Monthly Archives: June 2011

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 56)jh70

June 18, 2011 – 2:44 pm
The Royal Wedding in Photos
Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April 29, 2011 in this photo provided by Clarence House on Saturday, April 30, 2011. (Hugo Burnand, Clarence House/AP Photo)
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Permanence Before Experience – The Wisdom of Marriage

Thu, Mar. 04, 2010 Posted: 09:05 PM EDT

Rightly understood, marriage is all about permanence. In a world of transitory experiences, events, and commitments, marriage is intransigent. It simply is what it is – a permanent commitment made by a man and a woman who commit themselves to live faithfully unto one another until the parting of death.

That is what makes marriage what it is. The logic of marriage is easy to understand and difficult to subvert, which is one reason the institution has survived over so many millennia. Marriage lasts because of its fundamental status. It is literally what a healthy and functioning society cannot survive without.

And yet, modernity can be seen as one long attempt to subvert the permanent – including marriage. The modern age has brought the rise of individual autonomy, the collection of populations in cities, the weakening of family commitments, the waning of faith, the routinization of divorce, and a host of other developments that subvert marriage and the commitment it requires.

Added to this list is the phenomenon of cohabitation. The twentieth century saw the phenomenon of cohabitation become the expectation among many, if not most, young adults. But the end of the century, the progression of intimacy (including sexual intimacy) was likely to follow a line from “hooking up” to cohabiting.

A new study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics suggests two very important findings: First, that cohabiting is now the norm for younger adults. Second, cohabiting makes divorce more likely after eventual marriage.

“Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults,” states the report. The facts seem daunting. The percentage of women in their 30s who report having cohabited is over 60 percent – doubled over the last fifteen years.

Reporting in The New York Times, Sam Roberts documents the rise of cohabitation among the young. He cites Pamela J. Smock of the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center. “From the perspective of many young adults, marrying without living together first seems quite foolish,” she explains.

That perfectly captures the new logic – that it would be foolish to marry without first cohabiting. How can you know if you are really meant for each other? How can you measure compatibility without the experience of living together?

That logic makes perfect sense in a society that is increasingly sexualized, secularized, and “liberated” from the expectations of the past.

Reacting to the research findings, Professor Kelly A. Musick of Cornell University asserted, “The figures suggest to me that cohabitation is still a pathway to marriage for many college graduates, while it may be an end in itself for many less educated women.” The study report affirmed her assessment: “Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults . . . . As a result of the growing prevalence of cohabitation, the number of children born to unmarried cohabiting parents has also increased.”

But, as this new report suggests, cohabiting before marriage does not lead to a stronger and more permanent union. Instead, the experience of cohabiting weakens the union. As Roberts reports: “The likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, the study found.”

Pamela Smock argues that the research will fall on deaf ears. “Just because some academic studies have shown that living together may increase the chance of divorce somewhat, young adults themselves don’t believe that.”

That may be true, and it surely captures the spirit of the age. The experience of cohabiting just makes sense to many young adults. Their logic is that marriage is what happens after a relationship becomes sexually intimate and is found to be adequately fulfilling – not before.

They do not know that what they are actually doing is undoing marriage. They miss the central logic of marriage as an institution of permanence. They miss the essential wisdom of marriage – that the commitment must come before the intimacy, that the vows must come before the shared living, that the wisdom of marriage is its permanence before its experience.

Cohabitation weakens marriage – even a cohabiting couple’s eventual marriage – because a temporary and transitory commitment always weakens a permanent commitment. Having lived together with the open possibility of parting, that possibility always remains, and never leaves.

This research might not alter the plans of many young couples, who are not likely to read, much less be advised by such research. But it does affirm what makes marriage what it is, and what weakens and destroys marriage as an institution.

From a Christian perspective there is more, of course. We are reminded of marriage as God’s gift and expectation, and of the divine goodness of it. We are also reminded that it is our Creator, and not we ourselves, who knows that we need permanence before experience. We need marriage.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s weblog at www.albertmohler.com. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Christian Post Guest Columnist

____________________________

Dr. Adrian Rogers – Steadfast Loyalty To Your Wife

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Tim Hawkins- Fire Ants

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Comments (2)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 7 Paul Gauguin)

June 18, 2011 – 11:20 am

How Should We Then Live Pt 7

Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin.

Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.”

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today I am looking at Paul Gauguin. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Lautrec, Geores Brague, Dali, Rodin,Coco Chanel, Modigliani, Matisse, Luis Bunuel, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, Picasso, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot and several more.

Gauguin was a financially successful stockbroker and self-taught amateur artist when he began collecting works by the impressionists in the 1870s. Inspired by their example, he took up the study of painting under Camille Pissarro. Pissarro and Edgar Degas arranged for him to show his early painting efforts in the fourth impressionist exhibition in 1879 (as well as the annual impressionist exhibitions held through 1882). In 1882, after a stock market crash and recession rendered him unemployed and broke, Gauguin decided to abandon the business world to pursue life as an artist full-time.

https://i0.wp.com/www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/22.jpg

In 1886, Gauguin went to Pont-Aven in Brittany, a rugged land of fervently religious people far from the urban sophistication of Paris. There he forged a new style. He was at the center of a group of avant-garde artists who dedicated themselves to synthétisme, ordering and simplifying sensory data to its fundamentals. Gauguin’s greatest innovation was his use of color, which he employed not for its ability to mimic nature but for its emotive qualities. He applied it in broad flat areas outlined with dark paint, which tended to flatten space and abstract form. This flattening of space and symbolic use of color would be important influences on early twentieth-century artists.

In Brittany, Gauguin had hoped to tap the expressive potential he believed rested in a more rural, even “primitive” culture. Over the next several years he traveled often between Paris and Brittany, spending time also in Panama and Martinique. In 1891 his rejection of European urban values led him to Tahiti, where he expected to find an unspoiled culture, exotic and sensual. Instead, he was confronted with a world already transformed by western missionaries and colonial rule. In large measure, Gauguin had to invent the world he sought, not only in paintings but with woodcarvings, graphics, and written works. As he struggled with ways to express the questions of life and death, knowledge and evil that preoccupied him, he interwove the images and mythology of island life with those of the west and other cultures. After a trip to France (1893 to 1895), Gauguin returned to spend his remaining years, marred by illness and depression, in the South Seas.

__________________________

Below is from an article by Brian Thomas and is based on Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?”

Gauguin as an artist strived to give his work a more human touch, expressing feelings and knowledge and human reactions to the realities of life, while at the same time freeing himself as an artist to express color and design boldly, overcoming the narrowness of merely copying what the eye can register as the impressionists painted. In an attempt to obtain his goal of “regaining humanity,” as he called it, he moved to Tahiti in 1891. It was here that he painted his greatest work in 1897: Whence? What? Whither?

During the course of 1897 Gauguin referred increasingly to his own death, alluding to suicide in letters and his journal. In the autumn he noted that “The artist dies, his heirs make a grab for his works, sort out the copyright, his estate, and whatever else there might be to do. Now he has been stripped to the bone. I think about these things, and am going to strip myself first: it gives me a sense of relief.”

As Gauguin contemplated taking his own life he set out to create a painting that would leave a lasting legacy of his faith, worldview, artistic insight and intentions by asking three metaphysical questions: Where do we come from? What art we? Where are we going?

From Wikipedia:

Woher kommen wir Wer sind wir Wohin gehen wir.jpg
Artist Paul Gauguin
Year 1897-1898
Type oil on canvas
Dimensions 139.1 cm × 374.6 cm (54.8 in × 147.5 in)
Location Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

art_Gauguin.jpg

In a letter to friend Daniel de Monfreid, he describes the painting as a “philosophical work” which could be compared to the Gospels. We must read the work, he said, from right to left and interprets it as such:

“In the bottom right-hand corner there is a sleeping child, then three covering women. Two figures dressed in purple are deep in conversation. A crouching figure, which defies perspective, and is meant to do so, looks very large. This figure is raising its arm and looking in astonishment at the two women who dare to think about their own fate. The central figure is picking fruit from a tree. Two cats by a child…a white goat. The idol is raising both its arms with rhythmic energy and seems to be pointing to somewhere beyond here. A covering girl appears to be listening to the idol. An old woman, close to the end of life, completes the circle. She is ready to accept her fate. At her feet a strange, white bird with a lizard in its talons symbolizes the futility of empty words…”

Where do we come from? A baby lies next to some young women as the source of life. What are we? A woman stands reaching for the apple, a probable reference to Eve in the garden and man’s fall into sin and ruin. Where are we going? From right to left we see the process of ageing taking place culminating in an old woman, “ready to accept her fate.” Art historian H.R. Rookmaaker suggests that in the background “mysterious figures, in sad colors, standing near the tree of knowledge, are sad as a result of that knowledge.”

It is interesting to note that a few days after completing this work, Gauguin went off into the woods and swallowed a large amount of arsenic. But his body rejected it and he was unable to keep the poison down.

I give this example to show how form and content can beautifully integrate in such a way as to make the work a more powerful vehicle of expression. It should be obvious to the reader by now that I do not share Gauguin’s unfortunate outlook on life, but as an artist and a Christian, I appreciate the thought and purpose behind his masterpiece. Both the aesthetic quality and intellectual content marry to form an important and thought-provoking piece of art. The creators of the religious kitsch that line the shelves at your local happy Christian bookstore could learn much from the serious attention Gauguin put into his work.

As Schaeffer was quick to warn, we should not judge art by this criterion alone, but view all works of art by its technique, validity, worldview, and suiting of form to content to gain a deeper understanding, appreciation, and true evaluation.

________________________

I got to visit the exhibit “The Impressionists and their influence,” presented by Harriet and Warren Stephens at the Arkansas Arts Center in Little Rock in June of 2011. I got to see this painting below:

gaunoanoa.jpg

“Yes, indeed, the savages have taught many things to the man of an old civilization; these ignorant men have taught him much in the art of living and happiness. Above all, they have taught me to know myself better; they have told me the deepest truth. Was this thy secret, thou mysterious world? Oh mysterious world of all light, thou hast made a light shine within me, and I have grown in admiration of thy antique beauty, which is the immemorial youth of nature. I have become better for having understood and having loved thy human soul— a flower which has ceased to bloom and whose fragrance no one henceforth will breathe.”

Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa

The passage above comes from the end of Paul Gauguin’s travel journal in Tahiti entitled Noa Noa. Literally meaning “fragrant, fragrant”, the phrase noa noa is introduced to the reader at the end of the opening chapter when Gauguin describes the intoxicating scent of the Tahitian women upon his arrival. “A mingled perfume,” he writes, “half animal, half vegetable emanated from them; the perfume of their blood and of the gardenias— tiaré— which all wore in their hair. ‘Téiné merahi noa noa (now very fragrant),’ [the women] said.” (Gauguin 8).

During his first visit to Tahiti (1891-3), Gauguin documented his experiences on this two-year journey from beginning to end, even starting with his initial disappointment at the overwhelming presence of French civilization in Polynesia. Upon viewing the queen of the island at her husband’s funeral, however, Gauguin is taken by her “Maori charm” (Gauguin 6) marking the beginning of his passionate love affair with Tahiti. Gauguin not only recorded his personal encounters with the land, the people, and specifically the women, but he also made his journal a sort of anthropological report: providing first-hand accounts of their customs, religious beliefs and cultural history. In one section, Gauguin even discusses Tahitian astronomy, listing mythical histories behind the names of the stars, and the Polynesian version of Genesis, even complete with detailed accounts of whom originally begat who, as is provided in the Old Testament of the Bible.

TeFaruru.jpgWhile it is important to remember that Noa Noa is a journal and lacks the objectivity needed for a truly comprehensive and factual account of nineteenth century Tahiti, this bias gives us a personal window into what Gauguin saw through his eyes. The juxtaposition of sketches mixed with his own words allowed Gauguin to provide us with the Tahiti that he wanted to share with the world. One of the most interesting artistic elements of his original manuscript was his series of ten woodcuts that he intended to publish as a part of the journal. Drawn to the “primitive” techniques and materials used in this artform, Gauguin even used unsophisticated tools to achieve a new, less traditional print (Chapman, GroveArt.com). Unfortunately, as Noa Noa was considered “a bit much for stuffy 1900 Europe” (Gauguin ix), Gauguin had to publish the journal himself and omit the woodcuts. In newer versions of Noa Noa, however, the woodcuts have been included alongside his words and several of his original sketches.

In all, perhaps the most valuable thing to come out of Gauguin’s accounts in Noa Noa is an intimate look into the motive behind many of his great works of art. Frequent themes in the journal are also found throughout his works such as Polynesian mythical culture, Tahitian women, androgynous figures, sexual freedom, and the beauty of this Paradise on Earth. In the spirit of a true artist, Gauguin even has his journal come full circle as he ends the book with the flower that his wife once wore behind her ear, now wilted on her knee, a symbol of the end of a journey that opened with an introduction to the flowered, fragrant women observed at the start, who would eventually become the inspiration for such an important period in his life and career.

__________________________________________________

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 94)

June 18, 2011 – 5:58 am

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c40615-18A.jpg

President Reagan attending the Bob Hope Salute to the United States Air Force 40th Anniversary celebration with Kirk Cameron, Phyllis Diller, Lucille Ball and Emmanuel Lewis at Pope Air Force base in Fayetteville, North Carolina. 5/10/87

7:40 PM EDT on November 6, 1984 from ABC7 WLS-TV Chicago.
ABC News – The 84 Vote
Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, Bert Lance – Georgia Dem State Chairman

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration,  and I wanted to share it with you. Here is the seventh portion:

There is no denying that American indebtedness increased significantly during the Reagan years. Reagan borrowed $1 for every $5 he spent, increasing the national debt by $1.5 trillion through 1988. He didn’t have to worry too much about where to get the money — America was still such a good credit risk that people around the world “pressed money on us, and we obliged, borrowing easily, quickly, and almost guiltlessly,” in Cannon’s words, [xxi] But Reagan did feel guilty about the accumulated debt or as much as anyone with his unassailable optimism could feel guilty. He admitted that his failures to cut federal spending absolutely and to balance the federal budget were his “biggest disappointments” as president.[xxii]

But it is a little-remembered fact, as Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore has emphasized, that by the end of the Reagan era, the federal deficit as a share of gross domestic product was falling, and rapidly — from 6 percent in 1985 to 3 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about one percent of GDP by 1993,” without any action by future presidents.[xxiii]

Reagan never ignored the deficit — he just had more important things on his mind. As he said in 1981, “I did not come here to balance the budget — not at the expense of my tax-cutting program and my defense program.”[xxiv] Still, every budget he submitted to Congress outlined spending reductions which would have reduced the cumulative deficit during the 1980s by several hundred billion dollars. But Congress nullified this possibility with a succession of “continuing resolutions” that enabled the government to keep operating and keep spending at the same level.

The persistent deficits did, however, have an unintended impact on Congress, which for the first time in the post-war era began to “impose limits on the growth of government.” Of all the measures we know, Milton Friedman wrote, “the deficit has been the only effective restraint on congressional spending.”[xxv]

President Reagan devoted most of his time in the spring and early summer of 1981 (after he had recovered from the March 30th shooting by would-be assassin John Hinckley) building a consensus for his economic recovery program. Time’s Lawrence Barrett described the president’s strategy as initial “seduction” followed by a “blitzkreig.”[xxvi] Reagan began by showing the Washington establishment that he was not a dangerous man or a “political freak.” He had drinks with House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a meeting with Senator Edward Kennedy, and a chat with publisher Katharine Graham of the Washington Post. Quite a charmer, they agreed, but certainly no real threat to the way Washington works.

O’Neill was so deceived that he condescendingly offered some advice to the new fellow in town: “You were governor of a state,” he told Reagan, “but a governor plays in the minor leagues. Now you’re in the big leagues. Things might not move as quickly as you would like.” Just eight months later, the House of Representatives passed Reagan’s economic recovery plan by 238-195, with the cross-over help of forty-eight Democrats who didn’t mind going against their Speaker when it was in the best interests of their constituents.

Reagan called Congress’s passage of the bill “the greatest political victory in half a century.” Jubilant conservatives described it as a “new economic beginning.” David Broder of the Washington Post proclaimed Reagan’s tax victory as “one of the most remarkable demonstrations of presidential leadership in modern history.”[xxvii] The $162 billion tax cut dwarfed any previous one in the postwar period — Ford’s $22.8 billion reduction in 1975 was a distant second.

The cuts in personal income taxes “had a permanency unlike that of any [previous] tax bill” because of the indexing provision. In the past, individuals were pushed into higher tax brackets whenever their income rose along with inflation. ERTA did away with “bracket creep” and prevented political leaders from “solving” fiscal deficits by waiting for inflation to increase revenues each year. From now on, Congress had to pass and the president had to sign any tax increase out in the open. How to collect government revenues “became the dominating political issue of the 1980s.”[xxviii]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Ronald Reagan | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 55)

June 18, 2011 – 3:24 am

The Royal Wedding Ceremony of William and Kate Live part 3/4

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
• Cohabitation also deteriorates parental authority. For single parents who are interested in the spiritual training of their children, cohabitation makes the strength of their message weaker.  ”How can mom tell me not to do something when she moved us into his house before they were married?” I’ve heard many an adolescent ask.  ”Good point,” I respond.  I’ll never forget hearing one child say, “We go to church, but I’m not sure why.  In the end, my dad lives by convenience.  That’s why he lives with Marsha.”  Parents who want children who live by God’s moral standards must themselves live by those same standards, no matter how “impractical” it may be. (Ron L. Deal, from Growthtrac.com article “The Elephant in the Bedroom”)

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Tim Hawkins – “Some Songs Should Be One Verse”

Revelation (Biblical Numbers 4 of 4)-Dr Adrian Rogers

Tara Palmer-Tomkinson’s topper stood out in a sea of hats—there’s just something about a full-on electric blue ensemble that grabs your attention.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Comments (0)

Jerry Van Dyke Arkansas resident (Part 3)

June 18, 2011 – 1:20 am

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 1 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

Dick van Dyke’s brother, Jerry, plays a bumbling sibling in one of my favorite episode of the Dick Van Dyke show. Jerry’s character is one of my favorite TV characters of all time … his sense of humor and comedic timing is perfect!! Enjoy!

______________________________

I went to see Jerry Van Dyke and Tommy Smoothers in the play “The Sunshine Boys” in Hot Springs back on June 1, 2011 with my son Wilson and it was great. Here is an article on Van Dyke:

BIOGRAPHY:

He has that same genuine likability factor, owns that same trademark lantern jaw and is just as appealing and gifted as his brother Dick Van Dyke, but for decades Jerry Van Dyke had to bear the brunt of his brother’s overwhelming shadow. The comic actor was born six years younger than Dick on July 27, 1931, in Danville, Illinois. Raised there, the crew cut blond showed an aptitude for clowning in high school. His stand-up comedy venues first took the form of dives and strip clubs throughout the Deep South in which his banjo-playing became an intricate part of the routine. At one point, Jerry was a regular on the Playboy club circuit. He then set his sights on the top showrooms in Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe and Atlantic City and became a dependable opening act.

Jerry’s early career should have been rightfully interrupted when he joined the Air Force in 1952. He instead kept the troops laughing by performing in Special Services shows. Winning a military talent contest actually earned him a couple of appearances on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and resulting TV exposure. Following his tour of duty, he nabbed variety appearances and a regular comic relief role on “The Judy Garland Show” (1963). He found comic acting parts as well on TV. Like brother Dick, who was a huge TV star by this time, Jerry also did a stint emceeing a game show. In Jerry’s case, it was “Picture This” (1963).

Ever the hapless klutz and happy-go-lucky stammerer, Jerry built up his TV reputation in the early 60s. He turned down the title role in “Gilligan’s Island” (1964), which he rightfully deemed inane, but instead chose the equally silly “My Mother the Car” (1965). It proved to be a detrimental career move. While “Gilligan” became a surprise hit that still runs in syndication four decades later, Jerry had to live down starring in one of the most lambasted sitcoms of all time. Truthfully, the two shows were on an equal (sub)par with each other. It was just a cruel luck of the draw that Jerry ended up biting the bullet while Gilligan’s Bob Denver found cult celebrity. Jerry’s subsequent two series were also one seasoners with “Accidental Family” (1967), a sitcom in which he more or less played himself (a nightclub comedian), and “The Headmaster” (1970), a drama starring Andy Griffith (I) in which he played a physical education coach. Neither did much for his career. A promising co-star role with Griffith in the film Angel in My Pocket (1969) also went nowhere. Over the years, Jerry has appeared as a guest star on a number of brother Dick’s shows, including the classic “The Dick Van Dyke Show” (1961) in which he played, of course, Dick’s brother.

The genially dim character George Utley on Bob Newhart’s 1980s series was originally created for Jerry but Tom Poston assumed the part. Good fortune finally smiled on Jerry when he won the hapless role of Luther Van Dam, a role that capped his long career, on “Coach” (1989). He earned four consecutive Emmy nominations and a steady paycheck for eight seasons. His seesaw struggle and survival after nearly five decades truly paid off this time, and only proves his love for the business.

In his 70s now, Jerry Van Dyke spends much of his time at a ranch in Arkansas where he lives with his second wife, the former Shirley Jones (not the singer/actress), and raises cattle. Tragedy struck in 1991 when one of his three children, Kelly, a substance abuser, took her own life. On the sly, one can also find Jerry at the poker table as part of ESPN tournaments

TRIVIA:

  • Turned down the role of Gilligan in _”Gilligan’s Island” (1964)_ (qv) because he thought it was “the worst thing” he’d ever read. Instead, he chose to do _”My Mother the Car” (1965)_ (qv). Admitted to having regrets about turning down the offer to star in _”Gilligan’s Island” (1964)_ (qv).
  • Was one of the first people to tour with the Air Force Tops in Blue. Appeared on the Ed Sullivan show with the group.
  • The part of George Utley on _”Newhart” (1982)_ (qv) was originally created for him.
  • Brother of actor ‘Dick Van Dyke’ (qv).
  • Father of actress ‘Nancee Kelly’ (qv).
  • Started his television career at WTHI-TV in Terre Haute in the 1950s. He and his brother both applied for a job there but Dick did not get hired.
  • Daughter, Jerri, runs Jerry Van Dyke’s Soda Shoppe in Benton, Arkansas.
  • Uncle of actor ‘Barry Van Dyke’ (qv), ‘Carrie Beth van Dyke’ (qv), ‘Christian Van Dyke’ (qv) and ‘Stacy Van Dyke’ (qv).

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 2 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 3 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Jerry Van Dyke Arkansas resident (Part 2)

June 18, 2011 – 12:01 am

I went to see Jerry Van Dyke and Tommy Smoothers in the play “The Sunshine Boys” in Hot Springs back on June 1, 2011 with my son Wilson and it was great. Here is an article on Van Dyke:

October 5, 2007

Jerry Van Dyke keeps fans entertained

BY MARY WICOFF The Commercial-News Fri Oct 05, 2007, 11:19 PM CDT

DANVILLE — Jackie Collins was walking past Temple Plaza when she stopped in her tracks and pointed.

“The ‘Coach’ guy,” she exclaimed, smiling at Jerry Van Dyke. “I’m old enough to remember that.”

Van Dyke, who kept on signing autographs for a handful of people, is used to being recognized as Luther Van Dam on the sitcom “Coach.”

“You’re always alive in reruns,” he said with a smile.

The actor/comedian is in his hometown to attend this weekend’s reunion of the Danville High School Class of 1949. He also will be the honored guest at the Danville Tennis Club’s open house Sunday.

As he and his wife, Shirley, make their way around town, people politely ask for his autograph or shake his hand.

Van Dyke said a lot of people recognize him, thanks to constant reruns of “Coach,” which aired from 1989-94.

Although the 76-year-old has appeared on many shows, either as the star or in a supporting role, he doesn’t mind that he’s best known as a befuddled assistant coach.

“Before that, I was (only known as) Dick Van Dyke’s brother,” he joked.

Van Dyke, an avid tennis player, made sure he hit the courts every day.

Friday morning, Van Dyke paired off with tennis pro Scott Simpson to challenge his wife and Scott’s wife, Cathy, director of the Danville Tennis Club.

The men beat the women, but Van Dyke noted he had taught his wife how to play.

“Everybody hit the ball well,” onlooker Elzer Marx said.

“Almost everybody,” a winded Van Dyke shot back.

Van Dyke, who arrived in Danville on Wednesday, said he tries to get back to Danville almost every year. He usually slips into town quietly, he said.

“I love to come back to Danville and see my friends,” he said.

He and his wife of 30 years left Los Angeles in 1994, when an earthquake destroyed their home. They divide their time between an 850-acre ranch in Arkansas — where Shirley was raised — and a home south of Cancun, Mexico.

Van Dyke likes Arkansas because it’s similar to Illinois, but without the severe winters, Shirley said. He’s a warm-climate person who has to move on when the temperatures dip below 80 degrees.

Enjoying the warm sun in Temple Plaza, Van Dyke chitchatted with a couple of employees from the East Central Illinois Community Action Agency. When they pointed to their workplace — the building at the corner of Vermilion and North — he remarked it used to be Walgreens drugstore.

“On my first date, I walked to Walgreens with my dog,” he said. After a pause, he quipped, “I think the girl was pretty much a dog, too.”

Van Dyke noted a lot of things haven’t changed in Danville, including his childhood home at Grant and Townsend. The house, the oak tree and the cobblestone street still look the same, he said, as well as the pavilion and trees at nearby Lincoln Park.

“That’s a great thing about a town like this,” he said.

He’s disappointed the Fischer Theatre is sitting unused, saying he’s done everything he could do. Van Dyke said he was behind a fundraiser for the theater a few years ago.

While Danville has its problems, Van Dyke said it’s still a great place to live.

“I have such fond memories of growing up here,” he said. “The older you get, the more you think about growing up. I had the best growing-up ever.”

Except for World War II, the 1940s and ‘50s were the best decades, he said. He used to leave the house and not come home until dinner — and no one worried about him.

When someone mentioned there are a lot of stories going around about Van Dyke’s youthful adventures, he acknowledged he was behind those pranks. His brother, Dick, was the quiet one who didn’t do anything wrong, he said.

Van Dyke, who was the class clown, said it took him five years to get through high school, adding that he probably had Attention Deficit Disorder.

Today, young people are treated for the disorder, but, he said, “Back then, you were just stupid.”

When someone asked to take his photo, Van Dyke politely agreed.

“I take my own photos and send them in (to the media),” he said. Joking that there wasn’t any paparazzi following him, he wondered, “What’s Lindsay Lohan got that I don’t got?”

Van Dyke has done shows in Las Vegas recently — one called “Last Comics Barely Standing.” The shows, featuring other comedians from the past, have sold out, he said.

Van Dyke also clearly remembers reviews about his performances, including one when he was 16 and appeared in Red Mask Players’ “The Man Who Came to Dinner.” Commercial-News editor Bob Wright wrote: “Probably the find of the evening was Jerry Van Dyke.”

Later, he appeared as a regular on the Judy Garland Show in 1963, and a New York columnist called him “a big-footed oaf.”

Nodding at his wife, he joked, “She’s called me that ever since.”

RECEPTION

Jerry Van Dyke will be present during an open house from 1-2:30 p.m. Sunday at the Danville Tennis Club in Lincoln Park. The open house is a dual celebration to welcome Van Dyke, a longtime supporter of the club, and to mark the club’s 60th anniversary.

Van Dyke is in town for Danville High School’s Class of 1949 reunion. A dinner will be at 6 tonight and a brunch will be at 10 a.m. Sunday, both at the Boat Club.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Bryan Fisher of American Family Radio critical of Southern Baptist leaders

June 17, 2011 – 4:07 pm

I grew up at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis and Adrian Rogers was my pastor. Therefore, I took notice of this news story below. 

On the whole, this was not a great week for the Southern Baptist Convention, as one of its leaders appeared to pander to the homosexual lobby and the convention itself pandered to lawbreakers, all in the space of two dizzying days.

Rev. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, urged attendees at the SBC’s annual convention to “repent” of what he called “a form of homophobia,” without saying exactly what kind of homophobia he was talking about.

Evidently, according to Rev. Mohler, if you don’t believe gays are born that way, you’re either a homophobe or right next to it. He told the delegates at the SBC that homosexuality is “more than a choice,” and that it apparently borders on something sinful to believe otherwise.

He did not elaborate on exactly what he meant by “more than a choice,” but what else could it mean but that he’s urging SBC’ers to accept the bogus claim that homosexuality is innate and that people can be homosexual from birth. Perhaps that’s not what he meant to say; if it wasn’t, then it’s important for him to clarify exactly what he did mean.

Paul uses choice words over and over again in Romans 1:26-27 to emphasize that the problem with homosexuality is behavior, and that such behavior represents a choice. Note the choice words there: “…their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewisegave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…”

Rev. Mohler’s motives for this unfortunate choice in wording are unclear,  but If it was an effort to get gays to like him, or to like the SBC, good luck with that. They will accept nothing less than total abject, surrender, and Rev. Mohler didn’t offer them that. He still calls homosexuality a “sin,” and that will make his position completely unacceptable to the folks he was trying to appease.

Rev. Mohler is on the board of Focus on the Family, which is also sending confusing signals regarding the homosexual agenda, as its president, Jim Daly, now supports placing foster children in gay households and supports civil unions legislation as long as it, in his judgment, is properly written.

The good news is that the president of the SBC, Rev. Frank Wright, met with homosexual activists this week and did not budge an inch in the face of their demand for an apology for teaching the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. He told these activists what Rev. Mohler could have said, that, “Obviously, we don’t feel that there can be an apology for teaching sexual purity.” 

Then the entire SBC convention adopted a resolution to reward people who break the law, hardly something a clear-thinking, Bible-centered organization should do. The good folk at the SBC want a “path to legal status” guaranteed to people who do not even have the legal, moral or biblical right to be in this country to begin with. They lamely added language to claim that this is not “amnesty,” but they’re not fooling anybody with that.

In fact, the SBC accused those who reject amnesty of “bigotry.” The bottom line is that, whether they realize it or not, the Southern Baptists have thus adopted, as an official position of the denomination, that anyone who supports the rule of law is a bigot.

The time-honored standard of ancient Israel was quite clear: there was to be “one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), not two different sets of statutes in which illegals get rewarded for breaking the law and the native-born get punished. 

This pandering to the illegal alien lobby was done, according to proponents, to promote “evangelism” among Hispanics. Okay, exactly what kind of faith are these Hispanics going to be saved to? A faith that teaches its followers to deliberately break the law and expect to be rewarded as a result? So much for the “wages of sin is death.” It will, of course, be much easier to believe the new SBC gospel, “the wages of sin are citizenship, food stamps, welfare and subsidized housing” but then what kind of disciples will such converts make?

To the SBC’s credit, it did adopt a resolution opposing the sale of the new, gender-neutral NIV translation in SBC bookstores. For this, the SBC should be applauded. By changing the very words of Scripture to make them politically correct, the NIV has essentially told God that he’s sexist, out of date and out of touch and needs to get his mind right on the whole gender thing.

Here’s hoping that Rev. Mohler will reconsider his position on homosexuality and choice, and that the SBC will reconsider its position on illegal aliens. And I’m guessing there are a lot of faithful Southern Baptist churchgoers who are hoping the same thing.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Here are some other posts with Adrian Rogers:

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 13)

Many Kings and important people in the Bible are also verified by secular documents. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible […]

Candidate #3:Donald Trump Republican Presidential Hopefuls(Part 1)(Charlie Rich, Famous Arkansan)

Donald Trump at CPAC Conference 2011 David Gibson in his article “Donald Trump, Family Values Conservative–Believe it or not,” PoliticsDaily.com, wrote about a month ago: Donald Trump stole the show on the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference — stealing the spotlight is his specialty, after all — and he did it by […]

Ronald Wilson Reagan Part 8 (Edwin Meese on Reagan)

President Reagan and Vice President Bush pose in the Oval Office with the administration’s Cabinet in February 1981. Pictured from left, front row: Alexander Haig, Reagan, Bush, Caspar Weinberger. Back row, from left: Raymond Donovan, Donald Regan, Terrel Bell, David Stockman, Andrew Lewis, Samuel Pierce Jr., William French Smith, James Watt, Jeane Kirkpatrick, counselor Edwin […]

Is God responsible for evil, many Arkansas Times bloggers say yes!!(Part 3)

Below is a post from the Arkansas Times Blog that I am responding to: Who is a better person? The one who helps their fellow man and does what is right because they it’s the right thing to do, or one who treats people well only because they are threatened with an eternal punishment? Posted […]

Avril Lavigne commits “the fool’s sin” in front of family crowd in Tampa (Avril and the Book of Ecclesiastes Part 1)

Tampa Bay Rays apologize for Avril Lavigne TMZ reported: According to local reports, Avril’s mic didn’t work at the start of her show … and she responded to the cavalcade of boos by yelling obscenities at crowd. Rays rep Rick Vaughn tells TMZ, “The Rays demand profanity-free performances from all of our concert performers and […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 22)

 The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 4 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the first portion he notes: […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 30)

    Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that […]

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 21)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 3 From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 20)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 1 From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers | Comments (0)

Romney have a chance with evangelicals?

June 17, 2011 – 8:46 am

Dr. Richard Land on Mitt Romney

Does Mitt Romney Have a Prayer with Evangelicals?

By Friday, June 3, 2011
When Mitt Romney makes his appearance at Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Conference Friday evening in Washington, he won’t exactly be headed into the lion’s den—but it might seem that way to him. A Pew Research study released on Thursday showed that Romney has the most potential appeal of any candidate in the GOP field for 2012. But the key word there is “potential.” Twenty-five percent of all voters say they would be less likely to support a candidate who is Mormon, like Romney. And a full third of white evangelicals express an aversion to Mormon candidates.

Those numbers are essentially unchanged from four years ago, when Romney first ran for the GOP nomination. That’s bad news for the former Massachusetts governor, whose supporters have often argued that suspicion about the Mormon faith would fade as voters became familiar with a Mormon candidate. White evangelicals don’t have vague anti-Mormon prejudices—they have very specific theological disputes that can’t be overcome by personality or even shared positions on social issues. Many believe, and are told in their churches, that Mormons are cult members and not Christians.

Romney does not have the luxury of ignoring white evangelicals, although he has indicated that he may not contest the Iowa caucuses, which are dominated by social conservatives, as seriously as he did in 2008. White evangelicals have steadily become the largest single bloc that selects the Republican presidential nominee—in 2008, they made up 44% of all GOP primary voters. (Would Newt Gingrich be better off running as a gay man?)

The Romney campaign did its best to head off that anti-Mormon bias in 2008 by gathering endorsements from evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and working with evangelical PR professional Mark DeMoss to communicate with the community. Romney even gave a speech in December 2007 in which he promised that he would not take orders from church leadership in Salt Lake if elected president. It was essentially an updated version of the same promise JFK felt obligated to make to Baptist leaders in 1960, distancing himself from Catholic leadership in Rome.

At the same time, however, Romney had to deal with vicious whispering campaigns and outright attacks on his faith. In South Carolina, many Republicans received bogus Christmas cards, purporting to be from the Romney family, that cited controversial passages from the Book of Mormon. Others received an eight-page anonymous document that described Mormonism as a religion built on hoaxes and compared founder Joseph Smith to the Prophet Mohammed. An e-mail circulated among Republicans, urging them to “trust your instincts” about Mormonism: “Those dark suspicions you hide deep inside yourself about Mormonism are trying to tell you something.” (PHOTOS: Romney on the presidential campaign trail)

Perhaps the most damaging attacks were not anonymous, but from religious leaders who simply told their flocks that Romney was not a Christian and that they could not vote for a Mormon. The pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas declared in a sermon that “Even though [Romney] talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.” Florida evangelist Bill Keller wrote a widely-circulated commentary titled “A Vote for Romney is a Vote for Satan.”

The attacks worked, and Romney’s past qualified position on abortion as governor of Massachusetts only deepened the distrust. By the time he dropped out of the race in early February 2008, Romney had gathered just over 20% of the white evangelical vote. (Romney makes it official: “Barack Obama has failed America”)

But now he’s back, fully aware of the attacks he’ll face, particularly if he appears to be the frontrunner going into next year’s primary season. ConservativeHQ.com, the site run by conservative godfather Richard Viguerie, has already claimed that a majority of Tea Partiers would vote for a third-party candidate in 2012 if Romney is the GOP nominee. Looking to wound Romney’s candidacy before he can take command of the field, evangelical Christian author Warren Smith released an essay last week calling Mormonism a “false and dangerous religion” and arguing that a Mormon president would threaten Christianity.

And then there’s popular culture, which just can’t seem to give Romney a break. The HBO series “Big Love” about polygamous Mormons passing as a regular suburban family premiered right around the same time Romney launched his first presidential bid. The Broadway smash hit of this spring is “The Book of Mormon,” a religious satire by the creators of “South Park” that does not exactly depict Mormonism as part of mainstream America. (See Romney’s top 10 gaffes of 2008.)

The best thing Romney has going for him is that evangelical voters may have no other options. No candidate currently in the race has the appeal of Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister who inspired enthusiasm among evangelical voters in the 2008 primaries. And most of Romney’s declared and presumed opponents leave voters either yawning or slightly queasy. (One prospective rival, Jon Huntsman, is also a Mormon.) The same Pew poll found that nearly 40% of GOP voters said there was “no chance” they would ever vote for Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin. By comparison, only 18% of Republicans said they would never consider backing Romney. Some of those voters who don’t want to support a Mormon realize that they may have to.

Updated at 3:39 p.m.

Other posts on Romney:

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part Four, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part C)

Romney’s Faith & Politics Speech (Part 3) This is part 3 of 3 of Governor Mitt Romney’s speech on his Mormon Faith and Politics at the George HW Bush Presidential Library in Texas. __________________________________________________________ The following is written by Rev Sherwood Haisty Jr. of Santa Monica, California. Sherwood has pastored churches in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part three, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part B)

Huckabee Apologizes To Mitt Romney For Mormon Question At Des Moines University, 12/12/2007 __________________________________________ The following is written by Rev Sherwood Haisty Jr. of Santa Monica, California. Sherwood has pastored churches in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and California and currently he is the process of finishing up his Masters degree at the Masters Seminary.  I personally […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part two, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part A))

Richard Land on Mitt Romney and Mormonism Hannity & Colmes. _____________________________ Deseret News reported yesterday Mitt Romney To Officially Announce Presidential : Mitt Romney will officially launch his presidential candidacy next week in New Hampshire. The Washington Post says: “Romney, who is regarded as the race’s (Republican) frontrunner, will formally announce his presidential campaign next Thursday, June 2 in […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Possible 2012 presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to a group of small business owners on the economy during a visit to Meetze plumbing in Irmo, S.C. Saturday May, 21, 2011 Jim Davenport wrote for the Associated Press on May 21: COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina wasn’t kind to […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (2)

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 29)

June 17, 2011 – 5:01 am

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 3 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology

The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 1 of an indepth study

With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book of Mormon?

Tags: church false mormon christian bible book of mormon joseph smith cult LDS latter day saints archeology.
___________________________________________

From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, wheels and chariots did not exist in North America when they said they did.

Rick Deem wrote the article, “Archaeology/Anthropolocical Problems in the Book of Mormon,” and in it he asserted:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of the inhabitants of the Americas during the period from 2000 B.C. to 400 A.D. It makes many claims about the history and anthropology of pre-Columbian American cultures. Unfortunately, the author of the book, Joseph Smith, had little or no knowledge of pre-Columbian American civilizations. Borrowing and adapting many stories from the Old and New Testaments, Joseph Smith was unaware that the earlier Native American peoples were part of stone-age civilizations that were significantly less advanced than Hebrew and other Middle Eastern cultures of biblical times.

The Book of Mormon claims that the Native American populations are descended from the Lamanites, who originated from ancient Israel 2,600 years ago. This concept is stated several times throughout the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (both of which are part of the “standard works”).23 Modern molecular genetics have proven that Native Americans are descended from Siberian and Asian ancestors. No evidence of Hebrew ancestry has been found in living Native Americans or in the remains of ancient Native Americans.24 However, other claims of Hebrew ancestry have been verified genetically in the African Lemba tribe, who left the Middle east during the same time frame found in the Book of Mormon account. In addition, no evidence for the “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome” Nephites has ever been found in ancient American artwork.

The Old and New Testaments present a rich description of biblical peoples, places and cultures. Archeology of the Middle East has revealed the cities, weapons, crops, animals, coins, writings, and references to biblical characters found in the Bible. However, none of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have ever been identified by qualified archeologists. In addition, many Book of Mormon references to metals, weapons, crops, animals, articles of clothing are known to have not been present in the Americas during the time period claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities

by Matt Slick

There is very little doubt in anyone’s mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence that the Bible describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times.

Remember, this is only a partial list. There are hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs.

  1. Joppa
    1. Acts 9:38,”And since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him, entreating him, “Do not delay to come to us.”
      1. “During excavations of the site of ancient Joppa a thirteenth-century b.c. citadel gate was uncovered….”17
  2. Nineveh
    1. 2 Kings 19:36, “So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home, and lived at Nineveh.”
    2. Jonah 1:1-2, “The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
      1. Excavated in from 1845 to 1857 by Austen H. Layard.18
  3. Shechem
    1. Gen. 12:6, “And Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land.”
    2. Gen. 33:18, “Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and camped before the city.”
      1. “Excavations were carried out at Shechem, first by Austrian-German expeditions in 1913 and 1914, and again from 1926 to 1934, under several directors, and then by an American expedition from 1956 to 1972….Excavation of the sacred area revealed a courtyard sanctuary and a later fortress temple dedicated to El-berith “the god of the covenant.” This temple, which was destroyed by Abimelech, the son of the judge Gideon (Judges 9) has provided us with a date of the judges period.”19
      2. Most recently a structure identified as an Israelite altar has been excavated on the northeastern slope of Mt. Ebal. Dating to the 13th to 12th centuries B.C., considered to be the time of Joshua, the altar suggest the possibility that it may be the altar built by Joshua and described in Deuteronomy 27, 28.”20
  4. Susa
    1. Neh. 1:1, “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol,
    2. Esther 1:1-2, “Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2 in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was in Susa the capital,
      1. Escavations were conducted by Marcel Dieulafoy from 1884 to 1886.21

There is very little doubt in anyone’s mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence that the Bible describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

Transcript and video of Republican Debate June 13, 2011 New Hampshire (Part 6)

June 17, 2011 – 3:37 am

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.6

From left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and businessman Herman Cain stand on stage before first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: Let’s spend a little time talking. Let’s spend a little bit of time talking about it.

Senator, let’s start with you. Just what role does faith play in your political life? Are there decisions, certain issues where some might you just, let’s meet with my advisers, what does my gut say, and others where you might retreat and have a moment of private prayer?

SANTORUM: I’m some who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they’ll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country — Madison called it the perfect remedy — which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite — we get along because we know that we — all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.

KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?

PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral.

But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws — which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

KING: OK. Great. Let’s go down to Josh McElveen, and let’s continue the conversation.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we’re on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.”

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances –

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey — there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have — my term, not his — a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let’s make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their — you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization —

KING: When I asked — I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn’t you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it’s not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor — I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we’re not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That’s in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath — their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed — when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, “You’re my enemy. I lied.”

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

KING: We’re going to work in another break.

Still a lot more ground to cover with our seven Republican candidates for president tonight. Voters here in New Hampshire are asking the questions. You can help us at home on Facebook and on Twitter. Please send in your suggestions.

In and out of every break, we’re asking a candidate a personal question, this or that, to make a choice.

Mr. Cain, deep dish or thin crust?

(LAUGHTER)

CAIN: Deep dish.

KING: Deep dish, it is. Our seven candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will be right back.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)