. And next to them builded Zaccur the son of Imri.

3 But the fish gate did the sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

4 And next unto them repaired Meremoth the son of Urijah, the son of Koz. And next unto them repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah, the son of Meshezabeel. And next unto them repaired Zadok the son of Baana.

5 And next unto them the Tekoites repaired; but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their Lord.

In this passage we find the people of Israel returning from captivity to work together to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Now, Israel is not the church, nor vice versa. But we can spiritually apply this passage to the church today, and make some comparisons. The priests would be a type of modern day "Pastors," while the Israelite people rebuilding the wall would be a type of the "church congregation." And notice that they are all working together in harmony. That is all of them but those in verse 5, who, "put not their necks to the work of their Lord." At first I didn't know what this meant. I had to think about it. Then I figured it out. These "nobles" not only didn't do any work, but they also wouldn't even TURN THEIR HEADS to even look at the work. They just sat there on their rear ends, probably eating bon-bons, and drinking mint juleps! And they weren't interested in doing anything for God!

They were completely happy in their position of laziness and didn't care at all about the work of Lord. So much so, that they didn't even want to LOOK at the work of the Lord. They wanted others to do it all, while they themselves did nothing but enjoy the fruit of the labors of others.

Now, let's spiritually apply this literal, historical passage to the church today. Are there those in the church today who like the "nobility" of old who do the same? Do they, like most nobles, think they are more important than others, and for this reason, they don't need to get their hands dirty?

Sadly, there are such people in our churches today. They are usually that "upiddy, up" crowd in the church who's families for years have been in the church, and who think that because their daddy or granddaddy built the church, that they are more important to the church than anyone else (cause if it wasn't for their forefathers, there would be any church at all).

What's worse is when the Pastor caters to them, and esteems them higher than the "newer members," which elevates these "nobles" even more in their pride, which makes them look even more important to the church than anyone else.

But this is something that God is very much against. Revelation 2:6 tells us:

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

What were the deeds of the Nicolaitans? It was the practice of making two classes of Christians: those who were the most important and those who are looked upon as less important. The word Nicolaity is a compound word consisting of two words: Nico and Laity.

Nico or Nike was the God of "rights" of the people. He taught that certain people deserved some things while others didn't. And laity has to do with those people who are under others. It is from this term with get the word "laymen," or those who are not in a role of church leadership, and who are rather average church members.

This is nothing short of "class warfare" within the church house. For there are not two classes of Christians. There is only one. But in our age we see a great division among Church people. Especially with the teaching of "laymen" vs. "church workers." You know the teaching, in which certain people in the church are looked upon as "more important" than others, and those who don't do anything are only labelled as "laymen."

These then are the "nobility" in the church, who often feel that since they are so important, that they don't have to do anything, rather they should pass it on to others to do the work themselves. Pastors and deacons often fall into this category, as they demand worship from the congregation, but they themselves do nothing but count the offerings and enjoy the benefits of their position. They have converted themselves into the new "nobles."

I've seen it, and I'm sure you have too, that there always seems to be a "clique" in the church of those "rich" people or "popular" folks who run the church and hold much influence over the Pastor. Things always go their way, as they always win the vote to do things that they want done, (like what color the curtains and pews will be, like what types of festivals the church will celebrate, what kind of food people must bring for their fellowships, etc.)

This are the modern "nobility" who sway the actions of the Pastor and who though they themselves do nothing, they always want their names on the plaques on the walls because they give more to the church than anyone else.

But is this right? It's easy to spot such people, for they usually only brag upon themselves and/or on their church building, rather than on the Lord Jesus Christ. They put on a front that they are "noble" in character and lifestyle, but they are the ones who get the most angry when things don't go their way! And when they end up leaving a church during a church split, they are usually the ones who lead others away with them. Is this right?

As I read through Nehemiah, I couldn't help but chuckle. It appears the same type of people that were found in the congregation in Israel are found still today in our Churches. These are those who pass themselves off as "noble" people, who think they are too good to "turn their necks" to toil in the things of the Lord, especially when their desire is rather to "delegate" that job to others. Rather than work themselves, they enjoy the church pews, the church house, the fellowship, but they won't ever pass out a tract, visit other church members, witness to the lost, etc. They let others do it all, while they enjoy the benefits.

Like one old country preacher said of such people years ago, "I think the problem with a lot of church members is they caught a disease. It's called 'Buttroot!' Yeah, they don't do anything but sit on the church pew and because they've sat there so long, their BUTT done ROOTed to the pew. They don't do anything but sit there, and they think if it wasn't for them, the church wouldn't be there!"

There's your "Christian nobility." Just like those nobles of old in the time of Nehemiah, they sat there and did nothing while everyone else did the work. Maybe we should call it "Neckroot disease." For they, like the Israelite nobility, can't seem to even "turn their necks" to see the great need in the world today, especially for the lost world to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

How to Get America Out of Debt Overnight!

When I was a kid (about 8 or 9), I remember my friend and I used to joke about how to get the United States of America out of debt. He used to say, "Why don't we just give the country back to the Native American Indians, have them declare bankrupcy, and then we'll steal it back from them!"

Now, that's not "politically correct," nor is it a very "nice" thing to say today, but you know how kids think. In our minds, that was a great idea, especially since we stole the country from the Indians in the first place, and because we aren't the ones who got the country in debt to begin with. But of course, that would have been wrong.

So how do we get America out of debt? Especially since the current debt makes each American citizen end up owing over 30,000 dollars apiece.

I've thought about this long and hard, and I believe I've come up with a solution. It's very simple, (almost too simple!) And it would work so easily, it could all be done in just a few minutes time!

Unfortunately, my idea is not an original one. This concept was thought of by John F. Kennedy, and was something he actually thought about putting into practice to get America out of debt during his presidency. Oddly enough, he was assassinated just before he was able to act on it. (Any correlation there? No, probably not. Right?)

The idea is as follows. The United States Consititution under Article 1 and Section 8 gives congress the power to, among other things, oh, why don't you just read it for yourself:

"Congress shall have the power to...coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."

According to this, CONGRESS holds the power to coin money, and NOT the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, which is the one now printing our worthless paper money. Why the Congress gave away this power to a PRIVATE BANK like the Federal Reserve, no one knows, but they did, and now we are in debt to this instititution which charges us interest on paper "notes" we barrow from them.

The idea, then, is for the Congress of the United States of America to take back this basic constitutional right, and they could coin one large Coin and place a value on it of the entire United States debt. It then could be presented to the Federal Reserve Bank as PAID IN FULL on the national debt, and then we could tell the Federal Reserve Bank to go take a long walk off a short pier! Congress, then, could continue coining money using REAL and TANGIBLE assests such as gold, silver, copper, platinum, nickel, etc. and etc.

If Congress did this, the United States would immediately be out of debt in one day! And, if they began printing real money, we could be back on the GOLD STANDARD, and would again be the richest nation on the earth!!!

So the question is, why don't they? I'll let them answer that for themselves. That is if they are even interested in getting us out of debt. Seems to me the opposite is true, as they spend our money like its water.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

I can't remember who taught it to me, whether it was my Dad, my High School, my Bible Teacher, or my secular college professor, but I do remember exactly what he said. In speaking about the Communists, he said, "The way communists work is by taking two steps forward and one step back!"

He further said when Communists do something that others are angry with, they quickly back off. And when they do, those who were angry think they've won, as the Communists backed down. But the truth is the Communists are the real winners, as they are left one step ahead of where they began.

So, Communists never really do lose momentum. Although they appear to be lose ground, they press on with two steps forward and one step back.

Doing this over and over, Communists eventually make enough steps to gain full control as they take over completely. But why can't people see this?

As I look at my own country, the United States of America, I can't help but look at the Democratic party, which have many ties to Communist groups, and how they are now working. They are running wide open passing laws left and right as quickly as possible, even though the majority of the American people are against them. Bailouts, healthcare, food "safety," "Dream acts" and more are all things most Americans are very much against. For they feel it takes away their freedoms, and/or gives too much freedom to others who don't deserve it.

But what do the Democrats do? They press on, not caring what happens, for even if some of their laws are declared unconstitutional, they have gotten them through and they are able to get their agenda done in the mean time. In other words, they take two steps forward, and one step back.

Over the last two years, Dems have rushed their agenda through congress and passed many laws. But America spoke in the elections. Did the dems pack up and go home for the holidays? Nope, as a "lame duck" session they keep doing the same thing! They rammed through "food safety," (which makes it illegal to keep seeds or have your own garden), net neutrality, (which makes them able to shut down any website they don't like), and more. They are also trying to pass the "dream act" which will grant citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who now reside in our borders. Care to guess who they will vote for in the next election if they are granted citizenship? If you said, "Republican" you are dead WRONG!

With all this happening, it makes me wonder if the rapture is not near. For the laws are changing so quickly, and they all seem to point to one thing--THE TRIBULATION PERIOD!

For the food safety makes it illegal to own your own seeds or plant your own garden. That means if you want food, you have to go to the government to buy it. And how do you buy it, without the mark of the beast? And how better to give the mark of the beast to all people then to force them to have their own healthcare doctor who will inject the chip under their skin? And what better way to shut down any opposition to their agenda then to control the internet and be able to shut down anyone who exposes their plan. And finally, why wouldn't you want a "dream act" to make everyone who's "illegal" legal so they too can get under healthcare and get the mark?

God help us! Even so come Lord Jesus!

Left vs Right is Really Man vs God

I listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio today as I drove around town running errands. He says a lot of things that are very close to the truth, but I feel he never seems to hit the nail on the head. Like a lot of others on talk radio, he gets so close to the truth, but then he can't seem to plainly see what's really going on--that there is a satanic conspiracy against all that is good, and the Devil is behind it using his minions to bring about his own kingdom.

But, today Rush came very close to pointing out the spiritual oppression in the world, when he exposee the left's hatred towards Christmas, and the things of God. (He showed how they were "offended" by saying the word CHRIST-MAS, and how they thought it was too religious).

He even made an interesting correlation in saying that just as the Left tries to change the Consititution, they are trying to change the morals in the Bible. In other words, when something is written in stone they don't agree with, they seek to rewrite the stone, rather than abide by what's written. It's not important to them if God himself wrote it, as they are trying to play God themselves. In fact, they want to be God! (Rush even said their goal is to replace God with Government).

As good a point as this is, Rush didn't go far enough in explaining that modern politics is not just a matter of "left" vs "right," but it's a matter of Man vs. God.

The truth is the left HATES God. They do not want to serve him, nor even believe in him, and that's why whenever they see any rememberance of Him or his son Jesus Christ, they are so easily offended.

I believe the Bible speaks of these leftist liberals very plainly in Romans chapter one:

21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Here we read of those who do not glorify God, nor do they want to even think about him, and how they act towards others. We also read a list of what these people are really like. Don't the things mentioned here remind you of those in the "left?"

The Majority of the left are people who claim to be "open-minded." They don't claim to be anyone who accepts the "rigid" ideals of days gone by (like the morals of the Bible), rather they believe in man's "progression" or "evolution." They are in favor of "change" and are not only unhappy with the traditions of old, but they despise them.

How did they get this way? It's because they went off to colleges and universities where they were taught not to believe in the morals and values of their parents. (If you don't know, colleges today are nothing by rampant parties full of elicit sex acts, debauchery, and revelings).

Not only do these students forget God in their daily lives as they practice sin in an environment that does not condemn, but rather encourages their misbehaviour, but they are also taught by professors who ridicule and downgrade God. Evolution takes away their belief in a Creator, while "secular modernism," "collectivism" and "social justice" take away their believe in Jesus as the only "Redeemer," for they are taught their personal salvation is dependent upon what they do for others. Or as President Obama has so often preached, "Their individual salvation is dependent upon collective salvation."

Not only is their consience seared with a hot iron by their sin and degragation, but their minds are warped into thinking that all their evil deeds are okay and even permissible as long as they are actively engaged in doing good deeds towards others. This mentality makes them focus on wanting to "help" the poor masses, and this they try to do in many ways, thinking they are doing man a service.

Seeing much injustice in the world, they often turn towards "socialism" or "communistic teachings," thinking the the only way to bring about justice for all is to make all men the same. Little do they realize, they are trying to make all men like themselves, i.e. sinful, wicked, ungodly, sinners, who justify their sin while trying to pretend there is no just God anywhere who will someday judge them for their actions.

In short, they become modern day Pharisees, who have mastered how to look smart, professional, and generous outwardly, while inwardly they only care about themselves and what they can get out of life that makes them "feel" good.

When they come to the realization that stuff doesn't fill the void in their hearts, they turn towards charity, because everyone knows it "feels good" to help other people. Often they get into Politics, and forward their own agendas, pushing them on others. But little do they think that their agendas could be against God and the Bible.

As sinners, they desire others to live like themeselves, and instead of granting freedom to serve God (as the founding fathers did in America), they dogmatically devote their time and energy to propagating freedom for men to partake in evil and degrading practices. Thinking they are helping individuals, they don't realize they are destroying the institutions God set up, such as marriage, the church, and man's basic freedom to follow his conscience.

As they grow in numbers, they band together to try to bring about their own private utopia, in which all opposition to them, their beliefs, and their agendas are silenced, and all men are united in order to have one big party together and enjoy carnal things.

Little do they think that God is watching from above and is angry at them, their sins, their practices, and their blatant disregard for his commandments.

SUMMARY

It's not hard to see that this whole Left vs. Right political thing is not just two separate sides of a coin. It is much more. It has a spiritual aspect of good verses evil. As the left grows, it becomes more dogmatic against the things of God, against Christians, and against the Bible. Is this just an accident? Or could it be the reason is because they are taught by their master (Satan), and he has made them what they are?

How funny that in the current political set up if you are not "Left" then you are labelled as being on the "Right!" (Today you are even called "Right WING.") Does that mean those who aren't on the "right" are "WRONG?"

As we look at those on the "left," their schools, their attitudes, their doctrines, their fruits, we find most of them are not Christians. Although some might claim to be, their actions and involvement in anti-biblical agendas prove otherwise. We further find they are not servants of God, but rather try to play God themselves, trying to control and change things they don't like. Though they claim to "love" and "tolerate" others, their unabashed HATRED shows forth in times like CHRIST-mas, and EASTER, as they despise public displays of anything to do with Christ or God.

If a man gives a Bible verse against Abortion, or one in favor of women submitting to their husbands, or a scripture against homosexual acts, Liberal leftists are the first to cry "bigots!" or "hatemonger!" But why? Is it wrong to quote the Bible? It is to the "leftist" who doesn't believe in the word of God. And when a man does, he's automatically labelled by the left as a "radical," "fanatical," and/or "dogmatical" fundamentalist.

Thus, it's not just "left" vs. "right." It's often GOD HATERS verses the right. And who is the right? They are often called the "Conservatives." Why is this? Is it because they want to "conserve" the things they've been taught? Or, could it be they want to "conserve" the traditional values of old (which can be traced back to the Bible).

If you follow Politics in America today, you need to realize it is not just two different political ideas warring against one another. It is much more. It is a spiritual battle. It is one side who hates God and his word trying to overtake and abase the other side. And they will never stop until their agenda of erradicating God completely is attained. Their ultimate goal is Communism, a system of "secular humanism" which obliterates God completely. For under that system, the government takes God's place and they are in control to run things as they see fit.

Thank God we have the Bible, though, that tells us someday Jesus Christ will come back and kick them out and it is HE who will rule and reign with a rod of iron. I sure wouldn't want to be a liberal "leftist" when that day comes!

Breaker's Broken Bible?

Several years ago, I wrote a book about the new phenomenon known as the modern Reina-Valera Gomez Bible. I then posted that book to my website. It can be found at the following address:

www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/truth_about_gomez.htm

When I wrote the book, I was careful to only give facts, and not "attack" that new version, wishing only to point out that in my opinion it was not an exhaustive work, nor did it make the Spanish Bible any better, rather worse as in it's first edition, IT SAID A MAN COULD MARRY HIS OWN DAUGHTER!

I was careful to also point out Mr. Gomez' lack of knowledge of the Greek language led to his edition containing many anti-Textus Receptus readings in his version. And I gave some examples in my book, along with various other strange readings and even doctrinal errors.

Quickly, a Missionary to Chile came along and critiqued my work, claiming I was "attacking" the Gomez Bible, and he proceeded to try to make me look stupid and unlearned. He then went to the Greek and tried to say I was wrong, and that the "anti-TR" readings I presented weren't really important. (They must have been, however, as Mr. Gomez has recently changed some of them in his later editions.) And, this Missionary to Chile then wrote an essasy against me entitled, "Breaker's Broken Bible" on a blog.

I read it once and thought it was silly, as most of his arguments were either false or foolish. And to me it appeared he really exposed himself as a man who didn't really care about having God's pure words (all of them), as he was fine with translating words in other tenses, and having them plural instead of singular (and vice versa). He also went against the original 1602 and the King James time and again to defend the Gomez reading. How sad.

In short, he appeared to me as just a man who didn't care about having every word of God translated correctly into the Spanish language.

So I just forgot the man and his article and moved on.

But today, several years later, as I sat sick with a cough, I looked that article up again, and found that many people had responded to it. You can read the article and people's responses to it at:

www.prisonersofmexico.com/bible/1865%20Breaker%92s%20Broken%20Booklet.pdf

As I read through it, I found the first response was from Mr. Gomez himself. How sad was his response in Spanish. I translate it here into English:

"Esteemed Bro. Heinz, thanks for your words. It is sad to see how Bro. Breaker doing what he does, only adds confusion and contributes to the critiques against the purity of the Word of God. God have mercy.

A constructive critique will always be welcome.

Humberto Gomez."

As I read this, I thought to myself, "What? How does that even make sense???" How does showing the TRUTH about the errors and anti-Textus Receptus readings in the first edition of the Gomez Bible cause CONFUSION? How can TRUTH ever cause confusion for that matter???

Obviously, what I pointed out was true, as in later editions of the Gomez Bible, some of the "criticisms" I made were later changed in new Gomez versions. (But not all of them!) So obviously, I was right. Did I get an apology. NOPE! Do I want one, NOPE!

Instead, I've been labeled as someone who confuses others and contributes to the critiques against the purity of God's word. How strange, when I'm simply pointing out that the Gomez reads AGAINST the KJV and Textus Receptus on many occasions.

The truth is, I didn't critique God's pure words, nor do I confuse anyone. I simply stated the truth. I care about the pure word of God in Spanish, even though Mr. Gomez claims my motive is just to cause confusion and criticize the purity of God's word (which it appears Mr. Gomez insinuates is his own version alone).

No, Mr. Missionary to Chile's article didn't bother me, nor did Mr. Gomez' condesending response. So I read on. And what I found next was the same Missionary to Chile writing back to Mr. Gomez with the following words, which I've translated into English:

"Brother Gomez, I equally thank you for commenting here. It is very certain what you said. God will make more cooperation than confusion in the future. Thanks for your work of love in the purification of the Word."

Boy, there is no bias there, huh? Ha Ha. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's easy to see that the reason Mr. Missionary to Chile was against me, was because he'd already made up his mind to use the Gomez Bible. And he is very much in favor of Mr. Gomez and his "purification" of the Spanish Bible.

Why, oh why, then would Mr. Missionary to Chile entitle his essay, "Breaker's Broken Bible," when I give the evidence on the problems in the Gomez first edition, while pointing out that they were CORRECTED in the Valera 1602 PURIFIED Spanish Bible already??? (The Bible he wants to claim is broken).

People are strange, aren't they, in their choice of words? They'll attack the Valera 1602 PURIFIED and make fun of it, while defending the Gomez Bible which hasn't been "purified" enough, as it still reads against the KJV, the Textus Receptus, and the original 1602 in many places. Hmmm. Strange, wouldn't you say?

And, then at the same time they praise a man for "purifying" the Spanish Bible, who in his first edition made the Bible read that it's okay to marry one's own daughter! (Like the Gomez did). Sure, this has been changed in the later editions, but does changing the Bible to teach heresy and then changing it back part of the "PURIFICATION" Process???

Anyway, I read further in the responses and found Jeff McCardle, who supports the 1865, weighed in with his opinions. Although I don't agree with Jeff McCardle, nor do I use his version, I found he gives some great points about some errors in the Gomez first edition. (It is important and only fair to report that the later editions of the Gomez change these grevious errors.)

I later found an old friend, Manny Rodriguez, jumping in to defend the Gomez, but neither he, Gomez, or Mr. Missionary to Chile ever deal with the issue I gave in my book. That is: The Gomez first edition DID CONTAIN CRITICAL TEXT READINGS over TEXTUS RECEPTUS readings, and the latest edition of the Gomez does as well. And it does so because Mr. Gomez used the 1909 Spanish Bible as his basis, a version that was made in order to introduce Critical Text readings into the Reina-Valera Bibles.

Anyway, without going on further, I would encourage you to read my book, read Mr. Heinz' article, and then read the responses and see what you think. Do what my Dad always taught me to do, PRACTICE DISCERNMENT!

And it'll be interesting what you find out. Is my Bible "broken?" I don't believe so. I know the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible is really the closest to the original 1602, and the Textus Receptus, while the Gomez is closer to the 1909 and 1960 in many words it chooses to follow against the original 1602.

I'm also sure if you'll study this out for yourself, you'll see many of the things I've seen over the years in the Spanish Bible debate:

1. Opinions are political in nature instead of focusing on the purity of the texts.

2. There is much man worship (i.e. Mr. Gomez)

3. A political movement has developed to push the Gomez Bible while covering up facts about the Valera 1602 Purified.

4. Men often attack others and call them names instead of just giving the facts.

5. Arrogance and pride run rampant instead of humility.

6. Statements are made by men that they later have to retract, or amend, as they have changed their position.

7. Men are quick to "label" men like myself, who only present the facts, as guilty of "confusing" instead of "clarifying" the evidence.

8. Angry fleshly rhetoric is used in attacking, instead of the fruits of the spirit in speaking the truth in love.

9. Men who claim to believe something in English are not very consistent to believe the same thing in Spanish.

And much more.

Have fun! I believe you're smart enough to let the facts speak for themselves. Don't get caught up in what Bro. So and So says, rather focus on the FACTS!

One Fundamentalist summed it up nicely, "The Spanish Bible Issue isn't about PURITY, rather it's about POLITICS!" Isn't that sad?

But, I believe this article and it's responses illustrate that concept nicely. It also gives a great representation of how Independent Baptists have dealt with the issue over the centuries. That is, instead of dealing the issue itself, they bark at each other and are quick to get in the flesh, lead by their emotions, rather than simply learning the facts and debating them in an orderly fashion.

In closing, let me say that if you still haven't seen the Valera 1602 Purified, or heard about it, why not visit my website at:

http://www.rrb3.com/

And then click on the Spanish Bible Issue for more information. You can also go to my blog I wrote entitled:

"A CRASH COURSE ON THE SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE"

That article is found at:

http://truth-stands-alone.blogspot.com/2010/11/crash-course-on-spanish-bible-issue.html

God bless, and let's all get busy setting aside politics and get to the importance of the purity of the word of God.

POST SCRIPT: After having looked at the above link that takes you to the article "Breaker's Broken Bible," in adobe format, I found that it left off the last three posts, one of which was mine. These can be found at the original blog:

http://diligentsearch.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/breakers-broken-rvg-1602p-analysis/

Sincerely,

Robert Breaker III

P.S. Oh, I even forgot to mention how these guys who use the Gomez are so far off, they don't even know the difference between the Word (capital "W"), and the word (lower case "w"). Do you know the difference? Well, if you are a KJB believer, you do. For in the King James Bible, the Word (capital "W") is always a reference to JESUS CHRIST! While word is a reference to the Scriptures -the word of God- or the Bible. I wonder if these guys know this, as they are always capitalizing the W when they talk about the Bible. Kinda shows their ignorance, doesn't it?

Well, anyway, let's just all go marry our daughters! Ha, Ha.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

As I study history and I watch politics, I think I've finally figured out the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. (Aside from the fact, that is, that they are both corrupt!)

I used to not even pay attention to politics. As a matter of fact, a year ago, I didn't even know what GOP stood for. (I've since learned it stands for the Grand Old Party.)

I even remember a couple of elections ago wandering who the red ones were and who the blue ones are. Now I know that red is for Republican and blue is for Democrat.

I find this quite fitting, for red is the color of BLOOD, and the Republicans when they take power always seem to be the ones who start WARS, where there is much bloodshed. (How interesting too that Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN, and he's the one who started that whole War of Northern Agression thing).

Blue is not only the color of the Democrats, but is the color of heaven, and how fitting that it as that's what the Democrats want to make here on earth as they are busy trying to start their own "utopia" or "village" (see Hillary Clinton's book), with their Socialization of society. But they always RAISE TAXES to fund their plans and put them into effect, which usually give us ton of overpaid bueracrats who get paid to do nothing! That might be heaven to those who are on the government payroll, but not to us who have to foot the bill.

With this said, I believe the easist way to differenciate between Republican and Democrat, is the Republicans are the War Mongers, while the Democrats are the Tax raisers.

This means both of them are doing harm to our country and the American people. For the "Publicans" (uh, er, I mean "Re" publicans) bankrupt the country by running up the national debt to pay for their foreign wars. (What ever happened to the Monroe Doctrine?) While the Demoncrats (whoops, I mean Democ-Rats) destroy small businesses by taxing them to death, making it hard for people to find work, which eventually leads to much joblessness. (Like the almost 14 percent unemployment rate in our country.

Thus, both of them end up doing the same thing which is destroy our country and make our economy worse.

What do you think? Got any other differences between those two corrupt parties? I'd like to hear 'em. Please feel free to comment below!

A Nation Divided

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. (Mark 3:24)

It's clear: A nation divided against itself shall not stand! And if ever there was a nation that was divided, it is the United States of America. The last two presidential elections really proved to me just how divided America and Americans really are. They are now almost half liberal and half conservative. And this division can clearly be seen in the elections of today, where almost 50% of Americans are in favor of Democrats, and 50% in favor of Republicans.

As I thought on this, I realized just in how many ways Americans are divided. They are...

...DIVIDED IN POLARITY

I believe probably no other nation in the history of the world has ever been as divided as the USA is now. Let me rephrase that. I believe no other nation in the world has ever had two parties that are so extremely opposite. Liberals and Conservatives of today are as far apart from each other as they can be, and it appears they have absolutely no common ground in which to unite. They both want their own way or else, and they can never rest until their agendas are fulfilled. How can a country survive such opposite extremes, especially when neither side wants to give in? I just don't know.

...DIVIDED IN PURITY

The two opposite extremes in America appear to be opposite in their morals as well. In America you have those who are fully "liberated" and given over to their unsatiated sinful behaviours, and those who are upstanding citizens who are trying to live honest lives full of dignity and honor.

On the one side you have those who are full of wickedness and hatred who practice lying, slandering, libeling, and ridicule. While on the other, you have people who are decent, nice, and caring towards others. How can a nation continue with such a continental divide among its citizens?

...DIVIDED IN POSITION

I see in America two distinct kind of persons: CITY PEOPLE and COUNTRY PEOPLE. City people usually learn how to be cold towards others, not even saying, "Hello," as they pass others on the street. And growing up in the ghetto, and in the "hood" is without a doubt hard, because of the rampant crime, drugs, and robberies. Living in the city oftentimes produces people who are self-gratifying and uncaring towards others. Now, I'm not saying all city people are bad, but to live in a city nowadays is to live in a place closer to danger than the country.

Contrast this with country folk, who are usually down home, friendly, nice people who wave to you as they drive by, and are often quick to strike up a conversation with you. They are usually decent, clean, fun-loving individuals who work hard to make a living and enjoy having fun. And they are usually considerate, and ready to help others in need.

It wasn't always this way. People in the cities used to be just as nice as people in the country, but over population in places like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Detroit, etc., lead to the rise of gang members and violence in the inner cities. Further, we find more crime in cities, which leads to more distrust among the populace of those around them. How does a nation stand when others live in fear for their very lives from thugs and villans?

...DIVIDED IN POLITICAL IDEALS

America was founded a constitutional republic with FREEDOM for its citizens as the main objective. It used to be the majority of Americans wanted this form of government and wanted LIBERTY for themselves and their children. But lately we've seen a rise in a system of governance that is uncompatible with these principles. That is SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, and we see them taught in the colleges and universities throughout our land as viable systems of government. (Never mind that they have NEVER, EVER turned out good in any country they were instituted in, and they always ended in failure!). Yet, in America, we see more and more young people siding with Communism than with Constitutional freedom. And we see the rise of communism and socialists in America fighting for their ideals, yeah even openly speaking and writing of their desire to see revolution in the streets! How is this a good thing?

...DIVIDED IN POWER

In America the governing parties are diameterically opposed to one another. Democrats hate Republicans and vice versa. The two are pitted against each other, and often times bitter words and heated rivalries ensue. Each has their own agenda. One wants big government and to control the people, while the other claims to want to make government smaller and give people more freedoms. Continually they fight for power, and what we find is usually they only care about themselves and not the American people. How does this two party system help the country? And what's wrong with a three or four party system? And why don't politicians do what's best for the country instead of what's best from themselves?

...DIVIDED IN PROGRAMS

Americans don't want to work together. Or maybe I should say it this way: there are Americans who want to work, and get ahead and enjoy what they've earned. And then, there are those who don't want to work at all, but enjoy just as much as those who have worked hard to get ahead. Because of this the government has set up programs like WELFARE. Some Americans support this. Others think it unfair, and want it discontinued, because it's not right to let some people do nothing and get ahead while others have to work hard for what they earn.

Americans cannot get together and work out their differences. Nor does Congress do anything about this. Instead it lets the division continue so that the have nots hate those who have and those who have show contempt on those who have not and don't want to work to get it.

...DIVIDED IN FUTURE PLANS

Finally, Americans are divided on how this country should continue. Some want to go back to the constitution just the way it used to be originally. Others want to do away with the Constitution completely, starting a new form of government. Yet no one has any idea how to fix the mess that is America and pay off the massive debt its government has incurred through needless wars, failed programs, and unfruitful stimulus' (plural).

IN SUMMARY

In conclusion, it doesn't take a genius to see that America is divided. It is divided in every aspect. Its citizens have been pitted against each other and this is exactly what the enemy wants in order to come in and take it over. America can't even agree on who it is, where it came from, or in which direction it is headed. In short, its liberty and freedom has been its greatest blessing, but also its greatest curse, for it has allowed communism and socialism to breed in the minds of its youth, who will eventually try to implement those failed systems into the future of the country.

Jesus said it clearly, "...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Mat 12:25)

I love my country and it saddens me greatly to write a blog like this. But its obvious that America is on the rocks. It's headed to hell in a handbasket unless its citizens can agree.

What's the answer? That's easy! It's the BIBLE! For the word of God, and the Creator are what helped to make America great to begin with, and for it to be great again, Americans must turn to their creator and His word, and repent of their sins.

The Bible and Anti-Colonialism

I'm currently reading the book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," by Dinesh D'Souza, in which he explains the modern movement against the Colonialization of the world by the white people. This racist anti-white teaching (which is what it really all boils down to), is known as "Anti-Colonialism," and is what caused Obama's father to fight the British in his day. It also caused the U.N. to intervene on many occasions and help many countries overthrow the foreign rule of Belguim, the Dutch, the English, the German, and the French in the continent of Africa.

Now, as a Christian, I'm not in favor of how the colonization was most often inacted, for it usually was brought about by military actions and the senseless slaughter of countless thousands of Africans. Nor am I in favor of the brutal beatings and horrible treatment often accompanied by Colonial reign. But I can't help but see how colonization of Africa eventually helped that continent grow in a civilized way, and it eventually led to the Gospel being spread far and wide within that country. Sure it's an awful thing for foreign people to overtake your land and occupy it, but it's a great thing when they bring with them prosperity and a unifying tongue (like English which is spoken all throughout that continent).

But the thing I don't hear many people speaking about is what the Bible says about the Colonializationism, (for he prophecied it would take place by white people thousands of years before it began). They further don't desire to speak at all about the colonization of the United States of America and how slaves were brought there from Africa. Why did these things happen, and what does the Bible tell us about it?

For the answer, we need to go to the book Genesis. And we must trace back the origin of the races. There we find Noah had three sons: Japeth, Shem, and Ham. Japeth was the white man or the Caucasion. He populated Europe. Shem was the Asiatic, who went east and populated Asia. And Ham was the negroid, who went South and populated Africa.

All this can clearly be seen from the Bible. With this in mind, let's look at the prophecy of what would happen with these races from the book of Genesis:

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Here we read of God cursing Canaan, the son of Ham, and telling him he would be a servant (a slave) unto his brethren. We then read of Shem becoming blessed of God (interestingly enough the JEWS come from Shem, and to be against the Jews, you are called "Anti-Semetic".) Finally, we are told in the Bible that Japheth or the white man would dwell in the tents of Shem. (This is exactly what happened when America was colonized by the white man, who took the land away from the Indians, who by the way have their ancestry from Shem).

So according to the Bible, God said Colonization was to take place, and God allowed the white man to do it. Did the white man do it the right way? Obviously not. Oftentimes slaves were mistreated, and indians were lied to and slaughtered, a great mark against the European white man. And for this reason, he's still greatly hated by other races and countries today.

But if you know your history, and your bible, you'll see that there are two kinds of people. Those who are lost and those who are saved. And, as we look back through time we see most often it was those who were lost that were those taking advantage of others such as the blacks and Indians. Not all white people were bad. For history clearly shows us many whites who cared about those of other races, and their souls, and wanted not to deceive them, but give them the truth. David Brainerd is a great example of a man who went to the Indians with the Gospel of Christ Jesus. David Livingstone was a great evangelist in Africa. And there are many others.

But as we look at history today, we find this is completely forgotten, and all white people are demonized, and made out to be the conqueroring bad guys who pillaged and plundered!

Because of this teaching today, there is a giant surge in the movement of "Anti-Colonialism," in which people with hatred and malice blame the white man for all their problems, and are turning against him, sometimes even threatening "revolutions" and seeking "reparations."

But what does the Bible say about this? Are we to hold the children guilty for the sins of their fathers? Most certainly not. For in the Bible we read:

Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Of course this verse is speaking of a sin worthy of death, or of capital punishment. But it proves that we should not punish people today for the sins of their forefathers. If someone's grandaddy did something wrong to my grandaddy, I should not hold that against them. For it was not me that did it. It was the individual who did, and it's something that's over and done with, and should be forgotten.

Sure bad things have happened all over the world. But we should not resurrect the past in order to allow it to make us angry and hateful and vengeful.

Now back to Dinesh D'souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," it appears, if Dinesh is right about Obama's motives, that this is exactly what Obama is trying to do. He wants to try to undo the past by "redistributing the wealth," that he feels Japhethites has taken from others in his many colonial conquests.

But should we not rather deal with the present instead of druding up the past? Shouldn't we lay aside bitterness and anger and deal with things the way they are today instead of trying to make it into the way we think it should have been?

It doesn't matter what race you are or how or where you were raised. What matters is that you don't let hatred and racism control your actions. And we can't tell others that if they are a certain race or color then they must pay others of another race and color because of something their ancestors did. Let everyman stand or fall based upon his own actions, and not those of his forefathers.

WE LIVE IN WEIRD TIMES!

We live in some very strange and confusing times! And I honestly can't look at the news without wondering what on earth is going on. Stories just don't make any sense anymore. It's almost as if 2+2 no longer equals four, instead it equals 3 or 5.

For example, I'm reading the news and trying to figure out how the Department of Justice can let some racists Black Panthers who want to "kill white babies: go scott free, while at the same time going after the state of Arizona and their new illegal immigration enforcement law claiming it might allow racial profiling. If racism is wrong, then shouldn't those Panthers go to jail, and shouldn't the Arizona law, which over and over again speaks against racial profiling, be okay? It just does not make any sense! Does not compute! Especially since the Arizona law is nothing but a copy of the Federal Law!

Then you have people in Washington passing laws that they don't even know what they say! Nancy Pelosi said about one of the new bills, "We have to pass the law so we can find out what's in it!"

How does that make any sense at all? Who in their right mind would sign a contract without reading the fine print? I mean, honestly, would you sign your name to something you've never read???

Then you have the whole cities of refuge thing, which are entirely illegal, (and made so by Bill Clinton in the 1990's). But instead of enforcing the law, Washington D.C. goes after those who try to enforce it, telling them they aren't allowed to (like in Arizona). I just don't understand that! What's going on? How can they focus on not enforcing laws when their job is to enforce them???

I further read lately that almost all the states are bankrupt and Arnold Swarzanegger is actually telling his employees that they must take three days a month off without pay. How on earth does this help things? Shouldn't people who are willing and able to work do so?

Through the whole presidency of Barack Obama, my head has been swimming, and I've been trying to figure out what's going on, and I just can't do it. Nothing makes sense!

For example, how on earth did he get elected? His middle name is Hussein. (Which by the way, I read recently that political historians don't want his middle name recorded in historical documents. Why?) Wasn't Hussein the name of the man America went to war with? Wasn't the bad guy Sadam Hussein? That's like a guy named Adolf or Hitler running for president of the United States of America after World War II. There is no way he would have been elected!

But old Barry, um, I mean Barack became president, and since then we've been on a roller coaster of events that make no sense whatsoever. For example:

We are told we need HEALTH CARE, and the biggest champion of a national health care system was Ted Kennedy. But then suddenly he dies, leaving a seat open in congress. But even though he's dead, it gets passed, and everyone is happy. Everyone that is but the American people who are overwhelmingly against it! Why are they against it? Because England and Europe tried the exact same thing, and IT DIDN'T WORK! It was a catastrophe! And then a few days ago, I hear about England trying to reform their health care system and going back to one like ours was before the bill passed. WHAT'S GOING ON?!?!

We are continually told there are some companies in America that are "to big to fail" and politicians bail them out by giving them our tax payers dollars, not once but two or three times. But then a few weeks ago, we hear of a new financial bill being passed, who's sole purpose is to "Keep the government from ever having to bail out companies again!" So, I'm just thinking to myself here, um, WHY DID WE HAVE TO BAIL THEM OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why should we give them our money? Don't we give them enough of our money when we buy their product???

This administration is full of environmentalists who assure us the earth is going to be destroyed and it's all our fault, and we need to sacrifice for "Mother Earth." Talk of Cap and Trade runs rampant, and we are told we must consume less energy. But then there is a natural disaster in which a company from BRITAIN has a massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of the president and others doing all they can to help with the clean up, they won't even talk to the CEO of the company! And, instead of opening drilling up in Alaska, which is much cleaner, all drilling in the Gulf is stopped! How on earth does this make sense??? It's the BRITS fault, but now we can't drill because of them.

Honestly, I don't understand. It makes no sense at all!

I guess the old saying holds true: "If it doesn't make sense, there is a buck in it!"

So what do we do? There is nothing we can do but try to make sense of it all, but then again, they won't even let us do that! Everything done so far makes no sense whatsoever!

The thing that keeps bothering me is something I heard in the news a few years ago about the Congressional cafeteria going bankrupt. One news commentator said at the time, "If our government can't even run a cafeteria, how on earth are to we to expect them to run our country!"

That's always stuck with me. For, from the last I've heard, our government now controls 70% of our economy. Lord help us!

It's almost as if this whole thing was planned from the beginning...

Um, whoops, sorry. I got off into a little "conspiracy theory" there. What I meant to say was, "Wow, isn't it weird how all this stuff is happening by complete and total accident?" (sarcasm).

When I lived in Honduras, the thing that bothered me the most was the beauracracy. People who worked for the government knew absolutely nothing, and they were happy with their good paying jobs, jobs which they knew they couldn't lose, so they did their best to do as little as possible. I can't tell you the number of times I had to go to a government office in Honduras, and I was told to come back later by someone who just didn't feel like working that day. Or how many times I tried to get something done, and a beauracrat filled the papers out wrong, or printed my document incorrectly, causing me to have to go back and redo everything all over again at great expense to me.

I can't resist telling this story, as it plainly illustrates just what kind of people most beauracrats are. Once, I had to get a license for something, and on the license I had to have a fingerprint. I asked the man behind the desk, "Which finger do I use?"

He replied, "Any one, they are all the same!"

To which a lady in back who overheard came out and responded, "What? Are you crazy? Each finger is a different pattern!"

An argument quickly ensued, and the man actually said, and I quote, "Not they aren't. Everyone has the same finger and toe prints on all ten fingers and toes!"

For twenty minutes they argued, and I didn't stick around to find out who won. I got my card and got out of there. But can you imagine a person not knowing that every finger and ever toe in the entire world is unique and different? There are your beauracrats.

Nothing seems to make sense anymore. To me, simple is better. Yet our government tries to make it so complex. This always leads to a complete and total mess, not to mention to confusion and bankruptcy.

I fear our country will soon become the same as a third world nation, especially sense politicians say things like, "The way to produce jobs is give more money to welfare." and "We must spend our way out of debt!" (Both acutal quotes from politicans. Doesn't make sense, does it?)

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

The Four Main Regimes of the United States

I've never seen anyone write a book about or even touch on what I'm about to write here now. But it is a very important subject, and worthy of further study.

The idea for this subject just came to me a few years ago after I read a book entitled, "The Republic" by Plato. In his book, he describes four different distinct types of governments:

1. Timocracy

2. Oligarcy

3. Democracy

4. Tyranny

Plato states that each of these types of government supercedes the other in order and when Tyranny is complete it gives birth to Timocracy, which eventually turns into Oligarcy again, and then to Democracy, which will always fail and turn into Tyranny, and the circle eventually begins anew.

This was quite interesting, and as I thought about my country, the United States of America, I wondered to myself if we could see this cycle happening, as it did in ancient Greece, and in the Roman Empire.

What I found was four very different and distinct type of governments govering the United States of America, each of about 70 years length. And I'm afraid that Tyranny is not far away. (In fact, I often wonder if it's not already here!) Let's look at the four main regimes of the United States of America, and as we study them, we'll find each only lasted about 70 years each.

1. TIMOCRACY (definded by Plato as a government ruled by the PEOPLE who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society. Honor is often equated with wealth and possession so this kind of gilded government leads to the people valuing materialism above all things.)

When did America as a nation begin? If you said 1776, you are DEAD WRONG!!! 1776 was the declaration of Independence. We fought a long, hard war after that document was written, and there were quite a few years of unrest after the war was won, as the founding fathers tried to unite the colonies and set up a founding, governing document known as the Constitution. Many of the people refused it without a definition of man's rights. And this gave rise to the most beautiful of documents, the Bill of Rights! Eventually a new government was founded, a government of "We the people."

This American government as a republic actually started in the early 1790's, (George Washington began as president in 1789), as a unified governing body of INDEPENDENT STATES governing themselves with a representative body in Washington. But that form of government only lasted about 70 seventy years. For in 1861, the War Between the States broke out. When it did, the South tried to separate from what they saw as despotism, and the trampling of their "States rights." The War lasted four long years, and when it was over, a new form of government was born--a centralized governing body in Washington D.C. that called all the shots. As the old saying goes, "Before the war it was "The United States ARE, and after the war, it was the United States IS."

2. OLIGARCY (A system in which Plato says wealth is the criterion of merit and the wealthy are in control. This injustice usually divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge.)

After the Civil War, the United States entered a period called "Reconstruction" in which much injustice insued. "Carpet Baggers" were found far and wide using governmental policies for their own private and political gain. But the country united, as a whole, prospered in spite of the rampant corruption. That is for only about 70 years.

3. DEMOCRACY (Plato suggests under this rule, tensions between social classes arise, and from the conflicts democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class.)

In the 1930's president Roosevelt came on the scene and introduced many "Socialist" policies in America. (This is where we got the Social Security card from). Under the guise of the "New Deal," Roosevelt changed the face of the land and put people to work. He also took away their gold!

But during this time of "democratic rule" we see the increase of Civil Riots, er, I mean the Civil Rights movement, and the greatest increase of more wars than any other time period in our history!

4. TYRRANY (Plato spoke of this governmental system as a conflict between rich and poor in democracy, and the tyrant's rise as a popular champion, and his PRIVATE ARMY and the growth of oppression).

Seventy years or so after the "New Deal" we come to 2001, and the horrible disaster of 9-11. It was after this tragedy that we saw the introduction of the "Patriot Act," which is still in affect today. It gives almost dictatorial powers to the President of the United States.

SUMMARY:

So there you have it. America was founded a Republic, but only "if you can keep it," as Benjamin Franklin said. They could not keep it, so it fell into despotism, and a war took away much of the state's rights. As a centralized government, it eventually formed itself into Socialism, and now is close to becoming a tyranical, communistic system, to do away with rich and poor. All that's lacking is the right man to come and take it over.

So that's my outline. I hope to write a book about it some day, but if I don't, that's fine. I do think we should talk about these things though, and realize why America is in the shape she's in. It's because she is not the America that the founding fathers gave birth to. She's had four very distinct makeovers and is still changing. She might even be destroyed completely in the near future. God, I hope not! But I do see Plato's political system at work. It's almost as if those in charge read his work and are following his book play by play! No, that couldn't be, could it? That's CONSPIRACY, isn't it?

I often wonder if the Devil didn't use Plato and if his book wasn't to be the guide in which dictators were to use in order to come to power, for all throughout History, time and again, governments have followed Plato's order of governmental downfall play by play.

If only people would learn from history. But, as the saying goes, "The only thing men never learn from history, is that men never learn from history!"

IMMORALITY DESTROYS A FREE SOCIETY

It used to be that a person prided themself upon how moral he or she was. But those days are long gone!

People today don't use, much less think about the words "moral" and "morality." They are "outdated" principles, and therefore forgotten. But what are they, and what do they mean?

Webster's 1828 define them thusly,

MORALITY:

The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics...The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motivfe of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality.

MORALS

The practice of the duties of life; as a man of correct morals. Conduct, behavior; course of life, in regard to good and evil.

We see then, morals come from a healthy fear of God, which leads to a person wanting to do right and live right. A moral person looks at good and evil based upon God's divine law (the Bible), and not based upon their own opinion of what they think is right and wrong. And a person who is moral wishes to be free to practice his morality. While an immoral person wishes a more debased system which allows him to prosper by doing WRONG, instead of working hard and doing RIGHT in order to get ahead. This is just a simple basic truth. And if you'll think about it, you'll see immorality not only destroys the soul, but destroys society.

America as a nation was founded on God and the Bible. It therefore for the most part was very moral, and has even been called a "Christian Nation" for centuries because of this.

These Bible-based "morals" also led to the founding of its system of government, or to the belief in the FREEDOM of an individual to live and practice his good morals as he pleases. The founding documents speak of men's GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

But what about today? Are people really as moral as those of days gone by? I think you know the answer to that question. America is no longer a Christian nation, rather it has become a Pagan nation full of rampant IMMORALITY!

People today no longer desire to follow the morals of their parents who followed the morals of their parents who usually tried to live a good, MORAL LIFE, because their parents taught them the Bible.

Just a few examples of modern immorality will do:

My grandmother says that when she was a kid, the word "divorce" was a bad word, and you could get your mouth washed out with soap for saying it! Now, the national average is 8 out of 10 marriages end in divorce in America.

To have a child out of wedlock in America was a shame and a disgrace, and the child was branded a "bastard." Now it is common place, and no one says anything against it.

Fornication was preached against in our land, but now it is common practice and very few cry against it.

In the Bible, and even hundreds of years ago in this continent, adultery was punishable by death. Now it is so common, we hear talk of "key parties" in which men exchange keys to each others home so that each may willingly commit adultery with the others wife.

Why do these anti-biblical, IMMORAL practices flourish so much today with hardly a word spoken against them? The answer is that as a nation, our once great and moral country has departed from the BIBLE.

Thus, we see this pattern: Following the Bible leads to MORAL PRACTICES, departing from the Bible leads to IMMORAL acts.

With this in mind, let's put two and two together and discern why our country is headed the way it is, and so many of our liberties are being assaulted. For when IMMORALITY reigns, people are enslaved to sin and ultimately deceived, but when MORALITY rules people are freed from the chains of darkness to follow the way of truth. Better said, "Live right, expect righteousness and blessings; live wickedly, expect judgment and oppression!"

As I read through the Declaration of Independence again, I saw this principle in motion. The founding fathers, who strained to live a truly upright life, were the ones who gave us FREEDOM, and they did so because they honored GOD.

They even told us GOD himself is who gave them our freedom:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights..."

What I'm trying to say is: "Their morality dictated their policy!" Or as one old preacher put it, "A man's lifestyle affects his doctrine."

The Declaration of Indepence continues by denouncing the King of England as a TYRANT for his corruption and abuse of power (i.e. his immoral political practices).

This is why the first paragraph of the document says, "When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinon of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

The founding fathers were so moral, they wanted to SEPARATE THEMSELVES from IMMORAL MEN who practiced IMMORALITY! They were so adamant in their hatred towards evil trespasses and injustice, that they were willing to die if need be, and even go to war, by stating in the very same document: "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War..."

They close the Declaration by appealing to God, whom they call, "The Supreme Judge of the World," and sware "their Lives...Fortunes...and Sacred Honor," to Him with, "a firm Reliance on the Protection of [his] divine Providence."

They not only believed in God, but they wanted to live for him, and live a good moral life. And if they couldn't, they'd rather die!

They did not want to be brought under the power of a tyrannical system that was immoral and would seek to make them immoral as well. So they fought the immoral "despot" and won their freedom to serve God as they pleased. And, what an awesome story it is. They gave us a system of government of "We the people." And it was a great government and it lasted a while, because the majority of the people were good, upstanding, moral citizens.

Now back to our day, over 200 years later. What we find now are very little MORALS left in society. Individuals are not only IMMORAL, but so are most politicians. Because of this, public schools and universities no longer teach the constitutution, and many times attack it. Why? Because they have become so immoral they no longer want to retain God in their memories. They no longer want to be in a system that was founded by good moral men who wanted to route out immorality. They earnestly want immorality, and injustice. They want to get something for nothing. They want to live wickedly. They want to do whatever they want without any biblical restraints! And their immorality has destroyed our once free society and system of a government.

Very plainly and simply stated, "Immorality destroys a free society."

SUMMARY

The founding fathers have been branded "rebels" by modernistics re-writers of history. In a sense they were. They rebeled against immorality. But modern revolutionaries are rebelling against God and Bible-based morals. Their revolution is not against evil but is against good.

And their immorality has led them to hate the very God and the very principles that founded our once great nation.

Some Christians believe America will have revival and be great again. But this will never happen until people turn from their wicked ways. For how can a government "Of the people and by the people" be any good if all the people are bad?

All we can do is say, "Even so come, Lord Jesus!"

THE DEFINITION OF A TYRANT

I don’t know what made me think about this the other day, but I was wondering to myself what the definition of a tyrant is. So I looked up the word in the Websters 1828 Dictionary. Right there, after the word “Tyranny,” and before the word “Tyro,” which means a “beginner,” I found that a “tyrant” is someone who is:

1. A monarch or other ruler or master, who uses his power to oppress his subjects, a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by taxation, injustice or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government do not require.

2. A despotic ruler; a cruel master; an oppressor.

As I looked at that definition, I began to think if I'd ever known a tyrant personally, or if I'd ever remembered of reading of one in history. This lead me eventually to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of the United States of America, and I read exactly what our founding fathers thought about tyrants and tyranny. For in the Declaration of Independence, they call the king of England a tyrant for the following reasons:

He has refused to Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good...

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers...

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance...

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...

Those were all well and good, and almost sound like what's happening today in our country today! But I was floored when I read this one:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering "FUNDAMENTALLY" the Forms of our Governments.

Hmm, seems like I've heard that word used lately in the context of "Fundamentally changing" something. Don't seem to remember where though. Where was it?

Anyway, the Declaration ends by saying, "A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people."

So this is how the founding fathers defined a TYRANT. Wow!

Have I ever known a tyrant or seen one personally? Nope! But I do see them in history. And now I know what to look out for according to the definition.

I only hope I'll never see one in my lifetime, and not have to be affected by one!

THE TENANTS OF COMMUNISM vs THE BIBLE

As Christian, I'm not a fan of communism. I'll just be honest. And while I still have the freedom of speech in America to say that, I'm going to express it and explain why I say it. For as I study communism, I find one thing, IT IS VERY MUCH AGAINST THE BIBLE!

THE FOUNDATION OF COMMUNISM:

Communists and those who follow its teaching are adamant to point out that Karl Marx used the Bible as the foundation of his political utopia. For they claim Marx used Acts 2:44 and 45 as the basic principle of communism:

Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Having all things in "common," they stress, is very important and is what communism is all about, as people's needs are met and everyone shares in the same thing.

However, they fail to read the context, which is very important. Let's look at those verses in context with the verses before and after them:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Acts 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

First, we see this was a common bond between CHRISTIANS and not a political system forced upon them by a secular government! Secondly, those who had all things in common were in the TEMPLE, which means they were religious and they PRAISED GOD! No communist country on earth allows individuals the freedom to worship God! Under modern communism, the state is god.

Finally, verse 47 talks about individual SALVATION of the soul, and people being added to the CHURCH. This is quite foreign to communism, which is about "collective salvation" or physical salvation of the masses, and not the individual salvation of the soul spiritually.

Communists who brag about communism being based in the Bible in order to make it appeal to religious people, don't always state these simple facts.

And as you study communism as Marx set it up, you see it has NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER WITH GOD, or the CHURCH, or SALVATION OF THE SOULS, or PRAISING GOD!

Even though Marx might have read some verses in the Bible that made him think up a utopian political society, he forgot the most important thing. HE FORGOT GOD!

THE TENANTS OF COMMUNISM:

On Wikipedia, we find the ten main points of Communism as Marx defined them. They are:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distibution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

As you read each one of these, it's easy to see these most certainly are NOT rooted and grounded in the word of God. If anything, they are very foreign to it, as we'll see.

1. Abolition of private property and rent on land.

In the Bible, we don't see God doing away with private property or making people pay rent for what is already theirs. When God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter three, we see him setting up Cherubims with flaming swords (Gen. 3:24) to guard what was his. This shows God believes in ownership of private property and the right to defend what's yours! Later in the Bible we read of God giving land to Abraham, and telling him it was his! For in Genesis Gen 13:15, we read God's words to Abraham, "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I GIVE it..." Notice God doesn't say, "...I will RENT it!"

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

In the Bible there is no heavy tax commanded by God to give to a secular government. Instead we find God asking for a tithe (10%), which was to be given to Him via the Temple. It was indeed a tax on one's income, but it was also a tax that was not heavy nor progressive. It was a tax to help a religious organization that honored him, and not a secular organization that did not.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

God would not agree with this at all. For in Gen. 12:7 we find God talking to Abraham and not only promising him the land, but promising it to his SEED! All throughout the Bible we see the father dying and leaving his goods, land, and money to his children. And in 2 Cor. 12:14 we are instructed, "...For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children."

Truly the right for a man to leave his children an inheritance is a God-given right! Why then would Marx want to do away with it? Unless, he wants the inheritance to go to the state instead.

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.

This makes it sound like you have to be subservient to the state and do what they say or they will come and take away your property. Besides this, the word "confiscate" is just a different way of saying "stealing."

The Bible is very different than Marx here. In the Bible we read: "Thou shalt not steal!" (Exod. 20:15) Further God commands the following in Exodus 23:9, "...Thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." And again in Lev 19:13, we read, "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him..."

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state...a national bank.

In the Bible, there are no banks. People had money and kept it on them or hidden somewhere. There was lending though, and it was not done by a bank, but by a friend or neighbor. And God gave strict rules for lending someone something on credit: "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down." Exo 22:25-26.

Usury is interest charges. And God said the Jews were not supposed to charge their own people for a loan. However, there is a verse that says you could charge usury on those who were not Jews in Deu 23:20, "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

God is not for a centralized bank owned by the state. His plan was for men who had money to help lend to those who didn't, so they could work and pay back the person who lent to them.

6. Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

In the Bible we find both Jews and Christians at time living under the authority of foreign governments. For example the Jews went into captivity to Babylon, while the early Christians lived under the rule of the Roman Empire. Today Christians live in a time in which they are found in many different nations, and many different laws are found in each nation. Sometimes nations own the transportation and communication companies in the countries in which they live. Is this good or bad, and does the Bible say anything about this?

Well, Marx here wanted the government to own the transportation and communication industries so that a person could not be free to travel or speak out on his own. This is very much against the Bible, for we read that Christians should, "...Go...into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)" How is this possible if the government controls the means of transportation and the means of communication? It is only possible if the government gives people FREEDOM to use those means. Do communist countries usually do that? Let's look at China as an example. In that country, the internet is censored, and people very often kept from traveling to other countries without a good reason.

7. Extension of factories...owned by the state...cultivation of waste-lands...according to a common plan.

This does away with the private sector, and the rights of people to build and own their own businesses and factories. This is a very anti-capitalist statement.

What does the Bible say about this? Is the Bible in favor of captialism? Let's see. in 1 Cor. 3:8, we clearly see the following, "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." This verse says that a man should receive based upon how much he works! That's a very capitalistic verse!

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 also commands, "And that ye study to be quite, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

The Apostle Paul who wrote this was a "tent maker" who owned his own business! He believed in working hard and enjoying what you made. He even said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Here's a verse saying a person must work, or else he shouldn't eat."

To give all business and factories to the governement is not only wrong but anti-biblical, for in the Bible man is instructed to work, and to "reap what he sows." (Galatians 6:7). He is also allowed to reap bountifully (2 Cor. 9:6) according to how much he sows. In other words, the harder you work, the more you are entitled to!

8. Equal liability of all labor and establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Here the government mandates all to work for the government and to help produce food for armies. Is this right? Sounds like forced labour, doesn't it? Sounds like slavery!

In the Bible, as we've seen, God allows private property, and allows people to reap what they sow. It also commands those who own fields to give to the poor what's left after the harvest. Check out this verse in Levi. 19:9-10, "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God."

The main excuse for communism is that it does away with the poor. But, God gave allowance for the poor and commanded those with crops to set aside a portion for the poor to glean.

God also allows people to give alms to the poor. That means God has set up a system to take care of the poor, and it's not through forced labor of all people doing the same thing and eating the same thing!

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual aboliton of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

This is forced living conditions to abolish city and country, and to redistribute the populace upon the face of the earth. This also does away with the freedom of choice of where you wish to live.

In the Bible, God gave certain parcels of land to certain people. Abraham received land that was then given to his children as an "inheritance." And in the Bible we are told about people buying and selling land. In Communism, this is done away with, and people are moved in next to each other.

Is there a verse in the Bible about this? You bet there is. In Isaiah 5:8 we read, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

God places a woe on those who wish to build house to house and field to field. In other words, he's against "distribution of the populace" to "abolish the distinction between town and country."

10. Free education...in public schools...combination of education with industrial production.

Last but not least is we come to governmental education of the masses. Is this Biblical? Is it right to send your children to the state and let them teach them?

In the Bible, God wants the parents to educate their children. For in the word of God, the Jews were told to teach their own children in the ways of God:

Deu 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

In the New Testament, we read of a command in which:

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Titus 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

In the New Testament, the older Christians are to teach the younger Christians. How can this be done when a person's children are sent to the state?

Secular education always leads to secularism. Or like one preacher once said, "You can't send your children off to a Philistine school and not expect them to come back with Egyptian ways!"

SUMMARY

If Communism were indeed CHRISTIAN and centered upon CHRIST JESUS, it might well be a good political system. However, as Marx has set it up, it omits Jesus completely, and more than often is very much against the word of God, even though those who believe in it claim it is rooted in the Bible.

It further enslaves people to the state. This is a very dangerous system, especially when the leader of the state is not a Christian and is against God. And if you know your Bible, you know that very soon, the anti-Christ will take over the world and rule and reign for 7 years. What system do you think he would love to see in place when he comes? COMMUNISM!