Gap Theory and Pre-Adamic Civilization Dialogue

GapTheory sm


My son and I sometimes have theological discussions in which have minor disagreements.


I say minor because we are in complete agreement on the theological majors such as God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – is One God. Jesus is both fully human and fully God. God emptied Himself of His Divine attributes and became incarnated as a man to save humanity from the sin of Adam passed down to all humanity by approving Satan rather than obey God. Jesus as the Son of the Father died on the Cross was buried and was Resurrected in human bodily life reacquiring the Divine attributes that He removed to be a man. In receiving His Divine attributes again the man-God Jesus was Gloried and sits on the Right Hand of the Father ever interceding for the saints in Christ. All who hear, receive and Believe the Good News of Jesus Christ are Saved from the grasp of Satan’s wicked lease on this planet and are transferred into the Kingdom of God.


Frankly it is the minor theological disagreements that wars have been fought over through the years after Christ’s Resurrection. This is not the case between Adam and me.


The following dialogue has been edited with spell check, the removal of personal information as well as the removal of short trivial answers and/or statements.


Gap Theory and Pre-Adamic Civilization Dialogue


Dialogue: Adam and John Houk

Posted March 4, 2012


Adam: February 07, 2012 10:28 AM


[Editor: I had sent a link of a KCM Ministry broadcast that discussed the point of theological disagreement between us:]


Ok, I watched the part of your video that explains her reasoning [Creation]. I’m sorry to say but she is incorrect.  What she stated is a clear indication that will lead to this conclusion.  She states that she believes the earth is as old as true science needs it to be.  Now let me start with this.  I am willing to bet that the Pre-Adamic age as she refers to it, came out of a light of trying to explain why science is finding the earth to be really old.  The problem with this and the way her comment was stating is that both are trying to match the Bible to science and not the other way around.  The Bible is the authority on real life, and truth.  For many thousands of years there was no talk of a Pre-endemic age. There was a consensus not to be worried about.  The Bible has a blood line that dates all the way back to Adam and we have written history to Jesus which accounts for all of human time.  Science claims humanoids all the way to 3 million years ago, the Bible does not.  Let’s add some more to this.  Scientists are heavily disproportionally liberal/atheistically heathen to the population. Satan influences the findings of these types of people.  With such a majority of them under such an influence it is easy for them to subvert any true science from being practiced or from being published or made public.  This puts doubts into many of their findings.  Another note to be added, data is easily manipulated to support the agenda.  Just look at evolution and it is easy to see this.  Only 33% of the population [believe in evolution], even though scientists have been teaching it as fact for 40 years or more.  And yet they are super hostile and label anyone who is a dissenting scientist of evolution as not a real scientist. And scientists succeed at this type of propaganda.  I, as a scientist [Editor: MA Physics], have looked at many of the young earth ideas and theories and they have merit, and have much valid evidence to support their findings.


There are only 3 foundations to old earth science which I will put much doubt into NOW. 


1) Evolution: I already know you disagree with this one so won’t say much – mutations almost always negatively impact, and the likelihood of sequential stacking of positive mutations to create just a human is so unlikely that it would take trillions to much more than quadrillions of years to happen.  There are no transition fossils even though teaching illustrates many transitions. 


2) Distance of light traveled:


a) We have committed no experiments beyond our solar system to confirm that light is constant or that it indeed takes a certain time to travel that far. 


b) In recent years there has been much evidence to suggest the speed of light varies in speed including stars moving at unpredictable rates, physics not appearing correct in far off galaxies, recent particle traveling faster than speed of light. 


3) radioactive dating:  3 improper assumptions:


a) The amount of parent element in a substance in order to make the calculation.


b) No variation to the decay rate over history


c) No historical written records are dated far back enough to confirm the validity of dating.  Even the written records of Pharaoh RA had [the time frame] dating it back to a much older [time] in radioactive dating than the event to start with.


Being that there is much doubt in what scientists use as the most concrete evidence of an old Earth and there is a lot of evidence for the New Earth, I would say that many are being mislead by a group of liberalistic, atheistic, and heathenistic scientists.


John: February 07, 2012 10:39 AM


Her conclusions are actually based less on science and more on the Bible and the etymological meanings of ancient Hebrew words. This is Billye Brim asserting the Bible agrees with science and not science proving the Bible incorrect. I am with her 100%.


The key is the Bible is intended by God for the sons and daughters of Adam with a road map of how original sin entered humanity and the earth. Then the road map points to the coming of Jesus.


Jesus is the God-instrument Redeeming humanity from the sin of Adam & Eve in the human spirit. The road map continues to point to Jesus’ second return that will restore God’s recreation of the material earth back to the Glory of God shortly followed by the union of the glorified new earth with the new Heaven becoming one.


Adam: February 08, 2012 9:35 AM


There are 2 problems. 


One the conclusion that one must account for how old science is saying the Earth is, so one goes into the Bible and reads under the lens of this belief in order to find a loophole in which the Bible might suggest the world is this old. 


Two that one has to say the Bible agrees with science and not that science agrees with the Bible.  From a Biblical standpoint one must always understand that God’s Word is perfect and therefore cannot be wrong and also understand that humans make many errors and many are under the influence of Satan.  From this understand the primary source of truth is the Bible.  Science only helps us to understand more about the truth of what God gave us.  You still haven’t told me when Pre-Adamic age started to be talked about.


John: February 08, 2012 11:00 AM


I have not told you because the Bible only gives clues because the Bible is written for the sons of Adam. The Bible says little to nothing about anything that does not have anything to do with the sons of Adam that are promised Redemption which is eventually revealed in Jesus Christ.


Adam: February 09, 2012 9:20 AM


This answer doesn’t address the issues I point out.


Adam: February 14, 2012 10:27 AM


The lack of understanding of saying the Bible agrees with science rather than science must agree with the Bible.  When did the Pre-Adamic age talk start?  How science is under the massive influence from Satan, in the current history, making it necessary to take a much more critical view of it.


John: February 14, 2012 4:29 PM


The Pre-Adamic age was before the creation of Adam. I whole heartedly agree that modern science is under the influence of Satan.


John: February 15, 2012 12:59 PM


I do not know when it became a debate. Then I saw the Billye Brim episode of the Believer’s Voice of Victory and realized the Pre-Adamite info was planted into me at RHEMA. RHEMA was not dogmatic; however a couple of teachers were. The Pre-Adamic Theory seemed to allow things to fit with secular science and the Bible. The Pre-Adamite thinking and Scripture is revealed in the etymology of words in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.


[Editor: I am adding this for clarity:


Genesis 1: 1-2 (NKJV)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.


Below is some Pro-Gap Theory information excerpted from Kingdoms in Conflict: Origins of the Conflict:


The “Gap Theory” was first postulated by G.H. Pember in Earth’s Earliest Ages in 1876 and popularized in the footnotes of Dr. C. I. Schofield’s Bible commentary. It helps us understand how the angelic origins of evil carried over to God’s creation in Genesis 1 but is not without some well-founded critical observation.

1. Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created (Heb. “bara” means to create from nothing. “Asah”, used later in Genesis 1 means to “make” from pre-existing matter.)the heavens and the earth. The adherents of the Gap Theory believe that all of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth occurred in Genesis 1:1 citing as a scripture reference Rom 4:17 “…even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” God creates from nothing by the word of His faith. And the earth was without form and void: (Heb. tohu wabohu). This Hebrew idiom is used only to depict scenes of God’s awful, terrible judgment in Isa 34:11 in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and in Jer. 4:23.”Tohu” is used to depict desolation in Deut 32:10, Job 6:18, Job 12:24, Psa. 107:40, Isa 24:10, Isa 40:23, Isa 41:29. Finally in Isa 45:18 we are told that God did not create the world “tohu”. Therefore the earth depicted in Genesis 1:2 is distinctly different than in verse 1 where everything God creates is good. Opponents of the Gap theory state that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement and that what follows is how God did create the earth. They also question the efficacy of a new doctrine discovered in the Scriptures that has eluded even the greatest Christian teachers of the past. This fact alone should put us on guard against any alleged “new revelation”. Pember and Schofield would simply respond by saying that this is no new revelation but has always been available to us. Early Christian scholarship would have discerned it with more focus on God’s Word and less emphasis on philosophy that began enmeshing the Christian Church during the latter part of the second century, AD.

2. On the second day when God separated the firmament from the midst of the waters, this is the only day that is not noted that “God saw that it was good”. This expression appears to summarize all of the other days of creation except the second day.

3. The word “bara” (to create”) is used after Genesis 1:1 only to refer to sea monsters in verse 21 and man in verse 27 where God both makes (asah) man (his body from pre-existing clay) and creates (bara) man in His own image. Verse 1:27 is in direct opposition to any teaching on evolution. These concepts are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled. Although some have made attempts to do so (e.g. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man), such attempts are unscriptural and foolish. The Gap Theory makes no such attempt.

4. In Genesis 1:2 the earth was (Heb. “hayetha”) can be translated as “became”. This word is used 264 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “became” 6 times and as “was” 258 times. Critics of the Gap Theory accurately point this out.

5. The Gap Theory postulates that Gen 1:2 was the aftermath of God’s judgment on the earth and that the remaining days of creation are a “re-creation of the earth with the new additions of sea monsters and Adam. The theory postulates that the earth was populated by a pre-Adamic race which was led by Satan and judged with Satan. These pre-Adamic creatures are the demons referred to in Scripture. Demons (Greek: daimon, daimonian implying greater and lesser forces) appear to differ from angelic majesties mentioned in Jude 9.

Angels fly and walk whereas demons walk (Matt 12:43). Demons are disembodied spirits whereas angels have angelic bodies and have no need to indwell other created beings unless they choose to do so for strategic reasons. In Mark 5:12 demons exhort Jesus to cast them into a herd of swine. Angelic majesties would not do this. Demons are not the spirits of the departed dead men. Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that “it is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment.”


In full disclosure a huge majority of theological and scientific experts do not support Gap Theory or a Pre-Adamic Civilization. An example of some criticism to Gap Theory and the use of the etymology of original Hebrew words can be found at The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory; by Bruce K. Waltke. Restitution Theory is simply a scholarly variant of the more recognizable “Gap Theory”. Waltke’s refutation of Gap Theory employees another interpretation of the word etymology via grammar and similar uses in other Biblical texts. The problem I have with the majority scholar rejection of Gap Theory is the method is nearly exact to Gap Theorists and is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete refutation.]


I have since discovered my thinking on a Pre-Adamite civilization has acquired a name – Gap Theory. The link below is a pro-Gap Theory explanation that I might disagree with a bit but agree with in most cases.


Adam: 2/16/2012 11:58 AM


Here’s the main problem which was just confirmed by reading your link.  The timing of the theory coincides with timing in ancient earth philosophy of science.  This makes it highly suspect because it is trying to conform to science which is made by humans that are commonly in error instead of science agreeing with the Bible.  Also I want to tell you something personally.  After getting a degree in physics and rereading genesis there was something awesome about it.  I could literally make physical connections to the literal words of the first chapter.


Genesis 1:1-2 Consider the word void: basically means empty without matter.  So the universe had no physical matter at all.


Genesis 1:3-5 Let there be light: basically the creation of all matter.  Note that all matter emits light as anything with a temperature emits light Genesis 1:6-8  Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters:  Here we see a dividing of space which is called heaven from air or atmosphere Genesis 1:9-10 Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear:  Here oceanic and sea bodies are actually finally formed along with the land that we live on.


Genesis 1:11-13 Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according…: Here finally plants of all types are brought into the picture Genesis 1:14-19 Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night: Here the Sun and the Moon are finally made.  The Sun called the greater light which guides the day and Moon the lesser light which guides the night.  He also made the stars, the point in which the rest of the universe other than our solar system is made.


Genesis 1:20-23 Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens:  The first sighting of living creatures made up of birds and sea/ocean life.


Genesis 1:24-25 Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind: land animals and insects appear.


Genesis 1:26-28 Man is made


So you can see an actual account of all existence as we know it being made from absolutely nothing.  Before 1:6-8 there would have been nothing to breath.  Before 1:9-10 there would have been nothing to float in or stand on.  Before 1:11-13 there would have been nothing for herbivores to eat.  Before 1:14-19 there would have been nothing to keep warm.


There is so much in science, even the order of existence listed above, that just do not coincide with popular science today.  I underline popular because it is clear they are just mistaken.  Even in the past few years there is a number of discoveries that are making people rethink even the most basic philosophies of science as we know it.  For example observations of far distant galaxies are suggesting the something is wrong with the basic understanding of physics there.  Recently a particle moving faster than the known light speed is putting doubts on the constancy of the speed of light.  fossilized trees standing straight up from a cataclysm doesn’t have any ages that would match up with the oldest trees known today which go back all the way to the flood.


Humans are hugely fallible and the fact that there hasn’t been any other suggestion up until recent years of a biblical philosophy for a very old earth questions the validity of that doctrine in the first place.


John: February 16, 2012 5:47 PM


Bucko [Editor: My nickname for Adam] I guess this is one we are going to have to agree to disagree. Fortunately the disagreement will not determine either of our Salvation. We both believe the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and raised on the third day as the Savior of humankind and is sitting on the Right Hand of the Father forever interceding for the saints that are Believers.


I still think you are missing the point that there is an etymological point between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.


In either case I am going to work up a post incorporating my Pre-Adamite thoughts and the literal Biblical timeline of 6,000 years. [Editor: Which I have not done]


Adam: 2/17/2012 1:48 PM


This knowledge is kind of important to me because it can accomplish something great.  If one can scientifically prove the earth (which I believe has already had some great beginnings) is somewhere between 6000-7000 years old, it would totally obliterate any possibility of big bang or of evolution.  Allowing for only one possibility-creation.  Well you and I already know this is true, but this would also allow for some changes in education curriculum that has sought to deceive children for years.


In Scripture, God said he made, is clear to any objective observer that all was created.  This is the single philosophy that would do that.  It is the only one that leaves no wiggle room for atheistic notions.  That along with the literal description of all creation along with a precise definition of day and night and how it was guided suggests Biblically that this is the age of the earth.  In fact I have made it all the [way] to 99% sure now.


John: 2/17/2012 7:12 PM


Adam I just can’t wrap my mind around a six to seven thousand year old earth. So when you find that 1% to add to the 99% you will be awesome. You will be better known than old Einstein. Godspeed on your path to prove a literal timeline for the Bible. I do hope you succeed, until then I am going with the Pre-Adamite Gap Theory.


JRH 3/4/12




By Adam Houk

Edited by John Houk

Sent: 8/16/2011 12:38 PM

Posted to October 9, 2011


Up until recently I always had the impression that lying/deception was always wrong 100% of the time.  I was forced to reexamine this by a few events.  Recently I was arguing with another physics grad student about the apparent contradiction of thou shalt not kill.  I had explained to him immediately that properly translated it is explicitly saying not to murder.  I thought about it further just in case I was wrong because I’m not a translator and it came to an argument that satisfied me whether it was translated that way or not.


Commands on actions can have exception clauses.  Exceptions are clear to this as written in the same books of Exodus and Deuteronomy that God commands the Israelites to go to battle and make a punishment system that includes the Death Penalty.  After thinking about this argument it reminded me of a debate I was having with myself once about an event I was both rejoicing about and was unsure of whether it was ok because it involved deception.  This was Lila Rose and the Planned Parenthood undercover operations [SlantRight Editor: Lila Rose ran an exposé on Planned Parenthood. Leftists make an effort to discount the exposé.].  I again wanted to resolve this. 


This is the conclusion I came up with: Only under a righteous motive, but not as a way to find a hole in the system. here is a list of 4 cases I found it appeared to be ok biblically:


1) Hiding an innocent from the tyrannical intention to slaughter. — 2 cites: Moses as a baby hidden from the intention to kill all male children; Samuel was told to say a half truth in his fear of being killed by Saul.


2) War measures. — 2 cites: In the book of judges God commands the Israelites to commit an action of 300 men breaking jars having while these men were running around at night with torches and this deceived the enemy into thinking they were being attacked and they killed each other;  Rahab in the book of Joshua when she hides the spies.


3) Testing of genuineness of the heart. — 1 cite: Abraham in the sacrifice of his son Isaac. (It was never God’s intention to sacrifice Isaac but to test Abraham).


4) Uncover the truth.  — 1 cite: Jesus in John chapter 7 tells his brothers he is not ready to go to the feast that they should go ahead, then sneaks in behind them to hear what they were saying about him in secret.


I ran into a webpage in which I was contemplating this


Once upon a time four brothers decided to go on a trip. They told their big brother about their plan and asked if he would like to join them. He said no, he didn’t feel like going yet and told his brothers to go without him. However, as soon as they left, their brother packed his bags and followed them in secret.

Why did this man deceive and lie to his brothers? What type of man would do such a thing? Do you know who this man was? It was Jesus, and this story can be found in John 7:2-10.

My purpose in this article is to prove that lying is not automatically a sin by showing examples where God commended lying in certain circumstances and even lied Himself.

There are differing opinions about the sinfulness of lying. One example can be found in the case of Exodus 1, where the midwives refused to kill the Hebrew babies as Pharaoh commanded. When confronted by Pharaoh they lied, saying that the babies were born before they could get there. Exodus 1:20, 21 says, “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.”

On the one hand, John Calvin writes … Go to the Link above to read the rest.


I would appreciate your thoughts on this, as I am still unsure to a conclusion, but these seem to be the cases.  Maybe this is also why the bible says that God would write his law into their hearts.


Before contemplating on this if I had ever become President I would have felt obligated to remove spies and undercover work.


SlantRight Editor: I haven’t had time to address Adam with my thoughts. If Adam provoked you to think about if there is a right time to lie then feel free to add your thoughts so I can post them.


JRH 10/9/11

Women in Position of Authority

Adam Houk & John Houk

© May 2011


Adam Houk comments on the stand I was taking relating to women in leadership in the discussion that I posted entitled, “GOP Nomination for President Part One & Two”. Adam’s comment leans more toward Part Two in which the discussion was about women in high Office.


Below is Adam’s comment follower by some of my thoughts.



Adam Responds


I have read most of your response and agree with a lot of it.  I would like to seriously point out something though.  My hesitation has nothing to do with making women 2nd class citizens.  I would like to take a look at Titus chapter 2 to start with.  Titus chapter 2 has made it clear that women’s priorities are to be the home.  This doesn’t mean that it should be the only thing they are doing.  Though I would like to note how demanding a job like a high end politician would be and how if a woman has small children taking on a high end politician job would take away from this high priority of the home.  Small children take a lot of time to take care of.  I can tell you this from experience since I have 2 small children.  I would like to suggest that Titus 2 says that anything that would take away from this priority of the home for women would be an ungodly task for them to commit to.


This is not to say that women should not go out and commit to other things too.  On the contrary if women have extra time I would suggest that it is their duty to spend their time wisely and give their services to the Lord in whatever way they are called to.  There is no reason to be idle in the home if it takes little time to take care of it.  Idleness is condemned in the Bible.  I would like to point out that the examples of married women helping Paul did not show in any way that their service to Paul was a detriment to this first priority.


Now let’s take a minute to look at Deborah.


8 And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”

9 So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.


This here would suggest that it was not such a good thing that she is taking the credit, but in times where there is no other fit leader then yes a godly woman should take leadership.  As for the couple of women (SlantRight Editor: Aquila is actually the husband and Priscilla the wife) in leadership:


25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18: 2, 18, 25-26 NKJV)


They were rebuking him of his error.  I’m not sure this is the same as teaching, in fact the other verses would suggest that this isn’t the same as teaching because it calls for women not to teach men.


12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.


To take the scripture correctly we have to take it as a whole and consider the circumstances of all.  Sometimes there is much clarification that needs to be made and the subject on women in leadership is quite a tricky one.  This is why I used the exact word “hesitant”.


There has been much distortion in today’s society based on this 2nd class citizen idea where women are being taught that holding to this biblical teaching makes them 2nd class citizen’s and this is clearly not true.  I believe this manipulation has been what has been a major cause of the major increase in the divorce rate where women are inherently taught that this is oppression.  Now I must admit that men have incorrectly taken this teaching to mean they can oppress women. The Church has a duty to rebuke these men.  Women are coequal habitants of marriage, but at the same time men are put in leadership of the home.  This means that in times where there is a requirement that a final decision be made it needs to be made by the man to either take the final say or to defer it if there is no agreement made.  This must always be done in a loving fashion as is indicated in the same section of scripture.


There is nothing unequal about the difference of a leader and a follower.  One is just making decisions and the other is following the decisions.  In fact Jesus came to earth and showed us by example the way to be servant leaders.  A leader is best shown by example.


Isaiah 3:12 warns of this happening as we have seen today’s society head to where it is now.  We have seen how women have been portrayed on television as always right and men as idiots. And this portrayal has been propagated into our society where there is a lack of respect for men’s ability to lead the home.  Now women are truly leading many homes in America.  I remember when I took sociology they were still trying to improve women’s wages saying that they were making far less than men, but the statistics they had did not segregate in differences in the decisions of wages.  It was found in a recent study that a woman working the for same amount of time in the same position of a man was actually making 114% of that which a man is making.  I have read a statement from the Feminist movement where they were chastising women who decided to be stay-at-home mom’s saying they were ruining it for the rest of women.  We have truly moved from a point in history where women were being unfairly treated to where men are now being unfairly and unrighteously treated.  We have hit this point of the latter days in which Isaiah 3:12 speaks of.


I may be missing something and I didn’t quite read your whole response quite yet because it is extremely long.



John’s Response


Pretty much I agree with everything Adam was stating except in the blanket statement that all women with small children would too busy for a political position in government. I believe the blanket statement of “all” should be modified. Women involved in outside work situations that does more harm than good for the family home especially involving small children, should consider the Biblical prime directive of her role in the joint-management of the family unit. So also should the man consider his Biblical prime directive, he is the manager-in-chief of his family. Tough decisions must be moderated by the man-husband but not in a way that undermines the woman-wife’s role designated by the Bible. In other words the prime responsibility of sustaining the family is the husband’s. Sustainment must occur in the shape of love even as Jesus is the Head of the Church sacrificed Life that that the Church-Bride might live. As Jesus rose from the dead, so also a godly husband’s sacrifice of family sustenance will bring Resurrection Power to a husband-wife family unit.


Then there are women who are involved in a family unit of means. It is not an uncommon thing for the wife to share family duties with a nanny or maid. And I do not think it takes away from the family if the mother AND THE father purposely designate time in training their children in The Way they should go so that when maturity is achieved they will follow The Way of the Lord and Savior of humanity. If managed correctly I do not see that a wife-mom’s role is diminished in the family unit; however I also can see that the mismanagement of a wife-mom’s role could also be damaging in their role of training young children. As a reminder I also add that the husband-father has a vital role in training his children that involves godly life choices. The wife-mother’s role is more of a nurturing role. A nurturing can be accomplished in a household of means if managed correctly. Again Sarah is a good example of a good and bad nurturing role and the outcome of the good-bad nurturing.


Adam briefly examines the example Judge Deborah and General Barak. Barak would not go to war to save the Israel tribes unless Deborah came along on the campaign. Adam points out correctly when there is no male leadership it is the will of God for a godly woman to step up to the plate. I don’t think Barak was a weak male leader. Deborah as Judge made the call for deliverance and Barak answered the call. Barak merely wanted to be sure that God was in the plan to throw of decades of oppression. To do that, he brought along the Judge of that time. That Judge was Deborah who was incidentally married to Lapidot in which there is no mention of him aiding in the battle that would throw oppression from Canaanite King Jabin. To get a picture of Lapidot you have to go to Jewish tradition on the Judgeship of Deborah.


The Torah tells us that Deborah was the “wife of Lapidot” ~ Lapidot means “torches” ~ Together with her husband, Deborah made wicks for the Menorah in the Temple, thus helping to spread the light of Yahveh among her people. Her hope and aspiration were that each person will find a deeper understanding and connection to Yahveh. For that reason Yahveh selected her to motivate Israel to re-embrace Torah.


Deborah prophesied and led her nation from her seated place under a date palm. “A prophetess, the wife of Lapidot; she sat under the date palm of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel on Mount Ephraim, and the children of Israel went up to her for judgement.” Judges 4:5


The date palm was a symbol for Deborah’s generation. Just as the life giving sap of a date palm is limited to its trunk, Deborah’s generation had limited access to the life force of Torah, because it had so few Torah scholars. The date palm’s minimal shade represents the relative absence of spiritual and physical protection without Torah. On the other hand, it was also a symbol of Israel’s strength, and the concentration of sap in the trunk typified the unity of their faith. These characteristics seemed to be contradicting, yet both extremes were true of the Prophetess’ generation.


Deborah’s understanding of Israel’s potential for spiritual greatness stemmed from her maternal love. She held hope for Israel and inspired a renewed sense of value as Yahveh’s chosen people, and exhibited a woman’s ability to instill rather than impose, to invigorate rather than force, and to cultivate rather than command.


As judge, Deborah brought a feminine sensibility to a male
dominated office. She referred to herself as a “Mother to Israel” and her commitment to nurturing fit this title. Deborah’s leadership style was selfless, focusing on the people rather than on herself. This, together with her appreciation and knowledge of Torah and her prophetic gift, marked her for national rejuvenation
. (Rinah Shal Tripod page on Torah Studies – link above)


Adam comments on Aquila and Priscilla as a married team of Apostles that worked with the Apostle Paul. Adam focuses on Acts 18: 25-26 (NKJV) interpreting that the married Apostles rebuked Apollos for only teaching what he had learned from John the Baptist’s anointing of repenting of sins and make your paths straight in preparation for the coming Messiah. I disagree that it was a rebuke. I believe the word “explaining” means more of a teaching moment in which Apollos heard the Gospel of the Risen Savior and believed; thus Aquila and Priscilla taught the Word of God. This only has women leadership issue in that the wife Priscilla taught a male – Apollos – the Word of God. This is important because it means there is a deeper meaning to Paul speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:


12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2: 12 NKJV)


An atheist or non-Christian would point out that Scripture that does not permit a woman to teach (which does mean an authority position) a man combined with Priscilla actually teaching a man a better way is evidence of a Biblical contradiction. But I say it is evidence that women that have not had authoritative training in instruction should not presume to teach a man. That concept makes Scripture agree in Acts 18: 25-26 and in I Timothy 2: 12. Instead of looking for surface particulars seek the deeper connective explanation. That thought was not for Adam who I am sure would agree with me, but the thought was for our readers who need to know that the Word of God is indeed the inspired Word delivered from the Holy Spirit to the lips of human agents.


Of course the issue of single parent homes especially as the all to common case of the parent being a woman is another subject to examine. That discussion today is viewed as politically incorrect because the underlying issue is divorce or fornication outside of marriage.


Adam’s thoughts on Isaiah 3: 15 is something I whole heartedly agree with:


I have read a statement from the Feminist movement where they were chastising women who decided to be stay at home mom’s saying they were ruining it for the rest of women.  We have truly moved from a point in history where women were being unfairly treated to where men are now being unfairly and unrighteously treated.  We have hit this point of the latter days in which Isaiah 3:12 speaks of.



GOP Nomination for President Part Two

Dialogue between Adam and John Houk

Edited by John R. Houk

© May 11, 2011


This is part two of an interchange between my son Adam Houk and myself that began as thoughts on the acceptability of Mitt Romney being the GOP nominee for the 2012 election against President Barack Hussein Obama.


Along the way the discussion merged with thoughts on women having positions of authority and being a Christian as well as the responsibility in using the American right to vote.





RE: Mitt Romney


Yes I agree with you on all these points and I do pray for our leaders everyday and it is our duty to respect follow diligently the authorities put over us (as long as they aren’t asking us to violate biblical doctrine).  You also make my point for me: when God allows an evil ruler over us it is usually in judgment of us, while at the same time he will put it in the heart of evil rulers to do his will in blessing us when the proper times come as in Cyrus.  Also note that David repented to Nathan over what happened with Bathsheba and if I remember correctly, removed all his concubines upon return from Absalom’s betrayal. And [then] David had a heart after God to start with and that is why he chose him as king to start with.  I do believe God ordains those who are put in authority over us.  As a democracy we are responsible as a people for the action of those we put over us.  I will never vote for someone that so vastly opposes what is scriptural even if that means I have to write someone in.  We have been given the power to vote for who leads us and I believe God pays attention to who his people vote for.  If this fails to produce a good candidate so be it, I will pray for whoever is in authority with reverence for the position they hold.


I am hesitant to endorse any woman for presidency as God has called men to be leaders and woman primary responsibility to the home (This is stated clearly in Titus Ch.2).  Women in leadership should be a rare thing.  For this reason I have found one woman I would be willing to vote for in Michelle Bachman.  When I looked up her political background I found out once in history that she quit her job to be a stay at home mom at some point, which clearly shows that she has this priority.  I have yet to look up everyone’s political background yet including Sarah Palin’s, but if I remember correctly doesn’t she have small children at home still? If so I’m not willing to consider her for political office.  I personally know how much small children need attention.


A latter day’s prophecy


As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.  O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)




After Absalom rebelled and attempted to usurp the crown of Israel by force, David was forced to flee. One of Absalom’s advisers told him to seal the deal on being king he should go into David’s concubines and had carnal knowledge with them to let all the people know who the new boss is. Young Absalom did so in a public tent and I get the impression the ladies did not put up much of a fight.


Of course we know from the Bible that Absalom was not God’s Anointed. As God turned around the circumstances to favor David, Absalom had to flee and found himself tangled in branches by his own long hair. Absalom’s entanglement led to David’s general Joab to run him through with the sword.


I have heard that David’s problems with his sons was due to that sinful night of lust that led to adultery with Bathsheba and for David ordering the death of Uriah by placing in the foremost of the battle lines.


So yes there was forgiveness for David, the man after God’s own heart. Nonetheless, whatsoever one sows one also reaps. David sowed dishonor by adultery and murder. David reaped a bad family life beginning with the death of Bathsheba’s first born son. Bathsheba’s second born son was Solomon who ultimately ended up as King of Israel even though he was younger than his other brothers who were involved in a lot of disappointing turmoil for David.


As to the ladies that Absalom slept with, David forgave them by giving them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they were unwilling partners of Absalom’s dishonoring of his father. On the other hand David would not have anything to do with those ladies conjugally for the rest of his life.


Now going to women and Offices of authority


Since you referenced Titus Chapter two, my examination leads me to believe you were referring to verses 1 – 5.


1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. (NKJV)


This is indeed the primary role of a woman as a wife. Here is something to think about though. In giving reverence and love to husbands there is no proscription for leadership roles.


I oft times run into the Christian that will tell me that there is proscription from authority in the New Testament. The point of reference is I Timothy 2: 11-12. However let us examine the context of this Scripture from verses 8 – 15 and then let us reference other Scriptures on women and authority to perhaps get a clearer understanding of what women can and cannot do.


8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (NKJV)


Note that verses 8 – 10 tells men to be prayerful and in an attitude of worship (lifting holy hands), not being in ungodly and or ungodly doubting (the opposite of doubt is faith). Then note the phraseology that precede “women.” The phrase is “in like manner.” Women are to be in like manner to what? The preceding verses would indicate the meaning to be in like manner to men. Then the Scripture tells us that women should not dress like sex symbols which would be the context to the culture of the day. Women were objects of passion in the cultural milieu of that period of time subservient to men who were taught to be oppressive toward the female gender to control them. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul previously informs that Christian men are to be prayerful with an attitude of worship, godly and full of faith. The meaning being men were to act differently toward their women by not being oppressive, condescending and not being just downright mean. Women are coequal partners in which the male is the managing partner.


A good example of this is indeed Adam and Eve. Eve was created differently than Adam. Adam was created from the fertile earth (as clay) and brought to life by the breath of God. (Just as a side note it is interesting that breath and spirit are derived from the same word in the Greek. Thus the breath of God would be life-animation by the Holy Spirit.) Adam was originally created with a union of male and female genders unlike the rest of the living creatures of the earth. Then God concluded that Adam would operate better under the original design of different gender mates. Thus God created women from Adam’s side traditionally viewed as Adam’s rib which may or not be totally accurate.


The point is Adam and Eve were created as coequal mates clothed in the Glory of God with Adam as the managing partner. Female subjugation toward the rule of man as he saw fit was after the Fall, not preceding the Fall. Has anyone ever wondered why the woman is saved in child birth? That is a prophetic moment of the coming of Christ that would be born of the seed of man (via a woman of course) and of the seed of God to reclaim the perfect human being lost by Adam in the Fall.


In full disclosure this is not the majority thought that II Timothy 2:15 is connected to the first prophecy of the birth of a Savior (Genesis 3:15) to knock the control of the old serpent Satan from the lease willing transferred from Adam. Nonetheless, it is my favorite one that makes sense.


So with my reading of Scripture the plan of Salvation means the beginning of the coequal nature originally established between Adam and Eve with Adam as the managing partner as in the buck stops with the male. Eve in the original plan before the Fall was in a position of authority but Adam had the veto power and the power of the direction to follow if the male determines the womens authority is not in line with the Will of God.


The two classic examples in the Old Testament are Sarah and Deborah.


Now no one had better tell me that Sarah did not have a position of authority within the tribal group of sojourners that Abraham had formed at the direction of God. An example of a bad choice by Sarah was telling Abraham to make whoopee with her handmaid Hagar to produce the heir promised by God. Sarah in using the wisdom of man (for that was not an uncommon practice in those days) rather than paying attention to the Word of God that specifically spoke the prophecy that the promised son would be from both Abraham and Sarah. And yet the Fallen nature of man reared its horse and Abraham said that works for me.


Another example of Sarah’s authority was within the Wisdom of God and not human wisdom. After Isaac the son of promise was born she told Abraham to ship out the slave Hagar and her son Ishmael out of Abraham’s camp. Abraham balked at first but God told Abraham to listen to Sarah.


Another example of women in authority in the Old Testament is Deborah:


4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6 Then she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “Has not the LORD God of Israel commanded, ‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor; take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun; 7 and against you I will deploy Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude at the River Kishon; and I will deliver him into your hand’?”
8 And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”
9 So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.


14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Up! For this is the day in which the LORD has delivered Sisera into your hand. Has not the LORD gone out before you?” So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with ten thousand men following him. 15 And the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera alighted from his chariot and fled away on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth Hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.
17 However, Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between Jabin king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. 18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; do not fear.” And when he had turned aside with her into the tent, she covered him with a blanket.


21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.


24 And the hand of the children of Israel grew stronger and stronger against Jabin king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan. (Judges 4: 4-9, 14-18, 21, 24 NKJV)


Of course there are women of authority in the Old Testament and one that comes to mind is Miriam sister of Moses and Aaron.


The Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the verses in I Timothy and Titus who tends to be taken when looked at singularly produces the image that women are second class citizens compared to males. Unfortunately for those male Christians that demand subservience from women no matter the goodness or badness of male instructions need to consider the Pauline words with the fact that Paul worked with women that had authority over men but were good wives to their husbands or were single.


Prisca (aka Priscilla) and Aquila:


2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.


18 So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.


25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18: 2, 18, 25-26 NKJV)


3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. (Romans 16: 3-4 NKJV)




1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. (Romans 16: 1-2 NKJV)


Phoebe is described as a servant and a helper. The Greek for servant is diakonos and for helper is prostatis.


Strong’s Concordance for diakonos:


  1.   b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use


As a diakonos-servant-deacon Phoebe obviously had some authority over males in sense of distribution.


Elizabeth A. McCabe at subtext “Phoebe: A Prostatis”:


In addition to being identified as a diakonos, Phoebe is also identified as a prostatis in Romans 16:2. Because prostatis is a hapax legomenon, translations have often been at odds to define this term, most settling with “helper.” But is “helper” true to the nature of this position in antiquity? In determining the proper definition and connotation of prostatis, I will examine its verb form proistēmi in the New Testament to gain a better understanding of the semantic range of prostatis.


Proistēmi in the New Testament


The verb form of prostatis, proistēmi, occurs eight times in three different contexts in the New Testament. These contexts include church leadership (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), household management (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12), and the practice of good deeds (Titus 3:8, 14). For the purposes of this article, the first context, proistēmi in church leadership, will take priority in my analysis.


In 1 Tim 5:17, the term hoi proestōtes is used in describing the presbuteroi. This verse can be translated, “Let the elders who rule [hoi proestōtes] well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and in teaching.” Hoi proestōtes is rendered by different nuances in translations, including “rule” (American Standard Version: ASV, English Standard Version: ESV, King James Version: KJV, New American Standard: NAS, New King James Version: NKJV, New Revised Standard Version: NRSV); “direct the affairs of the church” (New International Version: NIV, Today’s New International Version: TNIV); “do their work” (New Living Translation: NLT); and “well-leading” (Young’s Literal Translation: YLT). In whatever fashion, proistēmi is utilized, however, a leadership capacity is being conveyed. Some type of leadership position is in order, for proistēmi can be defined as “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of),”[10] which are all perfectly appropriate here.


Romans 12:8 writes of ho proistamenos, which is used in describing the different gifts that are bestowed upon members of the body of Christ. It reads, “the one who exhorts, in exhortation, the one who gives, in liberality, the one who leads [ho proistamenos], in diligence, the one who shows mercy, in cheerfulness.” Every English translation surveyed conveys the idea of leadership for ho proistamenos: “he that ruleth” (ASV, KJV), “he who leads” (NAS, NKJV), “the one who leads” (ESV), “the leader” (NRSV), “leadership” (NIV), “to lead” (TNIV), “leadership ability” (NLT), and “he who is leading” (YLT).



In surveying the semantic domain of prostatis in regard to church leadership positions, one can see that the semantic range of meanings for proistēmi differs from the rendering of prostatis in English translations in Rom 16:2. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, in surveying the eight occurrences of proistēmi (as noted above), the majority of these instances have the sense of “to lead.”[11] However, English translations do not take this factor into account in their rendering of Rom 16:2 or the fact that prostatis in its proper sense means “a woman set over others.”[12] Instead of seeing Phoebe in a leadership capacity, English translations account for Phoebe as a “helper” (ASV, NAS, NKJV), a “succourer” (KJV), a “great help” (NIV), or as “helpful” (NLT). The YLT, however, adhering to the most literal rendering of prostatis, renders this term as “leader.” Douglas Moo argues that if the cognate verb proistēmi is considered in determining the meaning for prostatis, Paul might be characterizing “Phoebe as a ‘leader’ of the church.”[13]


To what degree the difference of gender influenced translation committees is essentially evident in their renderings, choosing a word like “helper” when cognate terms of the same root are translated in verb forms with “rule,” “lead,” “leadership,” or “leaders” in other passages. If Paul wanted to describe Phoebe strictly as a helper, he likely would have chosen another Greek word that addresses this nuance, such as boēthos (“helper”) or hupēretēn (“one who functions as a helper”). (Click on the Elizabeth A. McCabe link above to read the entire article)


There are other New Testament women in positions of authority (including over men) I will make the scant attempt to list some without comment but the list will probably not be exhaustive.


  •        Euodia and Syntyche: Philippians 4: 2-3 NKJV


  •        Chloe: I Corinthians 1:11 NKJV


  •        Damaris: Acts 17: 33 NKJV


  •        Lois and Eunice: Acts 16: 1; II Timothy 1: 3-7 NKJV


These gals I found haphazardly. They by no means demonstrate that a woman is equal with the male in any Ministry Office; however it does demonstrate were more than homemakers raising babies. The early Church was a perilous time to live in. Christian women oft times at the very least shared authority positions with husbands, fathers or brothers because of the life-threatening nature of existence that existed from pagan Gentiles and Jews that looked upon Christians as heretics eschewing the value of the Law in favor of a Rabbi claiming to be the Son of God fulfilling the penalty of the Law.


Michele Bachmann


Adam I agree with you in the appeal of Rep. Bachmann (R-MN 6) as a potential candidate for President. I would vote for her. And yet, Bachmann’s recognition is not quite ubiquitous in America. Those who know of her outside of the Conservative more than likely know her from critical analyses from the Left leaning Mainstream Media (MSM). At this point I believe Bachmann would be better suited as a Vice Presidential nominee that has proven campaign capability that matches the influence of Sarah Palin. Bachmann would be a good old fashion rabble rousing (in a positive sense) get out the vote work horse for who ever won the GOP nomination.


Sarah Palin


The Palin children approximate ages in 2011:


  •        Track born 1989 – 22


  •        Bristol born 1990 – 21


  •        Willow born 1995 – 16


  •        Piper born 2001 – 10


  •        Trig born 2008 – 3


When Sarah Palin is at home in Alaska it appears she works from home while managing the children. When Sarah Palin travels it appears the underage children travel with her.


The Palin Principles:


Sarah Palin says hers is “just like most American families. Both parents working, juggling kids.” Judge for yourself:

On who does the household chores: “We do the cooking. We do the cleaning. We all do the laundry.”

On teaching her children “Alaskan skills”: ”I think it’s very important for the kids to learn the hunting and the fishing and the four-wheeling and the gold-panning — all those things that I grew up doing. That’s the spirit of Alaska.”

On computer use: “I do not like my kids reading the blogs that are so often very, very negative and untruthful. Todd and I tell the kids: ‘Don’t Google this stuff. You know it’s going to ruin your day.’ ”

On not giving the kids any allowance: They are “expected to work if they don’t have a sport.”

On raising girls: “I don’t want them to believe they can’t do something because they’re a girl.” All three girls played football.



Sarah Palin has proved that raising children and being involved with politics is something she works very effectively. Palin is family oriented and even though she has the dough, nannies and preparatory boarding schools are not part of the family plan as it is for many wealthier families. Also Sarah Palin has already weathered the attack of the Left and MSM about her personal life. Every single item of alleged law-breaking, impropriety and conspiracy theory have already been proven as a bunch of muck.


Sarah Palin is currently my favorite person for the GOP nomination; however there are many other potential candidates that I would be willing to support. One of those is Michele Bachmann. I also like many other hopefuls of which Mitt Romney definitely is not one of.


JRH 5/11/11


This is part two. Part one was posted yesterday. In writing this interchange between Adam and I spell check  and personal editing were involved to make up for both of our quick jotting of thoughts via email. All links even in Adam’s are provided by the Editor.

GOP Nomination for President Part One

Dialogue between Adam and John Houk

Edited by John R. Houk

© May 10, 2011


This is part one of an interchange between my son Adam Houk and myself that began as thoughts on the acceptability of Mitt Romney being the GOP nominee for the 2012 election against President Barack Hussein Obama.


Along the way the discussion merged with thoughts on the filter Christians should be using with their American right to vote.






Subject: Mitt Romney


I have noticed in my readings that this is the leading candidate to make the Republican Party ticket so I went on to read about his political views. After this I was very disappointed and came to the conclusion that I would rather put a write in for the presidential candidate than vote for this guy and I will do a write in instead of voting for him.  In hopes of not being forced to do this I thought I would send you 2 an email in hopes that you could spread the information in order to vote for someone better in the primaries.  Here are the reprehensible views of why I would rather vote for someone else.  Here is some info I have found on Wikipedia.


“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. “


A baby is a baby no matter how it is created whether it was incest or rape and should never be destroyed.  It even gets much worse than this as I have found and will show.


Romney was photographed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994, and his wife made a $150 contribution to the organization.


It is my opinion that anyone that donates to Planned Parenthood supports their racist views and their driven need to abort babies.


In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that “regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal.”


And more Statements by Romney


“I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.”


And another statement by Romney when accused of being multi-choice


“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. “


The last statement is the same as saying I don’t believe one human being should murder another but I have no right to impose my beliefs on someone else so murder should be legal.  It is ridiculous.  I in no way believe that Romney would ever sign anything into law that would protect the innocent life of the unborn.  This is not a pro-life stance at all but pro-choice.


Help us get a better candidate to vote for.




Subject: RE: Mitt Romney


Yes Mitt Romney is what is known as a Republican in Name Only (RINO). Personally I doubt he will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. The primary reason is that Romney as Governor of Massachusetts set up a mandated healthcare system in his State. With a majority of Americans showing that Obamacare is not favorable I doubt Republicans will place the man who invented Romneycare will win the nomination. The secondary reason is the power of the Christian Right. You see Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is regarded as a cult spinoff of Christianity that does not believe Jesus is coequal with the Father. In fact Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being along with Lucifer, thus making Lucifer out as Jesus’ brother. Lucifer erred in his ways and became Satan. Mormonism is a kind of battle between good and evil in the Gnostic sense.


On the other hand, if Romney does pull an upset and win the nomination I will vote for him. Trust me he will be the lesser of two evils in which President Barack Hussein Obama is an uber-evil American Leftist. Obama must be voted out so he does not have another four years of transforming America into the Leftist vision of a socialist utopia.




Subject: RE: Mitt Romney


I’m done voting for the lesser of 2 evils.  If we cannot put a righteous candidate up for election we deserve our fate.  I will only vote for a candidate that is holding with God’s principles.  Ask yourself this would God vote for the lesser of 2 evils, no God would give us up to our evil ways and let us destroy ourselves and start judgment as he did with Israel.  I send this email out in order to avoid having Romney as the Republican Candidate, but if this fails I will try and popularize a write in President. This is a possible win.  Just look at Alaska, they did it.


It is time we draw the line.  Until we stand up for beliefs wholeheartedly and replace this congregation of corrupt politicians we aren’t ever going to be able to turn our country back to God.  It is time we proclaim the word of God openly and everywhere publicly as God has told us when he told us to go into the world to seek and save the lost.




Subject: RE: Mitt Romney


Don’t get mad because I disagree with you. The last time I voted for the righteous cause instead of the lesser of two evils, President Slick Willie Clinton became President. The Republican was incumbent George G.W. Bush (aka Bush 1). The Dem of course was Clinton. I voted for third Party candidate Ross Perot who had the righteous cause back then. I distrusted Bush 1 because of his involvement with Watergate and a questionable CIA stint. I knew Clinton would be a Leftist politically and anti-Social Values. I loved Perot. So did many others. The reality though was Perot siphoned off Conservative voters that allowed Clinton to squeak out a win. The evil Clinton went to be so popular with the voters he was reelected, then impeached and then received a not-guilty from 40 Dem Senators and enough Republicans to score that victory for Clinton (I am uncertain but I think it was 12 Republicans).


I cannot allow my conscience to be responsible for helping Barack Hussein Obama win a 2nd term. Regardless though, as the nominee selection process narrows done to a winner, I doubt that it will be Mitt Romney. He was the favorite for awhile for the nomination in 2008 as well. He ended finishing behind Huckabee and the eventual winner John McCain.




Subject: RE: Mitt Romney


I’m not mad, but I am frustrated.  I think you place the responsibility on the wrong person/people.  It is not the fault of those that voted for Ross Perot that Clinton was elected but those of evil and ignorant hearts that voted for Clinton.  God’s path is a narrow and most will choose the wide gate.  To choose the path of a lesser of 2 evils is still that evil.  There are many paths to evil but only 1 path to God.  Until the Christian community overwhelmingly stands up for what it believes in we will not be heard.  Did the apostles listen when they were told not to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem?  They said they had to do what God had in store for them to do.  If any one candidate has major policies that are incredibly out of line with God’s word, we as Christians have a duty to communicate with each other and pick a candidate that is within the Word of God and write them in.  We cannot compromise when it comes to the word of God.  That which you feed will grow.  Even if we feed sin ever so minor it is a seed that can grow and it has grown abundantly in our country.  It is time we kick out the compromising population of politics and put in place candidates that are bold and will hold their ground.  Only then can we turn America around politically.  Of course this won’t happen until we start turning America around at the base level, with the people. 


As I said before if we can’t put forth a candidate that is in holding with God’s word then we deserve our fate as a nation, and as Habakkuk said as he cried out to the lord about why he hasn’t judged Israel for its wickedness “for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgement proceedeth.” 


And like in his day, we here in the latter days are starting to experience the birthing pains of this world as the wrath of God is upon us.  If we cannot turn this nation around now by standing for God, our country will then be consumed as the rest the world.


Revelations 3:15-16


15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.




RE: Mitt Romney


Adam your stick-to-it-ness is quite admirable. You are correct in one thing, people get what they deserve. Whatsoever is sown is that which is reaped. Consider this though:


1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (I Tim. 2: 1-6 NKJV)


In these days of libertinism it is up to the Believers to pray for those in authority. As ghastly as it sounds this even means President Obama as he is in the Office of President. Nonetheless, if the majority of Republicans miss it on the best nominee to replace Obama with, it is up to you, me and other Believers to pray for Mitt Romney.  If Romney is the too wrong for the Office of President, the Father will allow Obama to be reelected as the just deserts to those who miss the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I am guessing Romney if selected would be God’s choice much like the likes of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Ahasuerus (aka Xerxes) were choices of God as instruments of God’s will toward bringing His Chosen People back to repentance.


1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. (Rom. 13: 1-3 NKJV)


Even many of the Righteous Kings of Israel and Judah had sin in their life but were still used as instruments of God, especially the big dog of Jesus’ human bloodline King David. David had a problem with lust and so did the wing ding with another man’s wife – adultery. Then David attempted to cover-up his adultery by having Bathsheba’s husband come home from war so that he would have conjugal relations to cover David’s impregnation of Bathsheba. Then when that failed, David had Uriah the husband sent back to the battle line with instructions for Uriah to hand to General Joab. The instructions were to order Uriah to lead the frontline of an offense which ended as David had hoped with Uriah’s death – murder.


Again I have to make the point I would be very surprised in this climate of the Tea Party Movement that a Republican with a mixed bag of politics to offer as his bona fides would win the Republican nomination. My mind could change but my support currently is in the hope that Sarah Palin will run for President. She espouses both fiscal and Biblical values (growing up in the Pentecostal Assembly of God in Alaska) in the Conservatism she has to offer. As realist though I am sad to say Palin does not hold broad Republican support even though she was instrumental in getting many long shot Republicans elected that were Tea Partiers as well as making long shots make a close run even though the long shots barely lost.


Where am I going here? I am going with it is more important for Believers to pray than it is to vote even though there is also a responsibility to vote. In praying for those in authority we need to pray for the best candidate to win nominations and to win the political Offices so that whatever the will of God is, we as Christians may live a peaceable and fruitful life in Christ.


JRH 5/10/11





Part two will be delivered tomorrow. In writing this interchange between Adam and I spell check  and personal editing were involved to make up for both of our quick jotting of thoughts via email. All links even in Adam’s are provided by the Editor.

Our World is being slowly Rewritten Before our Eyes

God Creating Ex Nihilo

Check This for Evidence


Adam D. Houk

12/17/2010 10:32 PM


I remember having an argument about the meaning of the word “fact” with a friend of my a few months back.  Basically I stated that a fact is something that has actually happened, not something that has been theorized and or highly accepted amongst many as the truth.  My argument was: Without an actual being to observe it there is no way to show that something is fact because we might later find out down the road there is another perfectly good explanation that fits all experiments and contradicts the current belief which also fits all the experiments.  Without being able to distinguish which is true there is no way of proving one or the other is a fact.


Definition of current online Webster’s Dictionary of the word “fact”:



a. thing done: as an obsolete: feat

b. crime <accessory after the fact>

c. archaic: action


2. archaic: performance, doing


3. The quality of being actual – actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>



a. Something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>

b. An actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>


5. A piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact, in truth


My 1996 copy written Webster’s Dictionary of the word fact:


1. A deed, esp. a criminal deed [an accessory before (or after) the fact]


2. A thing that has actually happened or is really true


3. Reality; truth


4. Something stated to be true – as a matter of fact in reality; also in fact


Notice how the 3rd definition was added in the newer version.  By my 1996 version my statement is absolutely true.  In the newest version this thing where people want things to be called “facts” which is best on quality of being actual instead of what is really actual is a matter of redefining our language to fit an agenda that is bent on removing God from this world.  Yes when I had this argument it was because the Big Bang theory has been talked about as a fact when it is not a fact just by the mere impossibility a being actually being there to observe it, a fact is something that you can’t refute.  I can, God created the universe.


Adam is a Physics Graduate Student at Texas Tech University.

%d bloggers like this: