 |
Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter Copyright 2010 All rights reserved __________________________ Winter 2011 (Dec. 2010 - Feb 2011) Vol. 4 No. 1 IN THIS ISSUE BIBLE STUDY: "Finding Jesus in Jeremiah THE WORLD OF SCIENCE: "Giants on the Earth" "Dinosaur Remaims Dug Up in Utah Desert" OUR REAL AMERICAN HISTORY: "Who Has Hijacked the United States Government?" A PERSONAL WORD: "The Williams Family Christmas Letter" _____________________________________________________ BIBLE STUDY: Finding Jesus in Jeremiah (Yirmeyahu in Hebrew) By Ken Williams Jeremiah was a young priest in Anathoth when he received his call to become a prophet of God during the 13the year of the reign of King Josiah about 626 BC. He was a devoted patriot, wholly committed to God and to holiness of life. He was persecuted and imprisoned by his own people because of his prophecies about the coming destruction of Jerusalem if the people did not repent and return to the God of their fathers. After the destruction of Jerusalem, King Nebuchadnezzar gave him a choice of remaining in the land or going to Babylon. Jeremiah chose to stay. But some years later when the Babylonian governor was assassinated, those responsible kidnapped Jeremiah and took him with them to Egypt, where it is believed Jeremiah died. Jeremiah is referred to as "The Weeping Prophet." The Jewish people rejected him and his message from God, and the king and religious leaders imprisoned him repeatedly for his message. It is believed he probably died a natural death, unlike Isaiah who was "sawn asunder." Jesus put it this way, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city that murders the prophets. The city that stones those sent to help her. How often I have wanted to gather your children together even as a hen protects her brood under her wings, but you wouldn't let me" (Luke 13:34 LB). There are multiple passages in Jeremiah that have to do with the Promised Messiah. Almost all of them have to do with His Second Coming. Messiah is clearly seen in Jeremiah 23:1-8 as the LORD (Jehovan - Yahweh in Hebrew), the coming Shepherd and the Righteous Branch. "Woe unto the false shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My Pasture, says the LORD! Therefore thus says the LORD (Jehovah) God of Israel against the false shepherds who feed My people: You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings, says the LORD. But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase" (Jeremiah 23:1-3 NIV). Notice several things in these three verses: 1. There were false prophets who had led the people of Israel away from the God of their fathers. 2. Because of their disobedience, God promised to scatter His people over the face of the earth. 3. But, He said, that in "the end time" (next four verses), He will bring them back to the land. From the time King Nebuchadnezzar took the Israelites captive to Babylon, to the reestablishment of Israel as a state in 1948 (about 2500 years), the Jews have not controlled the destiny of the land God gave to them. As a matter of fact, it was in 70 AD that the Jews were dispersed throughout the world and Jerusalem was destroyed. The Dispersion (as it is called) was completed after another Jewish uprising in about 130 AD. As we continue in this passage, notice that "in the last days" God is going to bring the Jews back to the land. "I will set up true shephers over them who will feed tham; and they shall fear no more, no be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking, says the LORD (Jehovah). Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that I will raise from David a Branch of Righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, says the LORD (Jehovah), that they shall no longer say, 'As the LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,' but, 'As the LORD lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel from the north country and from all the countries where I have driven them.' And they shall dwell in their own land" (Jeremiah 23:4-8 NIV). Let's pick out several items of interest in these verses: 1. When will this take place? "...the days are coming..." "...in His days..." These are buzzwords for the end times. Obviously this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. 2. Who is this King who is going to reign? a. He is a descendant of David. b. He will reign over Israel. c. His name is "The LORD (Jehovah - Yahweh) our Righteousness." Can there be any question that this refers to God who became man in the line of David, died, rose again, and went back to Heaven? Certainly this is Messiah. He is identified as being both in the line of David and being Jehovah God. 3. What does this King do? a. He will set up true shepherds over Israel who will feed them with the truth about the God of their fathers. b. He will usher in a reign of prosperity, justice and righteousness. c. Israel will receive her Messiah. d. Israel will dwell in safety and in peace. e. Jews will return to Israel from the ends of the earth, first from "the north country." Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. The New Covenant says that Mary's child was conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. She had never been with a man. From Joseph, Jesus got the right to be king. Joseph was in the kingly line. However, even if Israel had been free, Joseph could not have been king, because of a curse God had placed on the line of David through which Joseph came. Josiah was a good, godly king. But he had a son who became one of the most ungodly kings ever to take the throne. That son is called Jehoiachin, also known as Jeconiah or Coniah in the Scriptures. Read what happened. "Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol - a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land, which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the world of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:28-30 NIV). Coniah was the last king before Judah and Jerusalem were taken captive to Babylon. He was the last king to rule over the Jews. God's curse on his family has not been broken. While Joseph could legally have been king, there was no Israel. They were under the rule of the Roman Empire. Because Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, He was in the kingly line. But because He was not the physical son of Joseph, He was not under the curse of Coniah. Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' line back from His mother Mary (His physical parent), through one of David's other sons, Nathan, thereby avoiding the curse. "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli (Mary's father)..." (Luke 3:23 NIV). The genealogy continues back through some 14 generations to verse 31, "...the son of Nathan, the son of David." Jeremiah says "The Righteous Branch" will indeed reign on the throne of David. Jeremiah says much more about Messiah and the Kingdom Age. Check some of these other passages: Jeremiah 3:14-18 Jeremiah 16:14-15 Jeremiah 24:4-7 Jeremiah 29:12-14 Jeremiah 31:1-40 Jeremiah 32:37-44 Jeremiah 33:7-11 Jeremiah 33:14-16 Jeremiah 50:4-7 Jeremiah 50:19-20 ________________________________________________ THE WORLD OF SCIENCE: Giants on the Earth By Ken Williams The Biblical Book of Exodus tells the story of the Jews being made slaves in Egypt and eventually being delivered by a series of plagues culminating with God's deliverance through the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian military forces in the waters. However, the official Egyptian position is that the Jews were never in Egypt, and therefore the events recorded in the Bible are simply fables concocted over generations by the Jews. Any discoveries made which point toward the Jews having been in Egypt are summarily buried by the Department of Egyptian Antiquities. One such example is the discovery of the location of the crossing of the Red Sea by a Scandinavian research organization back in the 1990's. The group discovered that in an area where the Red Sea (the Gulf of Aqaba) is more than 1500 feet deep, there is a very wide land bridge about 200 feet at its deepest point. Using underwater photography they discovered coral in the shape of chariot wheels, chariot parts, spears armor and much more scattered across the land bridge in huge quantities. They even found one three-spoked gold wheel which would have belonged to the chariot driven by Pharaoh. On the Egyptian shore they found a huge stone monument inscribed in Hebrew, and placed by King Solomon to mark the spot of the crossing. That monument was moved to Alexandria to the museum where it was buried in the basement, never to be seen again. Why do I bring that up in an essay on evolution versus creationism? I bring it up because that is the very same thing evolutionists do when evidence is discovered that runs contrary to their sacred theory. It is buried, never to be heard from again. In our series of essays, we have already noted numerous evidences of this. However, in this essay, I want to move into a different area. The Theory of Evolution says that man evolved from smaller, ape-like creatures, and has gradually been getting bigger and more intelligent. The Bible, on the other hand, indicates that man was formed perfectly, by the Creator, in His own image, and that because of rebellion against the Creator, has actually been evolving in a downward direction. During the time of Noah, the Bible declares, "There were giants in the earth in those days..." (Genesis 6:4). Of course, we are all well aware of the Biblical account of David and his encounter with Goliath. But there are many more references to giants in the Bible. In II Samuel 21, during a battle, it says that "David became weak and exhausted. Ishbi-benob, a giant whose spear tip weighed more than twelve pounds and who was sporting, a new suit of armor, closed in on David and was about to kill him. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his rescue and killed the Philistine... Later, during a war with the Philistines at Gath, Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sept, another giant. At still another time and at the same place, Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear handle was as huge as a weaver's beam! And once when the Philistines and the Israelis were fighting at Gath, a giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot defiled Israel, and David's nephew Jonathan - the son of David's brother Shimei - killed him. These four were from the tribe of giants in Gath and were killed by David's troops" (verses 15-22 LB). A spear tip weighing twelve pounds; a spear handle as large as a weaver's beam - these had to be huge men. And the indication here is that these were part of an entire tribe of giants. After God's miraculous deliverance of Israel through the Red Sea, Moses sent spies into the Promised Land to see what it was like. The majority report was as follows: "...the land is full of warriors, the people are powerfully built, and we saw some of the Anakim there, descendants of the ancient race of giants. We felt like grasshoppers before them, they were so tall" (Numbers 13:32-33 LB). There are more references to the Anakim and the giants in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua. Creationism says that in a perfect, pre-flood world, with a vaporous canopy surrounding the world, allowing a greenhouse-like climate from pole to pole (and remember, there have been thousands of tropical animals found frozen in the artic icepack, complete with hair, skin and flesh), with air pressure about double what it is today, higher oxygen content in the air, and with the earth's magnetic fields three of four times what they are today, that would have produced much more lush vegetation, and much more perfect and larger animal life than we see today. Is there any scientific evidence of giants in our human past? If there is, it certainly has been covered up in order to protect the Theory of Evolution. There is evidence of much more lush vegitation, plants identical to today's plants, but three or four times larger. What we call "dragon flies" large enough to demolish your car if you should hit one at 50 miles an hour while driving along the highway; sporting a four foot wing span. You won't hear about these discoveries, because they contradict evolution. But let's zero in on this matter of giants. Is there evidence in geology and in secular history indicating that at one time humankind may have been much larger than we are today? Only 2000 years ago, the Roman Emperor Maximinus stood eight feet six inches tall. In a burial mound at Brewersville, Indiana a complete skeleton was measured at nine feet eight inches tall. In Virginia City, Nevada, a small museum displayed two nine foot tall human skeletons. The owner of the museum said "government officials" took the skeletons and refused to return them. About 30 miles south of Shreveport, Louisiana, imbedded in a thick layer of clam shells, researchers found twenty intact skeletons. Each measured well over nine feet. The clams and human content of the layer obviously had been suddenly buried in a catastrophic event, and formed into rock. That event couldn't have been Noah's Flood, could it? Near Humboldt, Nevada, in a dry lakebed, searchers found a human skeleton over ten feet tall. At Walkerton, Indiana in a burial mound, amateur archeologists found eight complete human skeletons, each eight to nine feet tall, wearing copper armor. A twelve food skeleton was found at Lompoc Rancho, California. At Tucson, Arizona a twelve foot skeleton was found. It had six toes on each foot and six fingers on each hand; had long hair and was wearing a bird shaped headdress. Let me interrupt here again to say that we are not trying to present a scientific treatise to prove creationism. That would be far too voluminous for this presentation. We are simply trying to show that there is another side to the evolutionary coin, and that there is scientific evidence to support it. As a matter of fact, that evidence, when used to support creationism, actually answers many of the problems which the proponents of the evolutionary theory have not been able to solve. About 40 miles south of Dallas, Texas, in an area where dinosaur and human footprints are found mingled together, the human footprints are nearly double the size of today's humans. The stride (distance between prints) is seven - plus feet. Even if the people who left those prints were running, they would have been very, very tall. It is the belief that the dinosaurs were running too. That would make sense; for, in order for the prints to have been encapsulated in rock, they would have had to have been quickly buried in mud which then quickly hardened into rock, with other layers laid down on top of that. This did not happen over millions of years, but within days and more likely, within hours. Hernan Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519 from Cuba. He used a strategy of allying with some of the indigenous people of the land to defeat the Aztec civilization. His ally tribes all had stories handed down from generation to generation of a tribe of giants that had once inhabited the land. They were described as people of "immense stature and heavy bones." According to their tradition the tribe was evil and warlike, and was exterminated by their continual warfare. Apparently these Indians had some thigh bones from these giants. Cortez said the thigh bone alone was almost as tall was he was. He ordered some of the bones sent back to Spain. A complete 12 foot skeleton was found near Mount Ararat in Turkey. The Muslim people of the area tried to say it was the skeletal remains of Noah. The skeleton is on display in a hotel lobby in the area. Stop and think for a minute: Noah built the ark on the basis of the cubit. A cubit is defined as the distance from the elbow to the end of the longest finger. Mathematicians, using an 18-inch cubit, which would be average for today's average height, have computed that the ark could have housed all of the animals described in the Book of Genesis, including dinosaurs, if the dinosaurs were young and not fully grown. Just think how much bigger the ark would have been if Noah's cubit were 24-inches, or even more. A thighbone found in Egypt was described as coming from a man estimated to be about 13-feet tall. At another site, a construction site in Egypt, eight complete skeletons were found; some as tall as 16-feet. Jawbones bound in eastern Turkey had TMJ's (Temporo Mandibular Joints) that indicated a skull large enough to put an average person's head from today, inside with room to bounce around. At Lake Noquebay, in northeastern Wisconsin, excavation of a burial ground found hundreds of human skulls, many of them three times the size of today's human skulls. Literally thousands of skulls and complete skeletons of giants have been found all over the world; in Europe, the Middle East (Bible Lands), Africa, North America, South America and Central America. Many of these have been found in rock strata that have been dated by evolutionists as hundreds of millions of years old; long before humans were supposed to have been on this earth according to their theory. Why have we not heard of this? Because evolutionists control the playing field. Any evidence found in scientific digs which does not support the evolutionary theory is marked as questionable, and buried in a museum basement or closet never to be heard from again. The Bible says there were giants on the earth. Tradition of many tribes of people, handed down from generation to generation, says there were giants on the earth. Scientific discoveries point to the fact that there were giants on the earth. However, if you are an evolutionists, you must deny the facts. Why? Because the theory is much more important than science! ---------- Dinosaur Remains Dug Up in Utah Desert The Associated Press September 10, 2010 Scientists said Wednesday that they've discovered fossils in the southern Utah desert of two new dinosaur species closely related to the Triceratops, including one with 15 horns on its large head. The discovery of the new plant-eating species - including Kosmoceratops richardsoni, considered the most ornate-headed dinosaur know to man - was reported online in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, produced by the Public Library of Science. The other dinosaur, which has five horns and is the larger of the two, was dubbed Utahceratops getti. "It's not every day that you find two rhino-sized dinosaurs that are different from all the other dinosaurs found in North America," said Mark Loewen, a Utah Museum of Natural History paleontologist and an author of the paper published in PLoS ONE. "You would think that we know everything there is to know about dinosaurs of western North America, but every year we're finding new things, especially here in Utah," he said. The Grant Staircase-Escalante Nationsl Monument has been a hotbed for dinosaur-species discoveries in the past decade, with more than a dozen new species discovered. EDITOR'S COMMENT: It looks like the scientists in Utah are just now catching up with the Inca Indians of Peru from 600 to 800 years ago. They were just a few of the cultures which drew pictures of dinosaurs which they had seen. The Incas drew pictures of hundreds of different kinds of dinosaurs. How did they know what they looked like? Evolutionists have tried to tell us they drew them from their imagination. To support that ascertion, they point to the fact that some of the dinosaurs they drew never existed. The only problem is that many of these supposed "non-existent" dinos have since been discovered, including the two in the Utah desert this past September. _____________________________________________________ OUR REAL AMERICAN HISTORY: "Who Has Hijacked the United States Government?" By Ken Williams You may remember that in an earlier essay we discussed The Birth of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitutional Convention was deadlocked. They could not agree on a form of government. 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. However, Benjamin Franklin called the delegates to prayer and Bible study. The session lasted three days before they came to the conclusion which is the basis for our Constitution. According to the delegates, God showed them, from the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah, chapter 33, the idea of three separate branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. From the Old Testament Prophet Jeremiah, chapter 17 came the idea of separating the powers of each branch and making each branch equal. To be sure, the members of the Constitutional Convention did put in a system of checks and balances to guarantee that the three branches would remain "separate but equal." Those checks and balances did tip the balance of power toward the legislative branch (the nation's elected representatives). The Legislative Branch could impeach the head of the Executive Branch (the President) for just cause, and with certain restrictions. The Legislative Branch could also impeach members of the Supreme Court. Also, Congress has the right to limit the scope of cases the Supreme Court can consider. It is called the "Exceptions Clause" of the Constitution. The Exceptions Clause gives Congress the right to withhold any cases it deems proper from consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. The process has been used over 200 times in the history of our government operations. However, it has not been used in the last 50 years. You read it in history books; you hear it on the national news that "the framers of the Constitution gave us a secular government." Those propoents are either ignorant of the process that went into the construction of the Constution, or they have an agenda of their own. It is true that the word "God" is mentioned only one time in the Constitution. But virtually every section, article and phrase comes directly from the Bible. We must understand that back in the 1700's there were no DVD's, television cameras, or even voice recorders. Most pastors wrote, and then read their sermons to their congregations. Thousands and thousands of those sermons were then printed and distributed throughout the Colonies. During the fifty years prior to the Revolution, and the Constitutional Convention, pastors preached on what was biblically wrong with the British government and its requirements on the Colonies. They also preached on what biblical government should be. Some of those subjects (those printed sermons are still available today) included: Consent of the governed (protecting the majority from the minority) Separation of powers Arms for self defense The republican form of government (not a democracy) Uniform immigration laws The head of government - a natural born citizen (the President) Two or three witnesses required for conviction of a crime Capital punishment The Sundays excepted clause Judicial activism banned under the "exceptions clause" The free enterprise system Proper and improper forms of taxation Capital gains taxes Minimum wage Tax exemption for church ...And there were many more. The majority of these subjects came from Old Testament texts, and all of these were incorporated into our Constitution. As you can see, the Constitution is a biblical document. To be sure, they did not put chapter and verse in the Constitution; but the pastors who preached the sermons on these subjects certainly did. You won't find many pastors today preaching on these subjects, because today, most sermons come from the New Testament, and few pastors preach from the Old Testament except to find lessons from some of the great heroes of the Old Testament. Also, today, most pastors preach on various biblical subjects, rather than teach the Bible. Most church members would say they had crossed the line into politics if they were to preach on such subjects, even though they are in the Bible. Another reason you don't hear much preaching on these subjects today is that a church could lose its non-profit status under the Internal Revenue Service (never mind that the Constitution gives churches tax free status). Let's fast forward. The first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared a law passed by Congress and signed by the President to be unconstitutional, do you have any idea what happened? Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot trump the Legislative Branch. It has no right to declare a law enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President to be unconstitutional. The first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, the very next day Congress began impeachment proceedings against all of the justices who had voted against Congress. The result was that the Supreme Court withdrew its decision. However, today, the Supreme Court goes back to that incident as a precedent that established their right to control Congress by declaring laws passed by the Legislative Branch to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court now, unconstitutionally, has control over the Legislative Branch (Congress). Do you have any idea what happened the first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of the Executive Branch (the President) to be unconstitutional? The president was James Madison. Madison's predecessor had made a governmental appointment prior to leaving office; however, that appointee had never been installed in office before the former president's term expired. Madison refused to implement the appointment. The Supreme Court found that Madison must put the appointee into office. What happened? President Madison refused to put the appointee into office, ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court, because the Court, under the Constitution, had no authority over the Executive Branch of government (equal but separate). Despite Madison's snubbing of the Court, the Supreme Court now looks back to that ruling as a precedent giving it authority over the Executive Branch. With these two actions, the Supreme Court had essentially set itself up as the ruling body of the United States, asserting its power over both the Legislative and the Executive bodies, and destroying the constitutional concept of "equal but seperate." But that was still not enough for the Court. Do you have any idea what happened when President Thomas Jefferson perceived federal judges had cross the line, becomeing "activist judges" - legislating from the bench? He simply abolished 17 federal judge positions. He didn't fire the judges. That would have been unconstitutional. He just eliminated their positions. By the way, the Legislative Branch can do the same thing. You may have heard of the Federalist Papers. They were written by three of our founding fathers to explain the Constitution to the people of the 13 Colonies. There was a great deal of fear among the population that the new proposed federal government would trump their state and local governments and become as oppressive as the European government from which they had fought for independence. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and James Madison, who later became president, were two of the authors. They explained that the Constitution could never be used to put restraints on the operations of the individual states. The federal government was only charged with operation of interstate and international activities. And, by the way, that pretty much sums up the Constitution, which forbade the federal government from any activity not specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself. It is estimated that more than 80% of what the federal government does today, is by any literal interpretation of the Constitution, unconstituional. There are only two statements in the Constitution which apply to the states. The first is that every state must be organized , as the federal government is, as a republic, not a democracy. The second is that in elections for federal positions, everyone must have an equal vote with all other citizens of the United States. That is all, period! But the Court was not satisfied with control over the federal government. They wanted to control the states as well. Consider a few rulings, which by any literal interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear, because they are not covered in the Constitution; and anything not given to the federal government in the Constitution is off limits to the federal government: 1. Most states were set up just like the federal government with a legislative house apportioned by population, and the other based on geography (in most cases one legislator from each county, called the Senate). The Supreme Court ruled that system to be unconstitutional. But under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had no right to even hear that case. It was outside the realm of its authority. 2. What about the abortion ruling? Before the Supreme Court ruling the matter of abortion was a state issue. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had no right to even hear a case that would trump state law and state operations. 3. What about same sex marriages? A federal judge in California has ruled that the will of the people in approving Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. That ruling will now travel through the federal court system until it is heard by the Supreme Court. However, under the Constitution, no federal court even has the right to hear such a case. It is a state matter. We could go on and on and on. The U.S. Supreme Court has taken over control of the individual states, in violation of the Constitution the Court is sworn to uphold. How did the Court take the right to control states in violation of the Constitution? There surely had to be some rationalization for it. There is, of course. In 1940 there was an issue between a union and a company. The Court had no right to hear the case because it was an internal controversy within a state's borders. However, the Supreme Court pointed to three amendments to the Constitution which had been added following the Civil War. The first required slaves to be freed in all of the slave states. Because the former slave states freed the slaves, but refused to grant them citizenship, the second of the three amendments granted citizenship to anyone born in the United States. That included virtually all of the former slaves. Then, because the slave states granted the former slaves citizenship, but refused to allow them to vote, the third of the three amendments granted voting rights to the former slaves. In the 1940 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time, that because those three amendments applied to the individual states, therefore everything in the federal Constitution applied to the states. How did this affect the states? The Court said that every time the Constitution said that Congress should or should not do something, that did not only mean Congress; it also meant your state legislature, your county commission, your city council, your school board, your library board, your water and sewer commission and every other governmental operation included. The Court completely rewrote the Constitution, giving it virtually complete control over every form of governmental operation from a legislative body to a committee in a small community. In one decision, the Supreme Court did exactly what the framers of the Constitution said the federal government could never do. In so doing, the U.S. Supreme Court had taken over everything in the country, in violation of the Constitution they had sworn to uphold. All of what has happened comes down to two words: "liberal" and "conservative." We hear those words frequently, but few know what they really mean. We are told that liberals support "tax and spend" policies; that they support bigger and bigger government, etc. Conservatives are portrayed as wanting smaller government, lower taxes, and are sometimes pictured as reactionaries. While these may or may not be outward appearances of liberals and conservatives, they do not get to the root of their political basis. By definition, conservatives believe that the Constitution should be interpreted literally for what the words mean; and by what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. They left us with more than 15,000 written documents explaining in detail what they meant by each phrase they placed in the Constitution. When cases come before the Supreme Court, those should be the only considerations, first in determining whether or not the case is a federal case, then in handing down the opinion; both based on a literal interpretation of the Constitution. By definition, liberals believe that the Constitution is a living document which has grown with the country, and will continue to grow as our society changes. It is used as a guideline for government based on the continuing growing of society particularly in the area of morality. Since words can mean anything you want to make them mean, the understanding of what the Constitution means changes with society and its understanding of what society wants and needs. As a result, much of the Constitution now is understood to be completely different than intended by the founding fathers, and in some cases has been so turned around as to mean the exact opposite of what the framers meant when they wrote it. What does this mean for you and me individually? We speak of the guarantees of the Constitution. There are no guarantees! The founding fathers provided for amendments to the Constitution when necessary. However, we have amended the Constitution simply by changing its interpretation. Therefore there are no guarantees! At any time the Supreme Court can reinterpret the Constitution any way they like. And with the appointment of more and more liberal justices, that reinterpretation is more and more likely. The Supreme Court claims to make their decisions based on what the Constitution says and what the founding fathers meant. But most of the Court's decisions also include previous Supreme Court decisions (precedent, which can be opposites from each other), even international law (which should never have anything to do with an opinion), and more recently they have even claimed their own reasoning as the basis for some decisions. There is more than one Supreme Court decision which listed no basis in the Constitution and no basis in precedent; only common sense. The bad part of that is that those decisions then become a basis for precent in future decisons, as they change the meaning of the Constitution. Let's conclude this essay by taking one portion of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and following it through from what was originally meant, to the Court's changing it to mean the exact opposite. Undoubtedly you have heard the term "separation of church and state." Let me ask you where I might go to find that term in an official government document. You say I should look at the Constitution? I could look for the rest of my life and not find those words or anything close to it in the Constitution. The first time that term appeared officially was in 1947 when the U.S. Supreme Court used it in a majority opinion, completely reversing its meaning from what it had meant in common usage for over 500 years. The idea of "separation of church and state" is not something unique to America. In fact it was a Christian term which predated the reformation by more than 200 years. What we think of as the Christian Reformation actually began more than 200 years before Martin Luther, when it was confined within the Roman Catholic Church. The call from many church leders was to get the government out of the church, and get the church back to the Bible. From the time of Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, government had made its stamp on the practice and theology of the church, taking the church farther and farther away from the Bible and ever more beholden to the government. The cry of those who wanted to return to true biblical Christianity was, "Separation of church and state;" get the government out of the church, so the church can operate freely in society without government intrusion. It had only to do with getting the government out of the church. Let's fast forward to the late 1700's and the Constitutional Convention. The states were fearful of a federal government which would invade their lives, and their state's autonomy. The Federalist Papers guaranteed the people of the United States that the federal government would never interfer with the rights of the individual states and their citizens. Of course, that guarantee was voided when the Supreme Court took over authority of almost everything in its 1940 decision. There were calls for guarantees of personal rights on a federal level. Without those guarantees many states said they would not ratify the Constitution. With the promise of the "Bill of Rights," the Constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights includes the first ten amendments of the Constitution. This issue of separation of church and states comes up in the very first amendment. The first amendment reads this way: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first three phrases of this amendment are part of this discussion of the separation of church and state, and the history of how it has come to be interpreted today. The first phrase says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." First, notice that this is a directive to "Congress" and only to Congress. Today the Supreme Court says that also includes your local school board, city countil, state legislature, and any governmental body (even committees). Second, it states that "Congress shall make no law respection an establishment of religion." The discussion at the Constitutional Convention was about which church should be the national church. That may seem odd to us today, but to our founding fathers, we must remember, their experience was that all countries had a national religion. Many still do today. If you were to read the numerous proposals for this amendment, and the discussion among the founding fathers, it is quite apparent that this amendment prohibits Congress from ever establishing a national church (a denomination) - and that is all it prohibits. At one point the framers of the Constitution even proposed a five denomination coalition to form the national church. The Baptists in Rhode Island, one of the proposed five, cited the separation of church and state, refusing to allow the government in any way to be involved with their church and to ever exercise any control over it. The result: an amendment that forbad Congress from ever declaring a national church. The second phrase says, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This phrase forbids the federal government from ever interfering with any religious activities, whether inside the church building or outside in society, or even within government operations themselves. The federal government is prohibited from telling a high school graduating class that they cannot pray at the commencement exercises for two reasons: first, because the federal government cannot have any control over anything religious within the borders of the country; and second, because the federal government, under the Constitution has no control over anything localized within the borders of a state, including education, which was left entirely to the individual states by the founding fathers. The third phrase says, "...or abridging the freedom of speech..." The federal government has no right to tell me I cannot pray before a city council meeting; pray at a high school graduation ceremony, or sporting event; or any other public activity. To tell me I cannot pray at certain activities is to abridge my freedom of speech and relegate me to a second class citizen. Now, having looked at the First Amendment itself, let's look at what happened. The first thing that happened was red flags raised by the Rhode Island Baptists. They were fearful of the first phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." They were afraid that at some time in the future that mention could be used against them to allow the federal government to interfere in their church practices. They wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson airing their fears, stating that it appeared to them that this implied that the government had the power to regulate religious expression. They believed that freedom of religion was a God-granted, unalienable right, and that the government should be powerless to restrain the free expression of religion in any arena. Thomas Jefferson had also been critical of a number of the proposed amendments. But, while he would have liked the subject to have been skipped altogether, he was far more comfortable with the verson of the amendment that had been accepted than with any of the other proposals. Jefferson responded January 1st, 1802, "Freedom of religion is your God-given, unalienable right and would not be meddled with by the government." He wrote that "there is a wall of separation between church and state that will prevent the government from interfering with or hindering in any way any religious activity." Did you notice that the Rhode Island Baptists and Thomas Jefferson still understood the original meaning of the term "separation of church and state?" It had no effect on the church; it only banned the government from imposing any conditions on religious practice in any arena. And that remained the understanding of the term through most of our history. The subject came up from time to time. In 1844, in the case of Vidal vs. Girard, a French philanthropist donated a large sum of money to the Girard School operated by the City of Philadelphia, on condition that the school must be operated on the secular French Revolution philosophy that required an absence of religion. He asserted that morality could be learned apart from the Bible, and required that no Christian minister could set foot on the campus. The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision. It said, "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament...be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school - its general precepts expounded...and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? ...where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" In 1892, in a case of the Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States, the Supreme Court opined, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, because this is a religious people...this is a Christian nation." The opinion was only 16 pages long, but it quoted from 87 precedents proving that the United States is a Christian nation. In another case that same year, the Supreme Cdourt unanimously ruled, "There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation...this is a Christian nation." There are over 300 court case decisions which declare that the united States is a Christian nation...up until recently. In 1947 (Emerson vs. Board of Education), with one fell swoop, the Supreme Court discounted all of the more than 300 precedents, took the term "separation of church and state" out of context, and completely changed its meaning to mean exactly the opposite of what it had meant up until that time. They did that, with only a one vote margin, and with one justice signing on to the decision which he had never read. The Supreme Court adopted a new policy. No longer would religion be protected from the government as it had for more than 150 years. The policy now would be to separate religion from the public square. One of the Supreme Court Justices had the audacity to say that the framers and signers of the Constitution either didn't understand the Constitution, or they were hypocrites and ignored what they knew was wrong. Then in 1962 (Engle vs. Vitale) the Court separated Christian principles from education. They did this by changing the definition of the word "church" to no longer mean a religious church organization, but now it meant any religious activity performed in public. For 170 years that term had meant only a ban on naming any religious demonimation as the federally endorsed church. But the 1962 case involving prayer and Bible reading in school was only the beginning. In 1971 the Court ruled any public religious expression must be for a secular purpose. If you could not prove that (and how could anyone prove that?) the religious expression was prohibited. In 1985 the Supreme Courted added a new test. They said that if it looks like government is even friendly toward religion that would be unconstitutional. That is a far cry from the founders' comments regarding the government encouraging religion but not regulating it in any way. But the most absurd test of all came from the Court in 1992. It was called "The Outsiders Test." The Court wrote that if anyone from a religious minority were to observe someone doing a religious activity that makes that individual "feel like an outsider," we'll make them stop. Since 1992, virtually all religious cases that have come before the Supreme Court, in their briefs, have included something like this: "I was walking along and saw [whatever it was they were complaining about] and 'it made me feel like an outsider.'" Regardless of the absurdity of the arguments behind these decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has done four things against the citizens of the United States and the U.S. Constitution: 1. The Supreme Court has ignored the actual wording of the Constitution 2. The Supreme Court has set aside more than 300 precedents with its 1947 ruling and set a new precedent which all future rulings now cite. 3. The Supreme Court has elevated an eight word phrase from a private letter above the Constitution itself. 4. The Supreme Court has sided with 3% of the population, against 97%; so that now the majority is to be ruled by the minority. Such rulings are also in violation of the "Consent Clause" of the Constitution which protects the majority from the minority. In simple English that means, the majority rules. However, the judiciary, in effect says, if the majority is for it, it is unfair to the minority. The founding fathers set forth provisions so that could never happen; but it has happened. The High Count has found a way around it. Sit down and read the Constitution. You can do it in half an hour or less. Instead, we leave it to the media, lawyers and the courts to tell us what the Constitution says and means. We could not go back to living under a literal interpretation of the Constitution if we wanted to. There are so many constitutionally suspect services and activities which our government provides which we would never give up. But that is not the big problem. In order for the federal government to provide those services, the courts had to change their interpretation of the Constitution - literally changing its meaning. If the court, which has already taken away some of our individual liberties, can do that, what guarantee do we have that they will not over time take away others. The fact is that by redefining (even rewriting) the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has left our citizenship without any guarantees on rights. By interpreting the Constitution figuratively, as they now do, you can make the Constitution say anything they want to make it say. By the way, isn't that exactly what LIBERAL theologians have done with the Bible? If you interpret the Bible figuratively you can, indeed, make it say anything you want to make it say. Certainly you have heard that phrase; maybe even used it yourself. Conservative theologians believe the Bible should be interpreted literally for what the words say as understood by the people to whom it was written. Therefore, you cannot make the Bible say anything a person wants to make it say. The only time the Bible is to be taken figuratively is when the Bible itself indicates that a particular story is an illustration or a parable. So, you see that the term "Liberal" and the term "Conservative" are terms which mean the same thing whether it is in the political world, or in the religious world. _____________________________________________________ A PERSONAL WORD: "The Williams Family Christmas Letter" The past few years have been very difficult for our family, but they have also been filled with miraculous victories. In May of 2007 Pat was in ICU on life support following surgery, and unresponsive. The doctors told us to call in the family because her body was shutting down. Her liver had already quit, and her kidneys were shutting down. People were praying in Australia, a seminary in Mexico, 200 people at a church in England, and all across this country. Suddenly, within just a few minutes time, she woke up, and all of her body functions returned to normal. Difficulty and victory! Later on in that same year we found ourselves faced with some legal challenges. The local newspaper made it worse by printing accusations they knew were not true. The situation dragged on for two years. But praise the Lord, after much prayer, He worked out the situation to our satisfaction. The newspaper apparently was not happy and printed a headline which bore no resemblance to the truth. This year has been another difficult one. At the end of 2009, I began having pain in my back, I lost feeling from my knees down and was walking with a cane. In January 2010, a inoperable, cancerous tumor was discovered on my spine. I went through 25 radiation treatments, and oral chemotherapy. I was so weak it was hard to accomplish anything beyond the bare necessities of life. A full-body scan in April showed that the radiation had killed the tumor, but the residue was still there, and I was still very week and unstable. Prayer went up to Heaven from around the world; and, of course, God answered! We praise the Lord for our wonderful Hispanic congregation at our church, which Pat and I have been attending since it began about four years ago. These wonderful people stood by us with their prayers and support. They were so wonderful. After one very special prayer following a service in the beginning of July, it was obvious that God had heard their prayer. The following Thursday I went for another full-body scan. There was no sign of the tumor. A blood work-up showed zero protein, meaning that no cancer cells were being transported in the blood system. Praise the Lord! We were able to make a trip to Pennsylvania in July. It had been postponed from April because of my physical condition. We spent a week and a half with mom and dad and also got to see my sister for a few days as she stopped by on her way from Michigan to New England. Dad turns 100 this coming March, and is in excellent health. Another victory is our Hispanic congregation. We had prayed for seven years to see this church established, and have supported it and been a part of it since it began four years ago. This is a mission work. It includes Spanish speaking people from the United States, Mexico, Guatamala, El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia and Puerto Rico. Pray with us as we reach out to the Hispanic peoples of our area. In addition to carrying on Ken Williams Ministries, we spend several hours two days a week in our church food pantry, helping to feed the needy in our community. Monday we pass out the food to the needy - as many as 69 families in one morning. Friday we help unload the truck and stock the food on the shelves ready for the following Monday. About 25% of the people who come for food are Hispanic. Back in January I had to retire from the radio station because of my health. As I look back, I wonder when I ever had time to go to work. It seems we are on the move from the time the alarm goes off at 6:00 a.m. till our heads hit the pillows in the evening. Our life verses have been the words of King Solomon, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6). After this past few years we want to add these words from God as recorded by Moses, "I am the LORD that healeth thee" (Exodus 15-26b). From our family to your's, "Have a very wonderful Christmas and a blessed New Year." ____________________________________________________ Click here for previous News Letters: Summer 2011 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter Spring 2011 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter Fall 2010 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter Summer 2010 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter Spring 2010 - Ken Williams Ministries Quarterly News Letter _____________________________________________________ |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Map |