weary warrior

NN, thank you for actually going through the verses and providing your view of their meaning. I appreciate it. For all that answered, thank you for your courtesy. As I said, I have no desire for conflict, just wanted to add the other side to be looked at. It is enough. Would you not admit that your interpretation of this subject rests largely what you are personally willing to accept or deny regarding physiological make up of angels, what the physically are and are not, what they can and cannot do? Yet, these views are not derived from scripture, science or personal experience. All we have from scripture is the following... Angels and man were both created by God Angels and man both have eternal souls Angels and man both have free will Angels and man can both question God Angels and man are both capable of pride, rebellion, hatred etc Angels and man are both damned for eternity in hell for their sin Angels and man are both called men Angels and man both can eat, can fight, can wrestle, can kill etc. Man was made "a little lower than the angels" - Think about that for a minute Just how dissimilar are men and angels really? "Angel" means "messenger". In scripture, men are called angels, and angels are called men. Where do you see in scripture that angels don't have blood? It doesn't say either way. Where are we told in scripture that we are so different we cant cross over? If a zebra can mate with a donkey (I've seen it), if a lion can mate with a tiger (I've seen it), if a wolf can mate with a coyote (I've seen it), where do you see in scripture that angels are NOT "after our kind"? Now, the crosses that I mentioned above should not have happened, they were abnormal, and resulted in physiological anomalies. But they happened. No other creation of God shares all of these attributes with us. Only man and ..."messenger". Why do demons in the new testament want a body so desperately? If they cant have a human, they will beg to be allowed to enter pigs! Could it be that you miss worse what you've had, and has been taken away from you? Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little. My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job.

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking. So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer. Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. Thank's for the question, Brother.

I've been making some drastic changes to my diet the last several weeks, while going to the gym 3 times a week. Tonight I had a 6-8 oz steak, steamed broccoli / cauliflower and a steamed sweet potato. The family is having nachos, but I'm trying to be good.

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38? If the "sons of God in Job are angels and cannot be human, then what is going on in Genesis 6? If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time? Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers? Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"? If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise? Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom), do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities? They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex. And we are created a little lower than the angels. Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage? They are two different things. I'm not in any way troubled by someone's beliefs on this issue. I don't want any heartburn or stress over it, and I don't want you to have any over it either :). But it looks to me like the study regarding this particular question has been a little ...shallow. So I'm just mildly curious.

NN, I am very saddened over your distress and discouragement, and humbly apologize for any part I have played in causing it. As has been said already, we've all been there, and will be there again. Thus, we can all empathize. The Lord is our comfort, and we must look to Him in all things. Omega, I have re-read your posts above a number of times, and I see where I may have misunderstood some of the things you were saying, and took them in a way they were not intended. I apologize for this as well, and for the trouble brought about by it. I hope you will forgive me for allowing my passion and warrior's heart to cloud my judgement and common sense. It is a weakness I have to contend with continually, and have my whole life.

Dave, everything you state here is 100% true and accurate. In America, back in the day, kids actually carried their guns to school. On the frontier for protection, and later they would have them at school so that they could leave directly from class to the deer stand / duck blind etc. Back then, there was still scripture, patriotism, respect and whoopin's in school, so the guns were not a problem. Take out the prayer, the scripture, the pledge of allegiance and the whoopin's, and now we have problems. By the way, how is a nation that forbids prayer in school actually standing up on national TV and asking with a straight face for prayer for those suffering IN those same schools??!!??

The Lord is not our protector if we don't lift a hand to protect ourselves. The Lord will not feed us if we don't get off out butt and go to the fridge. The Lord will not fix our flat tire, and if we don't carry a spare, were stuck. The Lord will not put out that grease fire in the kitchen, and if we are too irresponsible to have a fire extinguisher in the house, God will watch our house go up in smoke. If we don't have a smoke alarm, we'll probably even die. The Lord will not heal us if we refuse to accept any medical attention available. And the physical needs of our fellow man, whither it be from the deprivations of hunger or the deprivations of a demoniac with a Glock, have NOTHING to do with politics. What the Evil One really wants is for us to find any excuse, including politics, to say that the dangers facing my fellow man are not my problem. I do not carry a weapon in this school simply because my son attends here. That is an insult. I carry because the children of my fellow man attends here, they are in danger, they were made in the image of God, they breath the very immortal breath of God, and if I don't love them, I don't love God. Love is not what we feel, it's what we do, and what we are willing to do.

First - I think at the bottom of everything, you and I would probably agree that there are a lot of "preachers" today that are not actually preaching. I guess what is bothering me a little this morning is how you are expressing your dissatisfaction with these fellows, and the broad brush you are painting with. I sincerely doubt that you have been in "most churches" to witness and judge their preaching. And even if you have, Romans 14 is very clear that it is not our job to judge another man's servant. These men are not ours to judge. If he IS a man of God, and we set him at naught because of the weakness of his preaching, we ourselves are in danger of being brought to task by the very one that both the preacher and we ourselves actually answer to. Second - as I pointed out in the post above, Jesus' own messages consisted predominately of stories. This sticks in the craw of the scholars among us (I can't for the life of me picture Jesus pointing out how many different languages He could read the scripture in), but the watchword for all of Christ's messages (be they "preaching" or "teaching") was simplicity and commonality. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't speak in terms of pusillanimous conduct. As "the right kind" of preachers, we use a lot of scripture and scripture words in our preaching, but those we preach to often do not have the same foundation. I have preached in the jungle of a 3rd world country to a crowd who were illiterate and unchurched. I had an interpreter who would translate for me, and beside him was another translator who would then translate his translation into a third language. A chicken came in strutting down the aisle, a dog came in chasing the chicken and then a naked baby came chasing the dog. Down the middle of the hut / building and up on the platform and around and around before the whole circus was eventually shooed outside. You learn to put the truth down on the dirt, where the meanest can grasp it. That means lots of stories and illustrations. Parables. Remember this, and chew on it long and hard. Like it or not, preaching is not the end. It is only the means to an end. The TRUTH is the end. And as a preacher, if you loose sight of the end while focusing on the means and methodology, you eventually loose both the method and the message. I don't know you, Omega. You obviously hold the truth, and you sound really smart and educated. Most people are not scholars, however, and most people don't like being talked down to. Even from the pulpit. Especially from the pulpit. Bottom line? While we agree that there is "wrong" preaching, there is no one RIGHT way to preach. With over 7 billion people on this planet speaking 7,000 living languages and representing almost as many unique, distinct cultures, don't put the delivery of the message in a box. As I re-read this, it comes across as a rant, and Im almost hesitant to send it. It's not intended as such, and I have no heart to offend or get in a slug-fest over this. I just wanted to express my heart. Those on here who've known me for the last few years have learned to understand my plainness without taking it personal. I hope you can as well, for I truly dont mean this as harsh as it sounds.

If you get a concordance and actually look it up, Jesus himself called what he did "preaching". And his preaching was chock full of stories, parables, similes, metaphors and simple illustrations of complex truths for the common man. And he didn't quote reams of Old Testament scripture while doing it. Just sayin'. Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Mt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Ham, mashed potatoes, homemade biscuits, gravy and probably some vegetable I wont eat. Big dinner celebrating my twin daughters' 18th birthday.

I'm sitting right now in my office as the principal of a Christian school. Outside the window of my office is the gym, and I can hear the student on break. They are playing, laughing, running and being children, as children should. On my right hip, covered up by a jacket, is a Kimber Warrior .45acp. On my left hip is a spare mag. At any time during the week there may be in the building as many as three of us with handguns on our person. We are a school with a total of 47 students. These handguns are tucked away behind suit coats or jackets or sweaters, depending on the individual's clothing style. They are never shown, flashed or discussed in front of the students, but the students, at least the older students, are all aware of their presence. Many of them know me from church, where I am head of security, and of course my 16 year old son is a student here as well. I wonder how many of these students of mine had the thought flash through their mind as they watch the news unfold about the new school shooting in Florida, "Not in my school, we have Mr. Noel"? I watch as the news tells us of the heroic football coach there in Florida who gave his life shielding his charges, those who were placed in his care, those he undoubtedly loved, just as I love mine. And I ask myself, what if this good, brave man had possessed a weapon tucked behind his waste band? Just a little .38 revolver even? Something. Anything. What if someone had been allowed to be prepared to fight physical evil with physical means? We have sown the wind in this country, and now we are going to reap the whirlwind. Our schools have told the students there is no God, and thus no consequences, no eternal soul, no higher authority. We have fed them a steady diet of humanism, violent movies, games and "music" and all manner of Satanic influences. We have denigrated the Bible, parental authority, the police, the military, the flag, the anthem and our founding fathers. And then we wonder when these monsters start coming out of the woodwork. The schools will have to start physically, violently defending themselves from the very hell that they have so foolishly and gleefully created, and the ONLY defense from a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They will not, of course, do this. I ask "why", but in truth, I already know the answers.

If I was there by myself, I would video the shot, then grab that one frame from the video. However, according to the date on the picture, there would have been limited tech in 1991. So, I'm stumped too.

Very glad to hear you are well, Allen. If there is anything we can do ...

We took a bunch of archaeologists and their camp into the mountains here on the Peninsula. This mountain bowl is pretty high up, and affords more spectacular views of the beautiful state

Bear is one of my favorite game meats, IF it is black bear and taken during the right time of the year. And cleaned proper. I shot a grizzly once, (it was one of those sudden, surprise meetings that happen at times in the bush and I was forced to act) but it had been eating fish and turned out to be completely inedible. I wouldn't eat anyone's bear jerky, even if I knew them really well. Bear is related to pig, and can carry the same diseases, including trichinosis, and must be thoroughly cooked. That's why you never see commercial pork jerky at the store. I know some guys that do it, but I draw the line there.