* RESEARCHING THE CREATION/EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY

MILLIONS OF YEARS...OR...NOAH'S FLOOD?

By Ken Williams

          In one of our earlier essays, we indicated that all sciences that specialize in origins look at the very same evidence.  The difference in their conclusions depends on their foundational bias.  If they believe in the possibility of a Creator, they find confirmation of that in the memorials the Creator has left for us to find.  If they deny the possibility of God, they must come up with an alternative, and they attempt to interpret the evidence they discover by stretching out the historical time-line in an effort to make sense of what they see.

          The same is true with Noah's Flood (I use that term because it is identifiable to most people.  It was not Noah's but rather God's Flood brought in judgment upon the earth).  Noah's Flood answers almost all of the problems evolutionists have with the fossil record, the ice ages, the Tectonic Plates, the distribution of quartz rocks, water gaps and wind gaps where they should not be, the continental shelves and submarine canyons, and more.

          Creationists believe the Flood is the perfect answer to evolution's myriad of problems.  Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe Noah's Flood is a mere myth passed down from generation to generation among ancient peoples.  The fact is that there are many such flood stories in many cultures which have a man building a boat and saving life during a worldwide flood.  Some of them even include birds being sent out from the Ark to determine if there was enough dry land for the occupants of the Ark to disembark.  Versions of the story have been discovered from the Middle East to America, from Greece to Hawaii.  With the notable exception of Egypt, almost every ancient civilization had a story of a cataclysmic flood that destroyed most of humanity.  Most include a boat built by a man who saved man and animals to repopulate the earth.  Such stories would indicate that they had a single source; taking on variations as various groups of people migrated to the far flung parts of the earth.

          What makes the flood record in the Bible different from the cultural stories found in people-groups around the world?  Consider three reasons: 

* The Biblical record is written in great detail.

* The Biblical record is corroborated and expanded upon by ancient secular historians.

* The Biblical record is substantiated by the memorial which it left on the earth. 

THE BIBLICAL RECORD IS WRITTEN IN GREAT DETAIL

          Read the Book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, beginning at chapter 6 and see the detail even to the size of the Ark Noah was told to build.  Today, through engineering studies, we know that it was to the precise dimensions to make it the most stable in violent waters that any craft can be.  Oh, by the way, the Ark did not look anything like the stumpy little boat with animals hanging over the sides, which is frequently pictured in childrens' books and Sunday School materials.  The Ark was one and a half football fields long, two thirds of a football field wide and stood four stories high.  It had the capacity of 1,000 railroad box cars, plenty for all the animals, people, food and supplies necessary for the trip.

* RESCUING OUR HISTORY FROM THE REVISIONISTS

"The Birth of the Constitution of the United States"

By Ken Williams

          With the war over, the British forced to surrender, and the king's appointed governors sent packing, there was little government left in the former colonies.  Yes, there was the Continental Congress, but it was weak, ineffective and virtually bankrupt.

          The call went out for a Constitutional Convention to birth a new government.  Leaders from each of the former colonies gathered in Philadelphia.  They were godly men, determined to forge a government based on the principles of God's Word.  How do I know that?  Listen to these words from our founders.

          Noah Webster, author of the first American English Dictionary, and one of the most influential people of his time, said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of our civil constitution and laws.  All the miseries and evils that men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war proceed from their dispensing or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

          George Mason, addressing the Constitutional Convention said, "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this.  By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."  Mason called for a government founded on the principles of God's Word, the Bible.

          Benjamin Franklin told the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787, We need God to be our friend.  We need Him to be our ally, not our adversary.  We need to be sure we keep God's concurring aid.  If a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God noticing it, how do we possibly think a nation can rise without His aid?"  Franklin called for daily prayer meetings at the Constitutional Convention, "to make sure we keep God alongside what we are doing."

          There is so much more that could be written on the subject, but let it suffice to say that the Constitutional Convention was bathed in prayer, and the delegates believed they were building a government established upon the precepts of God's Word, the Bible.

          The government that our Founding Fathers established was completely different than any that had ever existed on the face of the earth.  Where did they get the idea for a representative type of democracy known as a republic?  Where did the idea come from to have three separate but equal branches, none of which had any control over the others?

          If you read today's history books, if the subject is even addressed, you will be told that the ideas came out of the early Greek city-states.  That is absolutely not true for at least three reasons.  First, we don't know how much our founding fathers knew about the Greek city-states.  They never referred to them in their writings.  Second, the Greek city-states were hardly either republics or democratic.  75% of their inhabitants were slaves.  Even most of the free people had no voice in government.  It was "rule by the elite" who would never stoop to manual labor.  And there certainly was no separation of powers.  Third, we know where they got their ideas, because they left a written record in their voluminous writings.

          A University of Houston political science professor conducted a ten year long research project with some of his graduate students.  They gathered some 34,000 writings of the Founding Fathers (certainly not close to all of them).  These were winnowed down to 15,000 of what they called "significant writings."  Then they laboriously went through them to determine who the Founding Fathers quoted and where they got their ideas.

          The three individuals most quoted by the Founding Fathers were Montesquieu, Blackstone and John Locke.  But 34% of all their quotes were directly from the Bible.  That's four times more than they quoted from Montesquieu, twelve times more frequently than Blackstone and sixteen more times than Locke.  Another 60% of all quotes were from men who themselves were quoting the Bible, or who based their conclusions on the Bible.  So, 94% of all quotes of the Founding Fathers were either direct quotes from the Bible, or from other people who were either quoting the Bible, or got their ideas from the Bible.

          Where did they tell us they got the idea for three separate branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial?  They said it came from the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah, chapter 33.  Where did the idea come from for separating the powers of each branch and making them equal?  They said it came from the Old Testament Prophet Jeremiah, chapter 17.

          They did not come to these conclusions easily.  The Convention was deadlocked.  The delegates were talking about going home for an extended stay, and perhaps coming back at some much later date and giving another "go" at it.  But Benjamin Franklin called the delegates to prayer.  The preayer meeting/Bible study session lasted three days before they came to the conclusion that God had revealed something great to them.

          The next challenge was who would run the executive branch of the government?  The big discussion was how the "king" would be chosen.  It was only natural that the newly freed colonies would have a king.  That was all they knew.  There was no royal line from which the king could come.  How would he be chosen?  Would he be elected by the people, appointed by the legislative branch, chosen by the state legislatures, or even rotated among the states?  There was support for all of those ideas.

          When word got back to the people that their representatives were hung up on how to choose a king to run the new nation, pandemonium broke loose.  The headlines screamed, "No king but King Jesus!"  That set the tone for one of the strongest grass roots movements the young nation had seen (besides, of course, the revolution itself).  From America's pulpits came the cry, "We will have no king but King Jesus!"  Demonstrations were held in the major cities with large portions of the populations chanting, "We will have no king but King Jesus!"  The delegates were bombarded with mail and couriers deliving petitions declaring that if a king were to run the new government, the Constitution would never be ratified, because the people would have "no king but King Jesus!"

          Now that it was obvious that the new nation would not permit a king to rule over them, the Constitutional Convention was at a loss to know what to call the head of state.  After searching the Bible, delegates said that in the Old Testament of the Bible, God had appointed righteousmen men called prophets and judges to "preside" over the People of Israel in God's place.  One who "presided over" would be a "president," a term which up to that time had only been used to denote the head of groups and organizations.

          Therefore, today we have no king, because the people would have "no king but King Jesus!"  Instead, as God had chosen holy men to "preside" over Israel in His place, the United States would have a "president" to preside over the Executive Branch of the government, to carry out God's will as determined by the Legislative Branch.

          You haven't heard this story?  It used to be in all of our history books.  Of course, the writers have changed our history over the past fifty years.  They have expunged all references to God and to our rich religious heritage.

          As the Constitutional Convention came to a close, and the new document was being prepared to be sent to the thirteen former colonies for ratification, the framers seemed pleased with what they had done.

          John Adams said, "There is no government armed with power which is capable of contending with the human passion unbridled by morality and religion.  Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to govern any other.  We have no government capable of dealing with an irreligious people.  Do away with religion and you do away with America."

          Or, how about this from James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, who wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government.  Far from it.  We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

          If that quote is an eye-opener, check this one out from John Quincy Adams: "The greatest genius of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

          Take me to the Constitution and show me where it says anything about "the separation of church and state."  I can show it to you in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union; but it is not in the United States Constitution.  It was totally foreign to any judicial thinking until it showed up in a Supreme Court decision in 1948, a complete reversal of all previous precedent.  Today the first amendment, which had as its only intent to keep Congress from ever proclaiming any one denomination as the national church, has been reversed and is being used to take religious liberties away from the very people it was designed to protect.

          Adolph Hitler, the diabolical former leader of Nazi Germany, said, "Tell the same lie to the same people often enough, and they will come to believe it, no matter how absurd."

          You hear much about "the separation of church and state."  Most people believe it is a part of our Constitution; but it's not.  Our modern history books tell us our Founding Fathers were deists, or irreligious; but that's not true either.  They tell us the framers of the Constitution gave us a secular government.  That is the biggest lie of all!

* THE SERMON OF THE QUARTER

"Answering Your Questions"

By Ken Williams

          At the end of this morning's first session, I asked you to write down your questions throughout the day, and that this evening we would pick several of them to answer.  We have picked three questions to consider this evening.  We will pick three more for tomorrow night.  We picked these questions for this evening based on the number of people who asked the same or similar questions; and based on the importance of the questions asked.

          The three questions we will tackle this evening are:

Question Number 1:  Apart from the Prophet's prediction that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, why was it so important that Jesus be born in Bethlehem?  Why couldn't He have been born in Jerusalem, Nazareth or any other city in Israel?

Question Number 2:  Do you not accept evolutionary science; and what did you mean about a day being 1,000 years?  Isn't that Thiestic Evolution?

Question Number 3:  At our church, we only study from the New Testament.  Our pastor says that Jesus did away with the Old Testament and brought in a different way of salvation which we call the "Age of Grace."  Why do you spend so much time in the Old Testament?

WHY DID JESUS HAVE TO BE BORN IN BETHLEHEM?

          First, let's take up the question as to why it was so important that Messiah be born in Bethlehem; so important that God had to use a Roman emperor to call a special census to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem at exactly the right time.  You say, "Apart from the Prophet's prediction that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, why was it so important that He be born there?"  Even if there were no other reason than the Old Testament Prophet's prediction, that would be sufficient, because the Bible is 100% correct 100% of the time.  You may remember that when the "Wise Men" arrived in Jerusalem saying, "We have seen His star in the East," the Jewish religious leaders had no trouble remembering the Old Testament prophecy about Him being born in Bethlehem.

          However, there is another major reason why Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem.  Jesus the Messiah was sent by the Father to fulfill a portion of the Law (the Old Testament).  Remember in Matthew we are told that Jesus did not come to "abolish" the Law, but to "fulfill" it.  Jesus was destined to be our "Passover Lamb."  If you are familiar with the Old Testament, you will be familiar with the annual Passover Feast that the Lord established for those who followed Him.  Each year, each family slew a lamb; placed the blood above and on both sides of their door.  Then they would cook the meet and follow the Passover Seder as they remembered their miraculous exodus from Egypt.  When Christians celebrate the Lord's Supper (Communion), they are actually going through the middle part of Passover.

          The New Testament tells us that Jesus became our Passover Lamb.  In I Corinthians 5:7, the Apostle Paul is teaching the Christian understanding of the Spring Feasts of the Lord to a church made up primarily of non-Jews.  The Spring Feasts included Unleaved Bread, Passover and First Fruits.  It was a two week long period around the time of year Roman Sun-god worshipers celebrated Eshtar (now known as Easter).  This is what Paul writes, "Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.  For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.  Let us therefore celebrate the feast..." (I Corinthians 5:7 NAS).  Did you notice that Paul is actually telling these non-Jewish believers that they should keep the Feast of Passover.  It is not taught much today, but it is a fact that Christians observed the Feasts of the Lord (not Jewish feasts--Feasts of the Lord) into the fourth century AD when Constantine declared their observance illegal, and substituted Easter.

           Since Jesus was going to be offered as our Passover Lamb, it was imperative that He be born where all Passover lambs were born - that would be in Bethlehem.  Not only all Passover lambs, but all the animals used in the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem were raised on the hillsides around Bethlehem.  There was no room for Joseph and Mary in the inn, so that Jesus could be born in a birthing trough just like all Passover lambs.  This is also why the angels brought the message to shepherds on the hillsides around the village.  Shepherds were an integral part of birthing and raising the sacrificial lambs.  In order to fulfill the Old Testament portion regarding the Passover, Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem.

          I am currently writing a book entitled "Studies in Matthew - Jesus was a Recognized Orthodox Jewish Rabbi."  I am planning an entire chapter which will walk us through the final week before the crucifixion, and show how Jesus went through everything the Passover lamb went through, from being brought up from Bethlehem, examined for four days, and then sacrificed in the Temple at the exact moment Jesus was dying on the cross.  The High Priest in the Temple, and Jesus on the cross, at exactly 3:00 in the afternoon, each shouted in unison, "It is finished!" 

          That is a very quick answer to your question.  Much more could be said on the subject.  But let's go on to our next question.

WHAT ABOUT EVOLUTION, AND THE DAY-LONG MILLENIUM?

          Let me first address several inaccuracies in your questions.  First, you asked if I believe in evolutionary science.  Some people believe in evolution.  Others believe in creation.  But there is no such thing as "evolutionary science."  Science requires something which can be observed, measured, quantified, etc.  There is scientific evidence regarding our origins.  That is science.  Various observers (which may be called scientists) look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.  Those conclusions are based on their foundational philosophies.  No one comes to the table without biases.  If you are a scientist who believes there is a Creator, you view the evidence and it points to creation.  If you believe that there is no God and nothing supernatural can happen, then you have to look for and find some way this all happened without any direction of any kind.  Therefore, there are two theories (with many variations in each): the Theory of Evolution and the Creation Theory.  Neither is science.  They are both theories based on the scientific evidence filtered through the foundational philosophical views of each member of the scientific community.  Unfortunately our court system, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, has declared that the Creation Theory is religion and therefore cannot be taught in public institutions.  That means that only one theory is taught, and for lack of an alternative, it becomes "gospel truth" to the students.  Let me suggest that you get my book, "Essays on the Creation/Evolution Controversy."  You will find it on the book table at the rear of the auditorium.  [This book is available on the "4-R's Store" page on this website.]

          Next, you referred to the "Millennial Day Theory," asking if this is not Theistic Evolution.  No, the "Millennial Day Theory" has nothing to do with origins.  I will explain it in a moment.  But first I need to speak to your use of the term "Theistic Evolution."  Many Christians have come to believe that evolution is science.  It is not!  As we said earlier, it is only one interpretation of the facts of science.  However, many Christians have tried to weave godless evolution into the Bible by declaring that the seven days of creation were really "day-ages," perhaps each millions of years long, and that God guided the evolutionary process.  This theory is dead from the "git-go."  For, if one plant, one animal or one human being died before Adam and Eve sinned, then the Bible is a fable and our faith is a fraud.  Listen to what the Apostle Paul said, "When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race.  His sin spread death throughout all the world, so EVERYTHING began to grow old and die..." (Romans 5:12 LB).  Paul insists that it was sin that caused death "throughout the world," and that because of Adam and Eve's sin, every living thing (plant, animal or human) "began to grow old and die."  Before sin, everything continued in its creation condition.  Nothing aged!  So, to the Theistic Evolutionist who believes that God guided the course of evolution over millions upon millions of years, let me say, "You cannot believe in evolution and believe the Bible at the same time."  They are diametrically opposed to each other.

          Now, let's get to the heart of this question: the "MIllennial Day Theory."  For many years I have been troubled by the promise God made to Adam and Eve that in the very "day" that they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would die.  I have always heard it taught that they died spiritually that day.  They were cut off from their daily fellowship and communion with God.  However, they began to die physically that day, and died many years later.  Somehow the longer I have studied the Bible the more unsatisfied with that answer I have become.  Some years ago, after beginning a study on Jesus in the Old Testament, I decided to go beyond our Evangelical writers and try to find out how the ancient rabbis understood the Bible.  In studying the rebbinical writings from the period between the return from Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus, I discovered something very unusual.  It is this "Millennial Day Theory."

          In II Peter, Peter is writing about the fact that "The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises..." (II Peter 3:8 Amplified).  Verse 10 continues, "But the day of the Lord will come..." with the indication that God's calendar is precise.  I have a paraphrase of the Bible that says, "But don't forget this, dear friends, that a day or a thousand years from now is like tomorrow to the Lord."  A paraphrase is not a translation.  It puts what the author believes is the meaning of the passage into clear English.  In this case the author missed the point entirely.  The point is that God has a very precise schedule on which this world runs.  As a matter of fact, this passage in II Peter is actually a quote from the Psalms.  "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past..." (Psalm 90:4 KJV).  If Peter is quoting Psalm 90, which is a prayer of Moses, why is there so much difference in our English language between these two passages?  The simple explanation is that this Psalm was originally written in Hebrew.  The II Peter quote was translated from Hebrew into Greek; and then from Greek into English - two translations away from the original.  In Psalm 90, the passage, originally written in Hebrew was translated directly into English.  I am not a Hebrew scholar; so I have to depend on others who are much more well-versed in Hebrew for my information.  You will notice in your King James Bibles that there are several words in this Psalm which are printed in italics.  The King James translators put in italics all words which they added to help make sense of the wording.  Other translations do not do that.  I read in the ancient rabbinical writings that this verse actually states, "For a thousand years is in thy sight, yesterday, when it is past..."  They taught that when a thousand years had passed, one day in God's calendar had passed."

          Now, let's put this into perspective.  The rabbis taught that God created our world in six days and rested on the seventh.  They believed that this world would go through seven thousand years of history, one thousand years for each day of creation, followed by a Sabbath thousand years in which God, Himself, would rule the earth as the Earth's Sabbath.  During this time period between the return from Babylon and the time Jesus was born, there was great emphasis on the possible appearance of the Messiah, whom they called, "the Sun," or sometimes, "the Son."  Because God created the Sun near the end of the fourth day, they believed that Messiah ("the Son") would arrive near the end of the fourth millenium.  The fact is that Jesus was born somewhere between 4 and 6 years before the end of the fourth millenium at about 4 BC.  That also means that Adam did indeed die physically in the same day that he ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree.  He lived to be 930 years old by human calculations.  However, he died before the 1,000 year long first day of God's calendar, thereby fulfilling the promised that he would die in the same day he ate of the fruit of the tree.

WHY DO YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

          Before I get to the heart of your question, I simply must address a couple statements you raised in your original question.  First, you said that your pastor says that Jesus did away with the Old Testament.  I've never heard it put quite that way before.  Most people refer to their church teaching as Jesus doing away with the Law or "abolishing" the Law.  Jesus very carefully stated, "Don't misunderstand why I have come - it isn't to cancel the laws of Moses and the warnings of the prophets.  No, I came to fulfill them, and to make them all come true.  With all the earnestness I have, I say: Every law in the Book will continue until its purpose is achieved" (Matthew 5:11-12 LB).  Jesus very emphatically says that He did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets (a New Testament name for the Old Testament).  Instead He says He came to fulfill it.  What it means to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, we will get into later on in this answer. 

          The second thing I need to address in your questions is your suggestion that Jesus brought in a different way of salvation known as "The Age of Grace."  May I assure you that God did not change boats in the middle of the stream.  The Bible says He is the same, "Yesterday, today, [yes,] and forever - to the ages" (Hebrews 13:8 Amplified).  Please don't suggest that God came up with a plan of salvation for the people of the Old Testament; then when that didn't work He came up with an easier plan for us today.  God's single plan of salvation predated the creation of the earth.  Let's go to the New Testament to prove that.  In Hebrews 11 we have "The Faith Chapter."  All of the individuals mentioned as being saved by faith are Old Testament characters.  In "The Faith Chapter" we read, "By faith Abel...  By faith Enoch...  By faith Noah...  By faith Abraham...;" and we could go on, and on, and on.  In fact, verse 6 tells us, "But without faith it is impossible to please God." That is referring to the Old Testament saints.  Salvation has always been by faith.  Salvation in the Old Testament was by faith.  Salvation in the New Testament is by faith.  There are not two differing ways of salvation.  Now, to be sure, salvation in the Old Testament was by faith in the promise God made of the coming Messiah who would redeem mankind.  Whereas salvation in the New Testament is by faith in the Messiah who has come and redeemed us from our sin.  But God's way of salvation has never changed. 

          Now to your question as to why I teach from both the Old and the New Testaments.  There are several reasons, the first of which is that there is nothing in the New Testament which is not based upon the Old Testament.  Jesus taught exclusively from the Old Testament because there was no New Testament at the time.  In His teachings He quoted extensively from the Old Testament.  If we are to understand what He taught, we must go back and look at what the Old Testament had to say about the subjects Jesus broached, and their background in the Old Testament.  We must remember that Jesus' listeners knew the Old Testament.  They knew the passages from which Jesus taught.  Without a knowledge of the Old Testament background of Jesus', the Apostle Paul's and the disciples' teachings, it would be very easy to misunderstand and take out of context what we read in the New Testament.  This is the source of much of the division and doctrinal error in the Christian church today.

          Another reason I teach from the Old Testament as well as the New is because Jesus said He came to "fulfill" the Law and the Prophets.  How can we understand from the New Testament how He fulfilled, is fulfilling, and will finally fulfill all of the Old Testament if we never study from the Old Testament.  In my book Finding Jesus in the Old Testament - the Jewish Scriptures," we outline how Jesus fulfilled the various animal sacrifices that were required of the faithful.  We also see how Jesus is right now fulfilling the Melchizedekan Priesthood which we find in Genesis, the Psalms and in Hebrews.  In the book I am currently writing, "Studies in Matthew - Jesus was a Recognized Orthodox Rabbi," we look at how Jesus did fulfill the Spring Feasts of the Lord and how He will fulfill the Fall Feasts of the Lord when He returns.  There is much more we could say about how Jesus fulfilled, is fulfilling and will fulfill the Old Testament, but let this suffice for this evening.

          Thirdly, as human beings we cannot even begin to understand what the word "holy" means when used to describe God.  The Old Testament lays down the principles of the holiness of God; a concept which is beyond our minds' comprehension.  While the New Testament expands upon this subject, the Old Testament explains it, and lays down how as humans we can relate to the holiness of God.

          There are a lot of other reasons for studying in the Old Testament; but let me conclude with this.  In the Old Testament God made numerous agreements or covenants.  Some of them were conditional.   By that I mean that God would perform His part of the agreement if the individual or group of individuals with whom the covenant was made would perform their part of the deal.  All of those covenants were broken by the people who failed to live up to what they promised God they would do.  However, some of the covenants God made with individuals and with groups of individuals (even nations) were unconditional - unilateral.  God made the promise without requiring anything in return. He described them as being "forever."  These covenants or agreements are still in force today.  There is much in the New Testament which is intertwined with these unconditional covenants.  Unless we understand the difference in such covenants, we cannot correctly understand many passages in the New Testament.

          Let me conclude with two thoughts.  First, we want to interpret what God has revealed to us correctly so we get the message He has for us.  I believe we do that by understanding the Bible literally for what the words say, unless the Bible itself indicates that it is to be taken figuratively or as an illustration of something.  We also need to try to discover how the people who received it, understood it.  God gave it to them in their language and culture so they could understand it.  Today we interpret the Bible in our western culture which is very, very different than the culture and thinking processes of the people who received God's word.

          Finally, I want to impress upon you that God did not have one way of salvation for the saints of the Old Testament; and another way for us in New Testament times.  Let me show you that the Old Testament presents the very same plan of salvation as does the New Testament.

          First, God is Holy, and we have sinned.  The Old Testament Prophet Isaiah declared, "But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 6:4-6 LB).  The Prophet said that the very best we can produce is "filthy rags" compared to God's holy demands.  In Isaiah chapter 6, we have the record of Isaiah being called up to Heaven.  He writes, "I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.  Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flies.  And one cried to another and said 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.'   ...Then I said 'Woe is me, for I am undone!  Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts'" (Isaiah 6:1-5 NIV).  Here, in the Old Testament, we have a Holy God and a people who have fallen short of the mark.

          Second, God is Just and must punish sin.  The Bible says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4 KJV).  The Old Testament is the history of God punishing those who rebel against His plan and rewarding those who honor Him by faith.

          Third, God is Love and the Rewarder of them that seek Him.  The perception that the God of the Old Testament is angry and revengeful, and that the God of the New Testament is Love and can overlook our shortcomings, is very far from the truth.  The Bible says God is always the same.  The Holy, Just, Loving God of the Old Testament, is the Holy, Just, Loving God of the New Testament.  The God of Love provided a blood atonement.  "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" (Leviticus 17:11 KJV).  Faith in the atoning blood covers the stain of sin - Old or New Testament.

JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION

  Rogers, Arkansas - A former advisor to Saddam Hussein told the congregation of the Rogers First Church of the Nazarene that weapons of mass destruction not only existed, but were transported to Syria before the invasion of Iraq.

  Georges Sada, retired general officer of the Iraqi Air Force, spoke at the church during its Sunday morning service (January 11, 2009) to discuss his relationship with Hussein from his rise to power in the late 1960's until the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

  Sada retired from the Air Force in 1986 but was asked to return for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  He was imprisoned in 1991 for refusing to execute prisoners of war, and discharged from the Air Force.

  Sada said he saw first hand evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

  "There was a time when Saddam possessed chemical weapons.  I am so sorry that Americans and many in authority said there were never weapons of mass destruction," he said.

  Sada said that in 2002, Iraq sent humanitarian aid by air and ground to Syria following a natural disaster.  During this time, all weapons of mass destruction were flown to Damascus prior to the invasion.

  However, the Duelfer report, released by the Iraq Survey Group in 2004, found no evidence of any program to ship weapons to Syria.

  Sada said he believes the occupation of Iraq was also the right thing to do.  He explained that Saddam was urged to leave the country or face an occupation.  It was only when Saddam refused to leave that action was taken.

  "Iraq in 2003 was liberated," he said.  "All steps of peace were taken for war not to happen."

  "It's been a hard road," Sada said, "and there is still much work to be done."

  "It was very tough; the country was completely destroyed ... freedom was given to the Iraqis on a gold platter.  Instead of loving each other, they are killing each other."

COMMENT:

          I have always wondered why the Bush Administration allowed the truth about weapons of mass destruction to be hidden.  There were plenty of intelligence reports, some from our own satalites that circle the earth, that showed both the chemical and nuclear programs in Iraq being shuttled to Syria.  I have always believed that there must have been some major diplomatic reason why that evidence was never released.

          Now, with all these nuclear and chemical weapons in the hands of Syria, a strong opponant of Israel and the United States, is it possible there might be an accident that might disintegrate the City of Damascus?  Or could it be that war between Israel and Syria in the near future might totally destroy the city of Damascus?

          The only prophecy I can find concerning judgment in the Old Testament against one of Israel's enemies which has not yet been fulfilled, is the destruction of Damascus.  Damascus is the oldest still functioning city in the world.  In Isaiah 17, Jehovah, in a pronouncement of judgment says that "Damascus will cease from being a city."  He goes on to say it will become "a ruinous heap."  In a similar pronouncement in Jeremiah 49 God indicates that this fulfillment will be long in coming, because people will say, "Why is the city of praise (Damascus) not deserted?"  But then He goes on to say that "her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day."  The term "in that day" is one of the code words in the Old Testament referring to the time just before the return of the Lord.  The Lord continues, "I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces..."  That word "consume" is an interesting one (aw-akl' in Hebrew).  It means "to eat," "to burn, "to devour," or even "to disintegrate."  Notice that it is the "fire" which "consumes."  The city will be left an uninhabitable heap.

Summer 2009 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter

Winter 2009  - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter