Welcome to 1984

[jabcat]

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

--Gen 17

This is an everlasting covenant.  Everlasting is that word, Olam.  Can you tell me again how Tentmaker views this word?  Does it mean forever?




Could you take a look at this pdf file which was dumped in my lap and let me know where or how his reasoning might be right or wrong?  Also, Cardinal, could you take a look at this for me?

It's quite possible the whole world has been blinded.  It wouldn't be the first time.


http://www.christianzionism.org/BibleSays/Sizer04.pdf

My feeble attempt at defining 'olam', is that it has to do with an age, a period of time - others may give you better info.

As far as the article;   

This was an interesting statement, worth more thought;

"Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God to embrace the whole world."

And that "....through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians. 3:4-6)"

Also, that "The Kingdom which Jesus heralded is therefore now internal not territorial."  I'm still not sure that's only catching 1 out of the 2 - one spiritual, the other still literal.  You know, too many times an 'either/or' rather than acknowledging "2 sides of the same coin", so to speak.  I'm thinking though....  :eyebrow:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Molly; no can do. It froze up my computer for some reason........

[Molly]

I'm thinking though....  

Thanks.  If Olam means an age, isn't that age over?  Salvation is of the Jews, now we have our salvation. don't we?  Jesus instructs the Apostles to leave Jerusalem, not to stay there--to preach the gospel to the world, even to the ends of the earth.  He never says and then return and set up a secular state here, does he?  These Apostles are Jews who follow Jesus, and are fully participating in the New Covenant, aren't they?  The New Covenant is the continuation of the promise to Abraham, isn't it?  The only difference between the Covenants is that it is now fulfilled in Jesus.


Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

[jabcat]

Thoughts, not comprehensive conclusions.

If Olam means an age, isn't that age over?   Thought about that - generally, I'd say yes.

Salvation is of the Jews, now we have our salvation. don't we?   Yes - grafted in, and to not boast against the tree - or that we may not be spared, just as they weren't!  Still, "...when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, then all Israel will be saved".

Jesus instructs the Apostles to leave Jerusalem, not to stay there--to preach the gospel to the world, even to the ends of the earth.  He never says and then return and set up a secular state here, does he?  No - but that was 2,000 years ago, and the apostles wouldn't be alive today, or 50 years from now, or 100 years from now, or...  He probably didn't say everything to them that there was to know, or that would occur.  So there's been much more said throughout scripture.  (Want to pull a few things out and start our own denomination?   I'll lead the music.  :Sparkletooth: )  But seriously, what else has been said in scripture that may pertain to this situation?  Too much for me to know or be able to reference. 

These Apostles are Jews who follow Jesus, and are fully participating in the New Covenant, aren't they?  Mmmm, maybe not at the time He said that to them.  That was prior to the cross, and (arguably?) in a different age.  Not sure if/or what that affects in this discussion, but somehow it may be relevant.  But when they believed after the cross and resurrection, YES!

The New Covenant is the continuation of the promise to Abraham, isn't it?  I think so. 

The only difference between the Covenants is that it is now fulfilled in Jesus.  I'd certainly say that's the main difference, not sure it's the ONLY one.  Though I can't put a finger on it completely right now, seems there must be related nuances.


Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
I tend to think that is specifically addressing Law vs. grace, but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

I won't say anything you said isn't true.  I'm just not sure how concisely some of the plans of God can be boiled down.  I'm afraid when we say "I'm a cessationist, or I'm pre-post-a-millineum, or I'm a preterist, or dispensationalist", that we're almost always leaving out some truth.

Still thinking  :laughing7:.

[jabcat]

:cloud9: Molly; no can do. It froze up my computer for some reason........

Card, without looking back at it, basically it's an article arguing that the promises to Israel were fulfilled in totality in the OT, including that Israel possessed all the land they were promised, and that national Israel has no special standing (or that I gathered) any special promises left other than what exists for Christians in general. 

Add any bullet points to that, Mol.  Also, I said, "I'm afraid when we say "I'm a cessationist, or I'm pre-post-a-millineum, or I'm a preterist, or dispensationalist", that we're almost always leaving out some truth."

For the record, never, ever heard you do that Molly, I'm just saying that to make a point...I think there are some REALLY big, complicated things in there, the deeper we dig.  Sometimes I end up feeling like I know so very little (don't anyone say anything   :laughing7: ).

[Molly]

Alex Jone's new movie is out.

Fall of the Republic

Warning: might contain truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

[WhiteWings]

Gonna download it.

[Cardinal]

I won't say anything you said isn't true.  I'm just not sure how concisely some of the plans of God can be boiled down.  I'm afraid when we say "I'm a cessationist, or I'm pre-post-a-millineum, or I'm a preterist, or dispensationalist", that we're almost always leaving out some truth.

:cloud9: Jab, I'm the same way, if anything, maybe more so. It's like a "wall" comes up and my eyes glaze over when anyone starts throwing the "ists" and the "isms" around. My Spirit just won't let me ride any of those donkeys, and until I hear one of them speak to me  :winkgrin:....... My  :2c: Blessings....

[Molly]

Mr. Obama keeps calling our Constitution a 'charter.'

"charter"

1. a document, issued by a sovereign or state, outlining the conditions under which a corporation, colony, city, or other corporate body is organized, and defining its rights and privileges.
2. (often initial capital letter) a document defining the formal organization of a corporate body; constitution: the Charter of the United Nations. 
3. authorization from a central or parent organization to establish a new branch, chapter, etc.
4. a grant by a sovereign power creating a corporation, as the royal charters granted to British colonies in America.
5. Also called charter party. a contract by which part or all of a ship is leased for a voyage or a stated time.
6. a tour, vacation, or trip by charter arrangement: The travel agency is offering charters to Europe and the Caribbean. 
7. special privilege or immunity.





Someone should remind Mr Obama that no matter how many ways he wishes to slice and dice it, our Constitution is and remains and shall remain the law of this sovereign nation.  The Bill of Rights is not a temporary license granted to us by some corporation or by his office.  It is recognized by our founders as our inalienable rights granted to us by God himself.



The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the federal government of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government to the states, to citizens, and to all people within the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

[noname]

Alex Jone's new movie is out.

Fall of the Republic

Warning: might contain truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

just watched it...sieg heil amerika! or not...? its up to you take back your country from satan's cabal

[Molly]

Alex Jone's new movie is out.

Fall of the Republic

Warning: might contain truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

just watched it...sieg heil amerika! or not...? its up to you take back your country from satan's cabal

Pray for us...

[noname]

Alex Jone's new movie is out.

Fall of the Republic

Warning: might contain truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

just watched it...sieg heil amerika! or not...? its up to you take back your country from satan's cabal

Pray for us...

I do...and for God to open all our eyes...and may He bring peace to us in these times of hardships

[Molly]

There's trouble!...in river city!
With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pandemic.
Now all the recent pandemic laws, including quarantine, could kick in....also known as 'emergency powers'


Obama declares national emergency as US swine flu deaths hit 1,000
Emergency rules will make it easier to handle anticipated surge in patients

Saturday 24 October 2009 20.56 BST
President Barack Obama has declared a national emergency in America as swine flu deaths reached 1,000. In Britain, meanwhile, 122 people have died and cases of swine flu have more than doubled in the past seven days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/24/swine-flu-barack-obama



H1N1 Swine Flu a National Emergency: What Does It Mean?
This is the first time Obama has declared a national emergency and the first time that a president has declared such an emergency explicitly because of a public health crisis like a virus since the presidential power of emergency was created in 1976.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/h1n1-swine-flu-emergency/Story?id=8913231&page=2



Oct. 21, 2009
Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?
CBS News Exclusive: Study Of State Results Finds H1N1 Not As Prevalent As Feared
CBS)  If you've been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml


Regular flu has killed thousands since January
updated 6:58 p.m. EDT, Tue April 28, 2009
(CNN) -- There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.

That one? The regular flu.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html

[jabcat]

Interesting info, Molly.  Thanks.

[noname]

There's trouble!...in river city!
With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pandemic.
Now all the recent pandemic laws, including quarantine, could kick in....also known as 'emergency powers'

so you guys over there are dropping like flies are you...is it worse than the black plague for mr. peace to declare this emergency?
is it worse than bombs/phosphorous dropping from the sky or cities being levelled? is it worse than being sniped by drones? is it? :mshock:

[Molly]

OK, I've decided to move the Global Climate warming discussion over here because this is as close to 1984 as it gets.

Until now, this discussion has revolved around computer models, and as we all know, you can make a computer model say anything you want it to say--or as someone  pointed out long ago,  there are three types of lies, 'ies, damn lies, and statistics.'  The computer model is what comes up when you google MIT and global warming, but the computer model is just what it is, a computer model--and like all models, is subject to garbage in/garbage out effects.

Now we have an actual climatologist looking at REAL DATA, and his data has blown the computer model right out of the water.  I would encourage everyone to pay attention to this because those who would push the lie of global warming are doing it for strictly political reasons which at worst would destroy our national sovereignty in favor of a world government [yes it is called a government in the Copenhagen treaty] with an actual enforcement arm.  The global warming scam as it stands is all about a redistribution of wealth and a reorganization of the world--- it has nothing to do with science.  I would encourage everyone to study the real science coming from Richard Lindzen et al, look at the data, look at the graphs and try to understand them,  because we no longer have the luxury of being ignorant about such things.  These people who want to change our world mean business.

And NO my name is not Alice.  Although Alice sounds like she might be a friend lol--should I ever have the pleasure to meet her.


Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
August 18, 7:39 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth's Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT's peer reviewed work states "we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate."

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant "global warming"
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world's oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade "global warming" must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the "official" theory that "global
warming" will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009


If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC's estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees  C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.

    Graph A



Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.

   Graph B





As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.

The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth's system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.

The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.

    Graph C

 

Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:


The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).


For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.

?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.

0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and  this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.

    Graph D



The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world's oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any "global warming" not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world's oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.


All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.

What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.

The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth's climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.

The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.

There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.

Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.

Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.

Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.

Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!



http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

[Molly]

The real climate change catastrophe
In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00AM GMT 25 Oct 2009



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

[WhiteWings]

Al Gore's camp made some big mistakes. (maybe no mistake but just lies)
They were forced to admit their hockeystick model is wrong by any scientific standard.
Mistakes can happen. (but weird not to tripple check the core of your public campaign)
What bothers me is that the model still pops up in many new GW news items.

[Molly]

Al Gore's camp made some big mistakes. (maybe no mistake but just lies)
They were forced to admit their hockeystick model is wrong by any scientific standard.
Mistakes can happen. (but weird not to tripple check the core of your public campaign)
What bothers me is that the model still pops up in many new GW news items.

I don't see them admitting it, and I doubt that they will.  They have a different agenda than truth or science, so why not just keep plodding away at their agenda, knowing full well they can fool some of the people all of the time?  To admit it would be to give up on their world government and their hope of turning the western nations into gulags.

[WhiteWings]

Al Gore's camp made some big mistakes. (maybe no mistake but just lies)
They were forced to admit their hockeystick model is wrong by any scientific standard.
Mistakes can happen. (but weird not to tripple check the core of your public campaign)
What bothers me is that the model still pops up in many new GW news items.

I don't see them admitting it, and I doubt that they will.  They have a different agenda than truth or science, so why not just keep plodding away at their agenda, knowing full well they can fool some of the people all of the time?  To admit it would be to give up on their world government and their hope of turning the western nations into gulags.

It was quite a while ago. More than a year. The so called hockeystick model was created by two young (read unexperienced) over eager scientists. Their excuse what something along that line. It wasn't mainstream news. Just something in a scientic journal/article IIRC. So not by the PR drones.

[Molly]

Al Gore's camp made some big mistakes. (maybe no mistake but just lies)
They were forced to admit their hockeystick model is wrong by any scientific standard.
Mistakes can happen. (but weird not to tripple check the core of your public campaign)
What bothers me is that the model still pops up in many new GW news items.

I don't see them admitting it, and I doubt that they will.  They have a different agenda than truth or science, so why not just keep plodding away at their agenda, knowing full well they can fool some of the people all of the time?  To admit it would be to give up on their world government and their hope of turning the western nations into gulags.

It was quite a while ago. More than a year. The so called hockeystick model was created by two young (read unexperienced) over eager scientists. Their excuse what something along that line. It wasn't mainstream news. Just something in a scientic journal/article IIRC. So not by the PR drones.

But not before it became the centerpiece of algore's 'award winning' movie [as mentioned in the article above] which, although I never intend to be made stupider by watching, I'm sure has influenced a lot of people who would never believe in a million years that scientists would lie.

[WhiteWings]

Award winning things attrack much more attention than things hidden in the bottom drawer. So it's not that odd it came afterwards. But it should be removed from Al's speeches and further updated award winning vids.

[Molly]

Award winning things attrack much more attention than things hidden in the bottom drawer. So it's not that odd it came afterwards. But it should be removed from Al's speeches and further updated award winning vids.

The day algore stands before the world and repudiates his own work and tells the world, "every single scientific claim in [my] film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong," is the day I will believe the man has any hope for redemption or that his theories about anything are worth more than a plug nickel.

[Molly]

Obama sends a chilling message to MIT scientists on global warming--you will be marginalized if you are critical of our global warming legislation..What does he mean by that exactly?  Made fun of?  Lose funding?  Fired?



Obama hits out at climate 'naysayers'
| Oct. 23, 2009

Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:49:10 AM by Free ThinkerNY

US President Barack Obama on Friday hit out at naysayers he blamed for peddling "cynical" claims that global warming is a myth to derail a landmark climate change bill in Congress.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2369824/posts?page=51



What's 'the overwhelming scientific evidence' for global warming, Mr. Obama? [ But, that's a cynical question because I know you have none.]

[WhiteWings]

Obama sends a chilling message to MIT scientists on global warming--you will be marginalized if you are critical of our global warming legislation..What does he mean by that exactly?  Made fun of?  Lose funding?  Fired?

All of it I think. And for many that will mean fired.
If a scientist is made fun of then funding goes elsewhere. Obviously one would like to spend the $ on the best possible team of scientists. And if funding dries up then it's not uncommon the team will be reduced in size...

Anyway this doesn't come to me as a suprise. It's for a reason Gore is on Obama's team....

"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy," Obama said, a day after the release of a poll showing fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming.

I think it will hurt some a lot. But it will transform the economy.
I'm no believer in the man caused GW. Neither am I a Green Peace fundi. But  do think it's good to take good care of the enviorment. An added, but not insignificant bonus, would be reduced threats of wars over resources.