text:
Skip to comments.'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic
Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Indeed the Codex Alexandrinus shows signs of tampering but the tampering was in favor the idea of the deity of Christ over the original "he" reading.
It appears from your comment you may not have read the entirety of my post. That tampering occurred is not in dispute. What motivated it is. There have been eye witnesses to the physical document who believe the text did show the theos reading in faint but detectable form, but was suffering from years of poor handling, and thus was "retouched" by some anonymous person, not to show what wasn't there, but to restore what was there. Nevertheless, the tampering suggests that Codex A cannot be used by either side as conclusive evidence, and the default must go to better text forms, not the least of which is the Byzantine, which clearly does have the theos reading.
As for Metzger and his ilk, they have demonstrated an unwholesome willingness to modify the Biblical text for such low reasons as appeasing the gender equity ruffians. These are not people who understand or appreciate that every word of that Bible is God-breathed. Furthermore, their "weight of the evidence" is an ideologically charged statement, and on close inspection I believe you will find their model for variant selection is seriously defective. Metzger has written that he specifically prefers readings that create conflict, because he thinks thats more real. Seriously.
These folks have been following the German higher critics into the bowels of Hades for decades. But hey, if the NWT appeals to you, I can understand why Metzger might. Just sayin ...
duck'n the mudfest to follow here...
Understood, just wanted you to see the original.
what in the world is it anyhow. some kind of private Catholic prophecying? not that I want to get into arguments about it. that is a mudfest.
One of the earlier posters had checked the source and found the site source to be odd as well. The usual suspects in false prohecy. But the Tribulation supposedly starts later this year, just an FYI if you want to do some tax planning. Maybe cleanup around the house before Judgement Day. Harold Camping on steroids, a little different than 'Roynianity' but leading to the same place.
The oldest manuscripts that have 1 Tim. 3:16 (Aleph) do not read "God" but "which", "who" or "he". That is why The Clementine Latin Vulgate reads as it does. That is why the ASV and many others read "he". So translations like the NWT agree in this point with the oldest Biblical manuscripts available.
So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?
"So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?"
They didn't have to. The First (and Second) Century Gnostic insurgency was there to do it for them, because they hated those passages as much as you do, for exactly the same reasons, and the Gnostics were strong in Alexandria (See Valentinus), so it is not at all surprising to have Codex A be problematic in some of those passages.
The thing you seem to be missing is that there was contemporary eyewitness testimony that Codex A actually has 1 Tim 3:16 right, i.e., theos. Clarke was one of those witnesses. There were others before him who testified to the same thing. It was Hort who apparently talked the UBS folks into buying the reverse theory that you are espousing, despite evidence to the contrary. Why the caretakers of a supernatural book trusted a man who was openly skeptical of supernaturalism, I'll never know.
I'm telling you, it really sounds like you are not reading the Adam Clarke quote in its most critical moment, which is here:
"To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read Theos, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that Theos was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion."
I know your sources would like to suggest otherwise, but my posted quote does not say what you are saying. How can I reasonably accept that you actually read it? I'm not grandstanding here. I genuinely don't get how you got from Clarke the exact opposite of what he said. Can you throw me a bone here?
I try to be Precise. I said I had read your reference from Clarke. I then stated what I thought to be the case. It wasn't drawn from Clarke's conclusion but what appeared to me.
Clarke thought "theos" had appeared originally in the writing and that it had been retouched. I said I thought otherwise.
Anyone can look at reasonably good facsimiles (I have one in front of me) and decide "theos" was created from the original writing and that makes more sense than a simple retouching of a time worn "theos".
But on to "I AM" and how that might derived from
And God said to Moses, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. Thus shall you say to the Israelites, Ehyeh sent me to you.
Well, I understand your clarification, and appreciate your patience in helping me understand. So basically you are saying that the testimony of eyewitnesses who had direct personal exposure to the physical text, and who were dedicated and recognized experts in the field of manuscript analysis, and had been so for multiple decades, that such testimony is to be trumped by your uncredentialed opinion after seeing what I surmise to be a digital or analog photograph, which of course would be unlikely to capture such subtleties as the indentation of the material where the proposed Theta should have it's middle bar and so forth. Have I got that right?
If this were court (and I know it isn't, but bear with me), to whom do you think the jury would give greater credence?
Anyway, I am still working on ego eimi, which as you know has some depth to it, and I do not wish to present anything too hasty to be taken seriously. I also desire to be precise. So we do have something in common. :)
You have no business attributing motives or reasons to me or attempting to put me in the Gnostic camp.
You have yet to comment on why a version like the Vulgate would not use "theos" here. Or why the manuscripts that followed Aleph didn't use "theos" at 1 Tim. 3:16.
Keeping the trinitarian definition of God in mind placing "God" instead of "he" in this passage is impossible to make sense of. How could the Father be "justified in spirit" or the Holy Spirit?
Did Hort convince the translators of the ASV (1901) to use "he" instead of "God" in this verse or were they all Gnostics too? And what led Jerome to use which instead of God in his translation? He wasn't a Gnostic was he?
Clarke was without question a fine scholar but not the only one.
The Scriptures tell us that we must have not just knowledge but accurate knowledge so it behooves to seek out that accurate knowledge.
Uh, No. Basically what I am saying is that the testimony of eyewitnesses who had direct personal exposure to the physical text, and who were dedicated and recognized experts in the field of manuscript analysis, and had been so for multiple decades, differ with the respected Master Clarke and that such differing testimony is now my uncredentialed opinion after seeing what you may correctly surmise to be a digital or analog photograph, which of course would be unlikely to capture such subtleties as the indentation of the material where the proposed Theta should have its middle bar and so forth but nevertheless does and confirms the opinions of other experts besides the highly respected Clarke.
As is so often the case experts differ in their conclusions when looking at the same evidence and we lesser mortals, that would you and I, are left to form our own uncredentialed opinions based upon whose testimony seems most likely to be so.
As to a jury...forget it! I would rather deal with bias and ignorance of one judge than the bias and ignorance of twelve jurors.
Well, I didn't mean to attribute motivation directly to you other than what you have already explicitly expressed in your posts, and you most assuredly have openly expressed a strong dislike (perhaps hate was too charged a term) for the clear Trinitarian rendering of various passages, including 1 Tim 3:16. Im not trying to read your mind. Just your posts.
It is also an objective fact that the Gnostic Valentinus and other with him were challenged by the same passages and deployed the same solutions as those you have repeatedly posted.
It's not my fault that history makes your systematic effort to dismantle the deity of Christ so nearly identical to theirs. I am sorry if saying it upsets you, but I didnt write history, and I didnt construct the Arian theology that creates a greater and a lesser deity, and is therefore polytheistic, just like Gnosticism.
What is ironic to me is that I am coming more and more to realize, and this conversation has been very helpful in realizing it, that the Trinitarian solution to organizing the Scriptural data, so far from being a pagan derailing of primitive Christianity, was actually a robust and successful effort to protect authentic Biblical Christian monotheism from becoming corrupted by pagan Gnostic polytheism and angel worship.
You see, it was the Gnostics, not the Trinitarians, who gave in to the temptation to try and force-fit the Scriptural data into some finite model of human reason. But it was the Trinitarians who labored to preserve the teachings of Scripture as they stood, even if they could not be fully understood. That way was, and remains, the way of faith.
In any event, I am sorry if I offended you in any way. That was certainly not my intent. I am just being blunt about the extraordinary similarity I see between Arianism and Gnosticism. One would have to work very hard not to see the logical relationship there.
In that same spirit of sincere directness, I want to ask you a question, so that I can stop guessing and think more clearly. It may seem painfully obvious, but your about page doesnt spell it out and I havent heard it directly from you, so Im asking, do you believe and follow the teaching of the Watchtower Society?
With respect to Codex A, I am glad to see you agree with the essential point Clarke was making, that the history of Codex A with respect to 1 Tim 3:16 is sufficiently clouded that it should be barred from giving testimony for either side, as to that issue.
As for the Vulgate, it is a late work, relative to the God-breathed autographs, and a mere translation, instructive, but not a final authority in itself. Who know? When all you've got to work with is "OC," give or take a par of faint horizontal lines, the possibility of a mistake by Jerome or one of his predecessors cannot be dismissed out of hand.
As for any more than that, I believe a full and fair analysis of the manuscript history for "theos" in 1 Tim 3:16 is beyond the technical range of either of us, and would keep us off any other topics for years to come. I believe the excellent pedigree of the Byzantine textform recommends we should generally defer to it's readings in this and any other given case, but especially in this particular case, where Codex A has been discredited as a conclusive witness for either side.
"Im asking, do you believe and follow the teaching of the Watchtower Society?"
The reason I don't have anything on my about page is that is that to my mind a person comments should be judged on their content not whether a picture of Mom, Dad, and the family Dawg on my page looks "right".
A person's arguments are sound or not, their statements are correct and reasonable or not and it doesn't depend upon the personal.
With that in mind I have no problem with looking to Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, whatever sources for their expertise if their conclusions seem sound. And on the other hand being a highly educated expert is no guarantee of bias free opinion. Unfortunately that is frequently not understood to be the case here on FR.
But back to you question: The Watchtower Soc. is just a legal corporation and I am not a Watchtowerian. I am convinced Jehovah' Witnesses practice and believe Christianity more closely and completely to the primitive Christian model than anyone else I've come into contact with.
I also appreciate the dozens of cases in defense of religious freedom, benefiting all religions, JW lawyers have fought before the Supreme Court. Some they won, some they lost but they fought the good fight.
I suppose had I lived in the Middle Ages I might have sided with the Waldensians and headed for the French Alps though they certainly had their faults too.
"Its not my fault that history makes your systematic effort to dismantle the deity of Christ so nearly identical to theirs. I am sorry if saying it upsets you, but I didnt write history, and I didnt construct the Arian theology that creates a greater and a lesser deity, and is therefore polytheistic, just like Gnosticism."
Once in a shop where I worked the most hateful and obnoxious character in the place told me I was doing a certain task wrong and that accounted for my poor results. I'd have eaten glass before even considering the possibility.
Then someone else said I was doing my task improperly and I wondered why he would listen to the lies told by the most hateful and obnoxious character in the place.
You get the point, I'm sure.
"...I didnt construct the Arian theology that creates a greater and a lesser deity, and is therefore polytheistic, just like Gnosticism."
Sometimes simple questions can clarify large answers. so,
In Jewish and Christian theology could the term "god" be properly applied to any being other than the one almighty God? Not pagan gods although Paul said there were many but "gods" that had their area of authority under almighty God?
I'm going to leave off here as your answer to this question will determine the direction I wish go forward.
Yes, late in that respect but since we don't have autographs of the Bible writers and the oldest copies of 1 Tim. 3:16 date from about the same time (and did not read "theos", it surely isn't late compared to the Majority Texts.
So it is not to be dismissed nor is Lamsa's translation, Weymouth's, Rotherham's, Wilson's Diaglott, NAB, Douay, translating committees of the American and Revised Standard Versions....none of these were anti-trinitarians and cover a wide sweep of time.
But as you say the discussion would be endless, no point to that here.
I see that SR has addressed the first objection you posited, so I'll go on to the next.
Yes, Jesus DID say to the ones incensed enough at him to stone him for claiming to be God that Scripture used the word "gods" to describe humans and he said he was the "Son of God". But don't stop at verse 33, finish the dialog:
We are not stoning you for any good work, they replied, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God cameand Scripture cannot be set aside what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, I am Gods Son? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
So, far from reasoning with them about the word god not being "all that", he infuriated them more by repeating that he was talking about Almighty God, the Creator, and representing Him in the flesh. Their fury over blasphemy was not extinguished.
As to the name "I AM", you must know that this is the personal name Almighty God gave to Moses. Exodus 3:13-14 says:
Moses said to God, Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? Then what shall I tell them? God said to Moses, I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I am has sent me to you.
Apparently, Almighty God had no problem with "good English tenses". Revelation 1:8 uses the same sense, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." The personal name for the Almighty means "the self-existent one". The same Hebrew word is use for, or sounds the same as LORD. Exodus 6:3 has the LORD saying, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. Just as a side note, that's why we know He is not called "Allah". His name is I AM, the tetragrammaton is JHVH or YHWH and it is where we get the proper name of Almighty God as Jehovah or Yahweh.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says this about it:
Gill's says:
thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,"I am he that is, and that shall be.''This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.
Wesley's notes says:
Matthew Henry's Commentary says:
It is no mistatement that Jesus is also referred as:
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)
That's exactly the point...He said he was the Son, sent by the Father, not the Father but a representative of the Father.
Thus if the Scriptures could rightfully call judges "gods" why the furor over Jesus saying he is the Son of God?
I hope to continue my discussion with SR on I AM later so please join in then so I won't plow the same ground more often then necessary.
Well, when you reject the Truth, prophecy today would be pretty confusing. You have just stated why Protestantism and its new teachings are lies, falsehoods.
"The state of Protestantism does not justify Barrett's blog. Just because something is wrong does not mean that something else is right without proof."
~ ~ ~
We aren't talking about your comment, a general "state of Protestantism" but something specific, Sola Fide is false. I posted this message from Heaven to help our brothers and sisters see. They've been arguing, ignoring Scriptural proof in their lone authority, the Bible.
Catholics know this is "right", here is a "proof", the words of the message.
Why do you think our Lord is teaching, correcting our brothers and sisters in Christ? SHOW everyone the error in these words from Our Lord to Kevin Barrett? You can't and no one has. God speaks to Protestants in prophecy too. Where there is much sin, much grace. God speaks to Catholics and non-Catholic Christians every day in the prophetic, more so now. Our Lord is trying to save souls. You're are, we all are in the end times, the end of the Sixth Day.
Kevins website: http://hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets? Did I not say in My word that not all that say to me Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, save those that DO the will of the Father who is in heaven? Then why do you still go about doing your own will and tell yourselves that you are My bride? My people, you have been lied to by the enemy of your soul. Seek Me in these things. Surely I will reveal My truth to you. I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the FALSE shepherds and prophets. They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your BELIEF on My name. These are all lies, My people. For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous? Yes, My people, you are made righteous by your faith in Me, but it is FULLFILLED BY YOUR OBEDIENCE to My voice. IT IS NOT IMPUTED TO YOU BY A ONE-TIME CONFESSION OF MY NAME. Oh, My people, you have been lied to. Read My word for yourselves. Why listen to those that fatten themselves by fleecing My sheep? I have not sent many of the shepherds that are out there. They have sent themselves for their own glory and their own profit. Oh, My people, did I not say in My word to judge them by their fruit? Then where is the fruit, My people? Oh, but those that have itching ears care not about the fruit. They want to be told all is well and that they shall PROSPER if they simply believe on My name and My promises. Lies, lies, lies, I tell you.
So what? Sola Fide is false. That does not make Barrett right. Check the Catechism for what IS right.
We arent talking about your comment, a general state of Protestantism but something specific, Sola Fide is false. I posted this message from Heaven to help our brothers and sisters see. Theyve been arguing, ignoring Scriptural proof in their lone authority, the Bible.
"So what? Sola Fide is false. That does not make Barrett right. Check the Catechism for what IS right."
~ ~ ~
Who is talking about Kevin Barrett, the person? I am
asking you again what is the error in Kevin's message from Our Lord?
You are steadfast and so are the Protestants here in saying
the excerpt I posted is false, a lie, not from God.
That's because they know the excerpt is a correction, proof, Sola Fide is a lie.
You're stuck believing Protestants aren't hearing from
Jesus, they are.
Your "So what"....show everyone how the message is false?
The first Christians were Roman Catholic. Read their quotes and writings.
"What an IDIOTIC statement. The first Christians were the Catholics of the church in Jerusalem, headed by James. Peter eventually went to Rome and over time, the Roman Catholic came to be, along with the other four original Churches."
~ ~ ~
Belief in the Holy Eucharist comes from day one, the first
Christians believed in Our Lord's presence in the most
Holy Eucharist. They died for the Eucharist. They were/are
Roman Catholic.
Read 1 Corinthians 11:29.
Points for being unkind? It's allowed, at FR you can mock
and insult someone just don't use their name. Mark, come on, this is just a discussion forum. Be nice. My little brother's name is Mark, cool name.
1 Cor 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the BODY of the Lord.
State the error, name it?
There are at least four things that trouble me about these "revelations":
~ ~ ~
I asked specifically for the error in the excerpt I posted, you haven't touched it either.
1) He makes a specific about those who call themselves the "Bride of Christ" (aka the Catholic church).
2) The speak about endlessly about a remnant and end times, all very unCatholic themes.
3) He uses archaic English grammar and word choice to sound scriptural. In all private revelations I have read the communication was in the vernacular of the recipient and was in plain and simple language.
4) There seems to be a never ending stream of revelations suitable to meet his blog requirements (his blog contain commercial solicitations).
The history of the world is full of cases where one individual would say "God speaks to me and I will tell you what He says, in exchange for something I desire. Eventually, the seer takes the position of speaking on behalf of and with the authority of God at all times. Christianity has been significantly different fro all of the other shams. Kevin appears to me to be a struggling to break into the cult industry in a leadership position.
IGNORE condemned PRIVATE REVELATION.
Peace be with you
Boatbums said:
When Jesus said to the Jewish religious leaders of His day that he is the I AM, that God is His Father, they knew very well what He was saying and they took up stones to stone Him because, that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (John 10:33)
You said:
But Jesus showed their accusation was false as he said the term god could be said of humans, he has said the was the Son of God. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world , Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God ? (John 10:35)
Technically, you are incorrect to say Jesus proved their accusation false. He did no such thing. Read again. He simply outlawyers them, which, as a lawyer myself, I can really appreciate.
First, note that there are two similar but separate events here. The John 10 episode was not in response to the I AM statement, but to this statement:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
The other event occurs in John 8:58, and brings another accusation he is claiming to be God, but in that situation he simply escapes. See John 8:59.
But if you read both of these carefully, he never denied the charge that he was claiming to be God. He simply evaded their desire to kill him. In John 8, he escaped physically, but in John 10 he escaped legally.
Indeed, search the Scriptures, and you will find he never once said, I am not God, or I am a fellow creature, just like you, or I am an angel, etc. Not one denial of the charge.
What then is he up to in John 10 when he refers to the gods of Psalm 82:6?
Consider what has happened. They have accused him of what, under their law, they regarded as a capitol offence, carrying a penalty of death by stoning, for making himself out to be God.
He elects not to escape physically this time, so what are his possible defenses to this accusation? Under the law, you can defend by denying the facts, or you can admit the facts and defend using just the letter of the law, which would be a perfectly ironic way for Jesus to defeat his legalistic opponents. Here, Jesus does not deny the charge. Instead, he denies that their law makes such a claim punishable if the claim is proven true.
Then he sets up this wonderful contrast between derived and innate deity. On the one hand, the Jews are precluded from condemning him because, as he points out, if even the wicked judges of Israel in Psalm 82 were immune to a charge of blasphemy when called gods, because they actually had derivative authority from God, how much more immune would a true Son of God be, whose authority was not derived, but innate as the unique Son of God, as demonstrated by both his good works and his miraculous power?
So when he tells them this, then reminds them that the Scripture cannot be broken, he is shoving it their face that they have no way to win a blasphemy case against him unless they can prove his claim to deity is false, which he and they both know cant be done, given who he really is.
2. On Ego Eimi
You also said:
Translating ego eimi as I Am at John 8:58 makes a mess of the simple statement Jesus made. Good English must pay attention to the tenses and I Am doesn't do that. Jesus said he existed before Abraham existed or came to be so I am is simply the wrong tense, it could better be translated as I was or I have been . And a number of translations do just that.
Well, the problem you have there is that the tense conflict really is present in the Greek, and that is the single most striking thing about this passage, and it is central to understanding why it caused his Jewish listeners to again think he was claiming to be God.
In translation, when you encounter something unusual in the original, you have two choices. You can hide it behind an unfaithful translation, or you can be faithful to what was actually said. If we assume, and I do, that these words are God-breathed, I can think of absolutely nothing that would justify trying to hide what the writer obviously wrote. To do so would be to fight God Himself.
Therefore, I believe it is wrong to try to recast ego eimi as anything other than the indisputable present active indicative verb that it is in this passage. The proper translation really is, before Abraham came to be, I am. If Jesus had wished to say I was, there were much better options in the Greek for saying exactly that.
Consult any standard conjugation chart for eimi, and you will find the first person singular present indicative, I am, is eimi, exactly the word found in the ego eimi of John 8:58:
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὼ εἰμι.
Before Abraham came to be I am
Note: Some have speculated that eimi should be understood as past tense even though it is present tense because a perfect (past tense of completed action) is not available for this verb, eimi being defective. However, the normal contextual cues required for such a usage are not present in this text, and the bulk of modern translations honestly reflect the two contrasting tenses as found in the text:
King James,
New King James,
New American Standard Bible,
New International Version,
Philips Modern English,
Revised Standard Version,
Today's English Version,
Jerusalem Bible,
New English Bible,
American Standard Version,
New American Bible,
Young's Literal Translation,
Berkeley Version,
Norlie's Simplified New Testament,
New Testament in Modern English (Montgomery),
New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth),
Wuest's Expanded Translation,
Amplified New Testament,
New Testament (Swann),
Aldine Bible,
Four Gospels (C. C. Torrey),
Confraternity Version,
Four Gospels (Rieu),
New Testament (Knox),
Concordant Literal New Testament,
Anchor Bible,
Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton),
Bible in BASIC English,
Better Version (Estes),
Sacred Writings (A. Campbell),
New Easy-to-Read Version,
New Testament for the New World.
Furthermore, there was an even better solution available that was not used. Why not use the same verb as used for Abraham? After all, genesthai (came to be) is from the root ginomai (come to be) and Jesus could have easily matched Abraham came to be by continuing to use ginomai, conjugating it as gegona, I came to be, which would be the truth if he were indeed a created being.
For an Arian this would seem to be the perfect and expected solution, because it still gives Jesus first-in-time priority over Abraham, but avoids confusing the listeners into thinking he is claiming to be eternal in the same sense as God is, which shocking impression was certainly created when he used eimi instead.
However, unfortunately for the Arian theory, the mismatch of the two verbs is present right there in the text for all the world to see. John, and really Jesus, intended it to be the attention-getting contrast that it plainly is.
But why? Clearly, at a minimum, Jesus is calling attention to the fact that Abraham did come into being at a point in the past, and if he had wished to say of Himself that he came into being before Abraham, there was, as we have pointed out, no shortage of ways to say exactly that.
But he didnt do that. By positioning his present tense against Abrahams past tense, He intentionally presented the idea that he stands above and outside the human experience of time. In short, he is declaring his eternal nature. As the Jews who heard this knew, no one but The Eternal God could ever be worthy of such a title, and so they sought to kill him. In this sense he appears to be associating himself with El-Olam, the Everlasting God, as used in several places:
Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.
See also Ps. 90:1-3, 93:2; Isa. 26:4
3. On Eyeh Asher Eyeh
Now there is a rather technical argument that his proclamation here also resonated with his Jewish listeners as literally paralleling the I AM declaration used in Exodus 3:14. While I believe that to be true, a full discussion of that is probably not beneficial if we cannot get past basic issues like the normal usage of eimi.
In short form, as you pointed out, the Hebrew of Exodus transliterates to Eyeh Asher Eyeh. The exact meaning of this has been the subject of much debate, which I will not reproduce here, except to say that the translators of the Septuagint apparently did not buy the future tense argument, because they translated it into the Greek as
ego eimi ho on
I am the being
Which apparently appears in contracted form in Isaiah in several places. For one example:
Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
where the Septuagint uses the ego eimi for the expression, I am, as also in Isaiah 43:10 and 46:4.
Now at first one could think this was nothing special. After all, the man born blind whom Jesus healed had used ego eimi without a predicate, i.e., without a noun or pronoun spelled out after the am. However, in such cases where a predicate is implied by context, one may be supplied, hence I am he, because the predicate is implied by him answering the question are you him?
But where no predicate is supplied, it was the rule from the classical period forward that eimi without a predicate, either actual or implied, was an assertion of existence. Such was the case, for example, when Jesus responded to the angry crowd by contrasting his own timeless existence relative to Abrahams emergent existence.
This sense of ego eimi corresponds perfectly to other passages which convey Christ as a timeless being, without beginning or end, such as
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word,
i.e., the word was already in existence when everything began.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Which statement could never be made of a created being, for whom there would be some yesterday when he didnt exist, and so NOT the same as today or tomorrow, and who could not be the same for all eternity future, as all Gods created beings, being finite, must necessarily learn and grow and change, all the more so at the high end than the low end.
The sobering conclusion of all this is that Thomas was absolutely right to respond as he did to the risen Jesus:
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
GREAT post. Thank you.
You get the point, I'm sure.
Um, actually, feeling pretty dense at the moment. Maybe its the lateness of the hour, but I haven't a clue what you're getting at.
Or maybe you think my association of two very similar forms of angel worship, both of which seem determined to discredit Christian monotheism, and both of which truly are polytheistic by the book, is a causal fallacy. I don't think it is, if that's what you're getting at. I think there are spritual reasons for such similarities. We can discuss that more later if you like. But I hope you don't think I am being hateful for pointing out true corrolaries. Don't shoot the messenger. My aim is always, if not always realized, to speak the truth in love.
As for my question about the Watchtower Society, I am curious to know whether you believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, because I understand that is what they teach. And if you do believe that, I was also wondering if you could explain how you arrive at that from Scripture.
Can "eimi" be translated as "have been"? Certainly if the context and sense allows for it as it does at John 14:9 when Jesus says to Phillip:
"Have I been (eimi) with you all this time, Phillip, and you still do not know me?"
Both at John 8:58 and 14:9 Jesus is referring to a period of time past and continued into the present so "eimi" must be translated as either "be" in the past tense or an action from the past continuing into the present. "I am" doesn't work as an existence in the past.
Where "I am" does work is in the eyes of those who see a connection with Exodus 3:14 where so many translations render the Hebrew
"ayeh asher ayer" as "I am that I am". Neat! Jesus says he is the "I am" of Exodus 3:14! Or does he? Does Exodus 3:14 even translate as "I am"?
"I shall be the one who will be" and then instead of "I am" as The Name, "He who will be" is the way the Brown-Driver- Briggs Hebrew/English Lexicon explains the Hebrew verb "ayer".
"I will be that I will be" is an alternate reading in a footnote in the ASV on Ex. 3:14.
Verse 15 reveals that the foregoing has been a explanation of The Name since Moses is to tell the children of Israel, "Jehovah" has sent him.
Jesus isn't quoting Exodus 3:14 at John 8:58 any more than the blind man who said "I am" (ego eimi) at John 9:9 but Jesus is saying he was in existence at a indefinite point in past time, "before Abraham was".
(tea time..back later)
There is much in what has already been revealed that you should learn before you turn your ears and heart to a latter day prophet. Although Kevin may be incredibly sincere and believe every word he is saying, he is not special. All are called to preach the Gospel and to spread the Word. Many respond to that calling and develop their ministry. Every day millions of Christians, whether discerning a vocation, struggling with a major decision, asking for guidance or forgiveness, or asking for intercession on behalf of another pray for AND RECEIVE private guidance and direction from God. This is in accordance with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 6:6.
Is it possible that Jesus speaks to Kevin regarding his own life, actions and ministry, sure it is, but it is highly doubtful that Jesus is adding to the general revelation through Kevin. Kevin's claim to be speaking on behalf of Jesus Himself has every outward appearance of violating the Third Commandment.
Lastly, I ask where are the sign and miracles to accompany his message?
Peace be with you.
No, what Thomas asked for was visible, tangible proof of the resurrection, that what the disciple saw was indeed the resurrected Christ.
When Thomas gets that proof he exclaims, "My Lord and My God". Does this mean he believes he is seeing God? No, since as John has written at 1 John 4:12, "No man has ever seen God".
What then did Thomas mean? Possibly that he was seeing the Father and His power through the Christ as Jesus was said to be the "image" of his Father.
Thomas' exclamation is not evidence of a Father, Son, Holy Spirit in one God.
"First, note that there are two similar but separate events here. The John 10 episode was not in response to the I AM statement, but to this statement:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one."
In so saying Jesus was not saying he was God, that was the false accusation of his opposers. In vs. 36 Jesus says he is "The son of God" not God.
"Consult any standard conjugation chart for eimi, and you will find the first person singular present indicative, I am, is eimi, exactly the word found in the ego eimi of John 8:58: "
But a translator must also transmit meaning depending upon how the word is used and "eimi" can be translated "been" if the context calls for it, example already given.
I trust my last reply to SR has been sufficient. If not remind me again.
JW's rewrite Holy Writ to get it to say what supports their heresies.
"There is much in what has already been revealed that you should learn before you turn your ears and heart to a latter day prophet. Although Kevin may be incredibly sincere and believe every word he is saying, he is not special. All are called to preach the Gospel and to spread the Word. Many respond to that calling and develop their ministry. Every day millions of Christians, whether discerning a vocation, struggling with a major decision, asking for guidance or forgiveness, or asking for intercession on behalf of another pray for AND RECEIVE private guidance and direction from God. This is in accordance with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 6:6.
Is it possible that Jesus speaks to Kevin regarding his own life, actions and ministry, SURE IT IS, but it is highly doubtful that Jesus is adding to the general revelation through Kevin. Kevin's claim to be speaking on behalf of Jesus Himself has every outward appearance of violating the Third Commandment.
Lastly, I ask where are the sign and miracles to accompany his message?"
~ ~ ~
Hi NL,
You are a wonderful apologist. If everyone could express the faith as well as you, think of the conversions.
I've shared, I was converted by private revelation. Dead
in mortal sin, I was a Christmas and Easter Catholic, didn't
care or know the faith previously. I am a bit biased.
There aren't that many prophets, God's current messengers. Take the good from what you read, anyone can be wrong in their rejection. Prophecy isn't only about prediction and warning. The messages from Heaven strengthen a person's faith.
And, no one talks like that down here (humor).
There could be 1000 more pages of argument between Catholics, non-Christians and Protestants in this thread alone, it never ends. Why we are so blessed to be in this place of time. It's going to take God to act, to bring everyone to ONE belief.
You know how a few are arguing in this thread about the Holy Trinity? Look, four verses from the Gospel answer two big questions. Yes, Jesus is God, He always was, always will be AND God wants us all to believe the same.
It's going to happen the "oneness", an approved private revelation states it if some are hung up on Church approval (messages of Divine Mercy given St. Faustina in the 1930s), yes, the 2nd Pentecost but this time, worldwide.
For the umpteenth time, read the words given to Kevin Barrett that I posted. They are the Truth and why no one will touch them. Sola Fide is a lie, as Jesus says to Kevin.
Your question about signs and miracles, actually
the messages are that in themselves. It's been almost fourteen years I have been reading them, they've been saying the same all this time only with more urgency lately because divine events are closer. Humanity is slow to change. So, how is it God can say the very same thing every single day to several prophets for all this time in so many beautiful (makes one cry, His love for us) in such an endearing way? There's your sign, a wonder.
John 17:21-24
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.
1. On Objections to ego eimi
There are so many other indisputable proofs of Christs full deity in Scripture I would almost be willing to let you have this one if you could only come up with a credible grammatical justification for doing so, but so far you have not. Lets review the possible solutions:
A. Durative present in Greek rendered in English as a Progressive Perfect. This is what you are suggesting when you offer John 14:9 as your model solution:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
However, this solution fails, because a durative present needs a connecting term of duration, often an adverb, that draws a continuous timeline between the two points in time being discussed. For example, in John 15
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
Note the syntax. This is literally you are with me from the beginning, which is good for the Greek reader but a bit awkward for the English reader, though not impossible. However, also note the duration connector from The disciples were there at the beginning, and they are still with him now, so from then till now, a classic durational expression.
The original Greek actually captures that idea more succinctly than the English, because the English does not have a durative present, so we have to improvise with our progressive perfect. But we can only justify doing that when the durative connector is present, as it is in the verse you suggested:
John 14:9 Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
where a more literal rendering of the verb eimi could be
Am I so long with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?
So you see, this is actually not too bad in terms of readability, and it preserves the present indicative of eimi. However, because there is a durational connector, so long, I can in good conscience use the so-called progressive perfect, have I been, reordered to account for the interrogative, to express duration.
But as you already know by now, there is no durational connector, no adverb of time, linking Abrahams emergent existence with Christs timeless existence. In John 8:58, its all about contrast, not continuity. Therefore, the durative present solution fails.
B. Derive I have been as a historical present. However, this will not work either, because this is a dialogue, not a narrative, and eimi as a historical present is never in the Biblical text used in anything but the third person, regardless of the presence or lack of a preceding aorist infinitive (such as Abraham came to be).
C. Perfect indicative I was. But that would be impossible because there is no such tense for this particular verb, which also suggests that the language did not develop a strong need to use eimi as a perfect indicative anyway. This may be due to the availability of worthy alternatives (imperfect of eimi, and perfect of ginomai).
D. Find a really old manuscript in an Egyptian monastery somewhere that uses ginomai (I came to be) instead of eimi, because that would give you your inference of a beginning for Christ. However, we both know that is not likely to happen.
Therefore, the best, most honest way to render John 8:58 is to be open about the disconcerting contrast in verbs:
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
This is most compatible with what is actually happening in the Greek, and it appears to be how the author wanted to be understood. Our concern for unmessy English cannot override Gods authority to say exactly what He wants to say, even if it is a bit attention-getting at times:
John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
2. On an Excited Utterance, My Lord and My God.
In the law, a court may reject most kinds of hearsay evidence. But there are a few circumstances where some expressions are considered more reliable than others. One of these is the excited utterance, as it is called, where an individual just blurts something out under extraordinary conditions. The idea is this is really what the person is thinking, because they have had no time to prepare a calm and possibly less honest response.
Here we have an excited utterance of the highest order from Thomas, as he is confronted with what he thought was impossible, Christ alive again in the flesh:
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Notice Thomas is not saying this to himself. To separate this exclamation from the person to whom it was clearly addressed is to do violence to the plain sense of the Greek. John, whom you recall wants to break us of our Gnosticism, tells us specifically that Thomas is saying this directly to the living Jesus standing before him.
But even without Johns helpful description, in Thomas own words we have the form of an address to a person, a vocative rendered as an articular nominative, which is a widely recognized idiomatic pattern used in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and classical Greek, as a valid form of personal address.
As for seeing God, neither Thomas nor any other believer in the deity of Christ claims that seeing Christ in the cloak of his human form is the same as seeing the Eternal One in all his heavenly glory, which if any man did see as a mere mortal, he would certainly die. As Pail says, we see now through a glass darkly, but a day will come when we will be able to stand before him and see him as he is, and not die.
(And not just 144,000 of us, but countless multitudes, all washed in the blood of the Lamb, all equal brethren in Gods house, because all saved by grace through faith alike, and not of works, lest any be tempted to boast.)
And does Jesus chide Thomas for this obvious and extreme offer of divine worship? Not at all. In fact, Jesus commends the faith of all those who will come later, who will not have the advantage of seeing Christ in person as Thomas did, yet in whose hearts will rise the same bright light of faith, and the same exact declaration of belief, which can only be made through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
3. On Exodus 3:14
I have already addressed how the connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 works. It is not direct, but runs through the Septuagint, and in particular a number of passages in Isaiah, where the Greek ego eimi, without ho on, is used repeatedly and formulaically of Jehovah. As that is more likely the context of Jesus Judean audience, that is also the probable source of their outrage at his clear declaration of eternal existence. They understood perfectly well what he was saying, and as I have demonstrated before, he never denied the charge of claiming to be God.
4. On Michael the Archangel.
I am still curious about whether you agree with the Watchtower Society that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, or perhaps some other named angel, and if so, what is your Scriptural case for that assessment. As I have provided you with extensive responses, and we are now into repeating patterns of questions and answers, I feel it would be only right and fair for you to answer my question.
Again, thank you for a wonderful and illuminating post.
"What we do is ultimately a manifestation of what we truly believe, as it moves the will to act in correspondence to what we believe"
Amen.Well and trully said!
"Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief" "this is the work of God,that ye believe on Him whom He has sent" "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his"
Heb 4:6,John 6:29,Heb 4:10
Praise God. "And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. " (Luke 1:45)
"And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. " (Romans 4:21)
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: " (Philippians 1:6)
And in response,.
"Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. " (1 Thessalonians 1:3-4)
"Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. " (2 Corinthians 8:11)
Thanks. It's really been a blessing to me to go over these amazing truths about our God. Soli Deo Gloria!
Uh, No. I have no objections to "ego eimi" as that is what the Greeks says. It's about context. As you've shown "eimi" or "este" if plural, although we read it as present literally in Greek it may be translated as that durative present (an action started in the indefinite past and continuing into the present.
So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present. "have been" captures the sense of that durative present reasonably well.
"ego eimi" is one such durative as Jesus says he existed "from before Abraham" into the present.
Anyone who wants to read more theologically into that answer may but not based upon the language used.
There is no essential difference between "Have I been so long time with you" and "I have been from before Abraham".
(John 14:9, 8:58)
Jesus doesn't quote the LXX Ex.3:14 since it says, "Ego eimi ho on", "I am the being (or one)", he was talking about the time of his existence.
John 20:28.
Who is Thomas addressing? His Lord or His God, the Father?
He would not mistake one for the other even as Paul said there was "one God", "the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 8:6)
Since Thomas was seeing the resurrected "one Lord, Jesus Christ not the "one God, the Father" whom no one can see, then Thomas exclamation would not imply he saw Jesus as deity.
Jesus "never denied the charge of claiming to be God."
That's pretty thin. And as you're a lawyer I find it incredible that you would say such a thing.
4. On Michael the Archangel.
When I come back later today or tomorrow.
There is but one Archangel named.
There is no Scripture that names the pre/post human Jesus as Michael so any association between the two must be by inference.
The Book of Daniel calls Michael a "foremost prince" who would stand up for Israel. (Dan. 10)
In Jude, Michael is said to have had a dispute with the Devil over the disposition of Moses' body.
Paul said Jesus would come with "an arch angel's voice"
(1 Thess. 4:16)
Rev. 12 describes Michael battling Satan and tossing him out of heaven while Rev. 19 describes Jesus as the Word battling God's enemies.
Not proof but not an unreasonable association either considering the amount of information available.
Now, May I inquire the reason for your curiosity.
By claiming that it is from God. I believe that you are in error for spreading his error and gifting it with the label of legitimacy. Simply claiming that because its message goes against Sole Fide makes it legitimate does not make it so.
Where is Barrett actually getting his messages from?
Belief in the Holy Eucharist predated the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Jerusalem headed by James was the first Catholic Church. Stop wheebling about and look at the facts.
Just because I am a cradle Roman Catholic doesn't mean that I cannot fathom history. I'd suggest that you give it a try.
Who is talking about Kevin Barrett, the person? I am asking you again what is the error in Kevins message from Our Lord?
"By claiming that it is from God. I believe that you are in ERROR for spreading his ERROR and gifting it with the label of legitimacy. Simply claiming that because its message goes against Sole Fide makes it legitimate does not make it so."
Where is Barrett actually getting his messages from?
~ ~ ~
Where is the "error", name it Mark. This is getting tedious.
Ah, you avoided my direct question AGAIN with another question. You make a good Protestant.
You don't have to believe the message is from God, no one does, I do, so does Kevin Barrett, the man who received it so your protest is to avoid my question. What is wrong with the message excerpt, how is it false, how is it not Catholic teaching?
"Belief in the Holy Eucharist predated the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Jerusalem headed by James was the first Catholic Church. Stop wheebling about and look at the facts.
Just because I am a cradle Roman Catholic doesnt mean that I cannot fathom history. Id suggest that you give it a try."
~ ~ ~
No it didn't.
Jesus established one Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
The pinnacle of the faith is the Eucharist. Figure it
out. I'll say it kindly as you did, well almost,
I suggest you try.
I am for you Mark, really, forgive me if I've hurt your feelings.
1. On John 8:58
So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present.
Um, no they are not. I have already been over this. John 8:58 lacks the durational connectors present in John 14:9 and 15:27. It is patently invalid to lump them all together, as there are profound structural differences, apart from any theological considerations.
The biggest difference, as I have already stated, is that unlike the other passages, which only use one verb to make their point, in John 8:58 there are two different kinds of verb in play and each is being contrasted with the other. Some translations go so far as to translate the literal Before Abraham came to be as Before Abraham was born, and that would be a good sense of the contextual meaning of genesthai, come into being.
Our mutually recognized Greek authority AT Robertson agrees:
{Before Abraham was} (prin abraam genesqai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." {I am} (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai). (Robertson's Word Pictures on John 8:58)
Carl W. Conrad, of the Department of Classics at Washington University had this to say:
What I'm wondering is why we aren't considering the existence referred to in Jesus' EIMI as essentially _timeless_, wherefore there's something a little bit odd—or at least paradoxical (perhaps intentionally so) in the suggestion that what is timeless has a temporal relation to an event in time.
Exactly. Whereas the other passages are contextually clear in how they use a single verb to take us from a definite point in past time to a definite moment in the present, John 5:8 does the opposite, by using two fundamentally different verbs to send us back into the limitless past, well before Abraham acquired his limited being by birth, while simultaneously sending us into a limitless future, simply by pointing us to the timeless present. It is the paradoxical juxtaposition of eimi with genesthai that creates that tension, and it is genuinely unlike the other two passages for that reason.
Notice from the quote above that Robertson mentions another passage that uses an identical arrangement to illustrate this tension between the merely temporal and the supertemporal:
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
The NWT translation actually agrees with our translation at the salient point:
Psalms 90:2 "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."
This passage in the Septuagint uses the second person form of eimi and the third person plural of genesthai, but it is the same structure, and clearly references the eternal God. In fact, the LXX translators dont even bother with EL, the Hebrew for God. They simply use su ei, you are. So:
Before the mountains came into being .. you are.
And the NWT agrees. Hmmm.
It is the identical juxtaposition of genesthai and eimi, a born thing versus a timeless thing, as what is found in John 8:58. Furthermore, it demonstrates, when taken in conjunction with the multiple I am passages in Isaiah, that the general form ego eimi did have currency in First Century Israel as a recognizable way to speak of the Eternal One, which in turn explains the hostile reaction of the crowd when Jesus used it of humself.
In any event, I think we have been over this enough. Going on in infinite circles will not benefit either of us. If you have something new to say about it in the next round, I will be happy to consider it, but in reality it is probably time to move on.
2. On Ex.3:14
I have now repeatedly informed you that I believe the connection to Exodus 3:14 is indirect, and is best made by observing how the Septuagint handles the I am passages of Isaiah. I really do not know why you keep pressing me on an argument which is not the one I actually made.
3. On Thomas saying to Jesus My Lord and My God, in John 20:27
You can hardly use 1 Cor. 8:6 to rescue yourself from the painfully obvious meaning of Thomas exclamation. You never did, as far as I know, respond to my earlier query about that passage: If Pauls One God the Father excludes Jesus as God, why doesnt One Lord Jesus Christ exclude God as Lord? They are obviously NOT intended to exclude each other, but to compliment each other while excluding all the false deities causing problems for the Corinthian Christians. Indeed, the parallel structure has caused some to see the passage as an early but clear formulation of a Christological monotheism.
In any event, 1 Cor. 8:6 does nothing at all to eliminate the obvious, that Thomas addressed those words directly to Jesus, and they were received by Jesus as a declaration of belief in Him, with no differentiation made between Lord and God. Which, as we have discussed before, is wrong for Jesus to let pass, if indeed he is mere creature, and not in fact God. By passing up that opportunity to redirect Thomas to worship only God the Father, he has confused countless generations into thinking it is OK to address Jesus as my Lord and my God.
And this moral obligation of Jesus to clear things up applies even if Thomas was, as you suggest, making some clever distinctions in his head while he was instinctively blurting out those worshipful words, differentiating the worshipful thing he was saying from the resurrected Savior he was saying it to. But that mind-reading argument of yours so passes the realm of credibility on its own power that I have already wasted too much space to refuting it; it is self refuting.
4. On Jesus not denying the charge of claiming to be God.
I stand by my analysis. Show me the verse where he said, unequivocally, Hey guys, you got it wrong, Im not actually God or even claiming to be God. Maybe you have that verse in the NWT, and it wouldnt surprise me if it was in there. But my Bible has no such thing.
What about the ye are gods business from Psalm 82:6? Read it again. Its not a denial, its a justification. Theres a world of difference legally. Defending on the law by justifying what was done is a defense I have actually used for a political client. It works especially well when the other side doesnt know the law well enough to see the defensive maneuver coming. I am sorry of you are having trouble recognizing it here, but this is exactly what Jesus has done. There is no denial. As the true Son, he has claimed to be of the same genus as the Father, and that is a claim to deity, and not blasphemy, because it is true. Just like defamation. Truth is an absolute defense. Jesus outlawyers the outlaw lawyers. I love it.
On Michael the Archangel
OK, the reason for my curiosity about what you believe about Jesus being Michael is two-fold. First, upon reviewing your argument, I agree it falls far short of proof, and I am a bit surprised that you hold a theological belief you admit you cannot prove from Scripture.
So my follow-up question would be this: Given that you have accepted the Watchtowers Michael theory on such admittedly weak grounds, is this because you believe they have unique authority to speak as the voice of God on earth today?
Because if you do see them that way, Id like to get your input on the following quote:
This is a campaign extraordinaire, one that will be memorialized for all time. Wave upon wave of insects, most prominently locusts, devastate the land. What does this mean? Revelation 9:1-12 also speaks of a plague of locusts, sent forth by Jehovah under "a king, the angel of the abyss," who is none other than Christ Jesus. His names Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek) mean "Destruction" and "Destroyer." These locusts picture the anointed remnant of Christians who, now in the Lord's day, go forth to devastate Christendom's pastures by completely exposing false religion and proclaiming Jehovah's vengeance upon it. — Watchtower 5/1/1992
So is Jesus Michael, or Abaddon/Appolyon, or both, in your view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Debates of May 6th, 2008
House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was application.
- Question Period
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order Paper
- Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
- Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
- Auditor General's Report
- Charles Caccia
- South Shore Volunteer Centre
- Immigration
- Gordon Bell
- CBC Radio Orchestra
- Royal Bank Cup Hockey Tournament
- Quebec City's 400th Anniversary Celebrations
- Emergency Preparedness
- Real Estate Industry
- Liberal Party of Canada
- Forestry Industry
- Marine Atlantic
- Omar Khadr
- Burma
- Liberal Party of Canada
- Sister Germaine Belles-Isles
- Access to Information
- International Aid
- Aboriginal Affairs
- Elections Canada
- Manufacturing Industry
- Ethics
- Montreal International
- Health
- Airline Industry
- Health
- The Environment
- Government User Fees
- Quebec City Armoury
- Agriculture and Agri-Food
- Aboriginal Affairs
- The Economy
- Temporary Workers
- Presence in Gallery
- Points of Order
- Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
- Canada Post Corporation Act
- Canada Marine Act
- Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
- Treatment of Rare Disorders
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:30 p.m.
Claude DeBellefeuille Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to comment on such projections. The debate is not over. We know that the government is currently conducting a study on Atomic Energy of Canada.
This morning the Minister of Natural Resources appeared before our committee. He told us that the study was not finished and that privatizing Atomic Energy of Canada is still a possibility.
This is certainly worrisome since there could be consequences to privatizing that agency. Nonetheless, I do not believe that privatizing Atomic Energy of Canada is problematic in the context of this bill.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
May 6th, 2008 / 1:35 p.m.
John Godfrey Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-5 in its unamended form, particularly in light of the discussion which I have been privileged to hear today in the House.
I want to pick up on the points that were raised by my colleague from Mississauga—Erindale, which had to do with a number of fundamental questions about the future of nuclear energy in this country which underlie this bill. I also want to echo what my colleague from Western Arctic said, that as we think about that future, we have to think about not only the interests of the nuclear industry, but also the interests of the whole population of Canada.
First, at the deepest level, this bill raises a number of very profound questions about the future of nuclear power in Canada, about the future of AECL itself, about the future of the nuclear regulator, about the future of Canada's own Candu reactor, the future of evolving nuclear technologies around the world, competitive technologies to the Candu reactor and, indeed, the future of nuclear power around the world.
It is evident that the great change which has occurred in the debate about nuclear power has been driven by climate change. This has radically altered the terms of debate. It has radically altered the way in which we think about these issues.
I can say that as a long-time environmentalist, I have been one of those who, over the years, has had reservations about the nuclear industry. I have moved from that position to one of being agnostic, but today, as I weigh the odds, the chances and the dangers, I now find myself on the side of a nuclear future for Canada. I believe that inevitably, nuclear power will be an increasingly important component of our national energy portfolio in the years to come.
Even if we funded and built no new nuclear plants in this country, Canada would have been having a nuclear future for a long time anyway. If we consider the very lights in this chamber, two out of every five lights in this chamber and in Ontario are powered by nuclear power. Forty per cent of all the power currently generated comes from nuclear generators.
Their importance becomes all the more compelling, because we know what the future of coal fired energy plants is in this province. That is to say they will be eliminated, which puts an even greater burden on nuclear power certainly in this part of the world for the future. There is no existing alternative source of energy on the scope and scale of nuclear power which can replace coal fired generating plants.
Second, the climate change argument puts us in a world in which we have to balance off risks. That is what we are here for. We are here to make choices. To govern is to choose.
On the one hand, a world in which carbon dioxide continues to increase exponentially along with other greenhouse gases puts us into a perilous future when we would reach an increase in world temperature of plus 2°C. This would take us to a place we have not been in many generations and millions of years, versus the well-known risks of nuclear power, which have been nuclear accidents, terrorist threats or how we dispose of nuclear waste. These are not trivial matters, but we have to choose. We have to decide what is the greatest peril and can we manage the risks on the other side.
Bill C-5 itself and the debate about its amendments is about risk management, about somewhere between zero liability and limitless liability. The committee came down and decided on $650 million, increasing it from $75 million. That is about risk management.
The problem with climate change is that this is not a manageable risk if we continue not to do anything about it. That is the challenge, that we are in a potentially runaway situation. Nuclear power must be part of the answer to that.
The third point I would like to make is that around the world we do see a renaissance of nuclear power. There are currently operating in the world 439 nuclear power reactors. They have been operating for a collective number of 10,000 reactor years of experience. There are now 200 new nuclear power plants being planned around the world. During the entire nuclear power period there have been only two accidents: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Only one of those, Chernobyl, had fatalities associated with it, and there is no denying that was a major, major accident.
However, what we do forget as we think about risk is what happens as a result of the emissions from coal and power plants every year from mining. The number of deaths every year associated with coal mining so that we can actually power coal fired generating plants far exceeds the number of deaths associated with the Chernobyl disaster, and yet we never balance out those risks. That is what our job is as legislators, to balance choices, to balance risks and try and do the best we can for the future.
The fourth point I want to make is about nuclear waste itself. It is a problem which ultimately is technologically controllable. The exciting part, if I may say so, about nuclear waste is that it represents a potential future source of energy which we have not found a way of exploiting yet. There will be a new generation of reactors which will be able to extract from our existing nuclear waste energy almost on an indefinite, time unlimited basis. It is true we do not know exactly what that road ahead looks like of using nuclear waste for new power, but we also know that if we do not get on with change what our future looks like in a world of plus 2°C climate change. That we have a much stronger sense of. Again we have to choose; we have to balance.
My fifth point is that we have in AECL, a world leader, a company which has led the nuclear revolution not only in power but in medical isotopes and other areas. It deals with an evolving technology which has a tremendous future. Someone somewhere in the world, some industrial group is going to be developing the next generation of nuclear plants and the question is why should Canada, pioneers in this area, leaders for half a century, not be that somebody? Why should we leave it to France or to General Electric if we are going to be having a nuclear future in any event?
This brings me to the sixth point which is national interest. We have had interesting debate recently on a Canadian owned company, MDA, which developed RADARSAT and the Canadarm, as to what our national interest is in high tech companies. The government has said, and I credit it with this, that for things like space technology, this is in the national interest. I would argue that AECL is in the same vein. It is in our national interest to give this technology the resources and the support to take us to the next level and to take that technology to the world to see it not only in terms of contributing to the climate change debate but to wealth creation.
Finally, by passing Bill C-5, clearly we are anticipating a long life ahead for nuclear power in Canada, otherwise we would not have this bill. This might as well be a future where Canada is a leader. As the member for York Centre used to put it in his former life as a hockey player with the Montreal Canadiens as they got ready to play a game but they were feeling a little discouraged, "Well, since we have to play the game anyway, we might as well win it". I think the same is true of nuclear power.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:45 p.m.
Dennis Bevington Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, my colleague really touched on some very important points in his speech, one of them being that we simply cannot deal with the nuclear industry in this piecemeal fashion, and that is correct.
We have many problems with the liability limits in the bill. We did not have a context in which to put that. We did not have a sense of providing leadership in terms of identifying the true cost of the industry to the consumer. This is one point for someone who is interested in the comparison of directions in which we have to go.
If we continue to hold the liability for nuclear accidents above $650 million with the Government of Canada, we are instituting a long term subsidy of the industry. We are not expressing the true costs of the industry in relationship to other potential new energy sources at which we may be looking.
Our amendment would simply create an unlimited liability for the nuclear industry, much as there is in many other countries. This would ensure that the cost to deal with it would be left with the industry. It would be reflected in the prices that the industry would charge for its product.
Is that not a better situation than continuing the liability of the government in subsidizing the industry?
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:45 p.m.
John Godfrey Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, three points were raised, and very valid ones, by my colleague.
First, he raises the question of establishing true costs. However, in any discussion of true costs, we have to compare, for example, what the true costs are of coal-fired electrical generating plants. Do we take into account the true cost to health when the particulate goes up? Do we take into account the true long term cost of global warming? Therefore, I am in favour of true costs, but they have to be compared on a wide basis.
Second, on the issue of subsidy, I think that is right. This is an industry, certainly through AECL and its research side, that needs to be subsidized. It needs to be controlled by the Government of Canada because it is such a crucial technology and it is also one which, if mishandled, has very dangerous and negative consequences. Therefore, I do not shy away from the notion of subsidizing a technology which takes us to a new place and will enhance our export capacity.
Finally, on the subject of unlimited liability, I guess the issue is if we were to change it from $650 million to unlimited liability, would we in fact destroy the possibility of there being a nuclear power future for Canada and the world?
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:45 p.m.
Brian Murphy Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member almost was my university professor in Halifax. I do not know if that is his loss or mine. However, I was very enraptured by his comments, especially as I come from New Brunswick, which has put a lot of its power generating eggs in the basket of the nuclear power future.
Is the government and its climate change policy in step with the policy for nuclear power in the future and this bill in particular? What is it about this climate change policy of the government that in any way meshes with the nuclear aspects of his comments?
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:45 p.m.
John Godfrey Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there is a climate change policy of the government, I would be very hard pressed, generous as I am and creative as I am, to find a connection between a nuclear strategy and a climate change plan and also one in which we saw the wealth creating component of our future climate change plans as being part of the mix, that when we think of climate change and the future we have to think of technologies and how we can actually make money by being green and by doing the right think.
I would locate this larger debate about nuclear power in that context about innovation and wealth creation.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
1:50 p.m.
Denise Savoie Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.
These amendments are being passed off by the government and many in the Liberal Party as simply administrative changes to modernize an obsolete law. However, all Canadians should be very attentive to this legislation. It raises many questions as to who the government is really protecting through it and as to the future of nuclear energy in Canada.
Comments have been made by the government about fearmongering. I was one of those people who many years ago lived in Europe and experienced Chernobyl. I happened to be living in an area of France that received some of the fallout from that meltdown. I was one of those people who was very opposed to the nuclear industry.
Over the years and with climate change, at this point I am open to the idea, but it has to be done following very stringent regulations. This industry cannot be privatized. It cannot follow a financial bottom line. It is out of the concern to protect all Canadians that the NDP has proposed a number of amendments.
The bill, as was suggested, proposes a new compensation limit. The cap has been raised from $75 million to $650 million. It would be reasonable to assume that this limit is based on the risk and the implications to Canadians, but this is not so. The NDP brought forward an amendment to clause 22, which would establish a risk based on the consumer price index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada, financial security requirements under international agreements and other considerations. The limit to the compensation is clearly insufficient and will be even worse in coming years.
Canada has not signed any international agreements on nuclear liability and has consistently resisted taking part in these agreements. The minister needs to take into consideration more issues than the CPI, such as the risk of an accident.
Risk has been defined in the following way, as being equal to the probability of something happening times the consequences. Using this actuarial definition, the probability of a nuclear incident in Canada is, as has been said, very low. However, when one factors in the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear incident, we see that then the risk is very high. It has been estimated that a nuclear accident would cause billions of dollars in damage in personal injuries, death, contamination of the surroundings and so on. The cap is clearly insufficient.
The U.S.A., for example, has a cap of $10 billion. Germany, which has experienced the fallout of the Chernobyl meltdown, has an unlimited amount. Many countries are also moving toward an unlimited amount.
Bill C-5 brings compensation levels up to an absolute international minimum. In the case of a nuclear accident, as remote as that might be, the damage would be catastrophic. That means with the level of compensation proposed in the bill, only a handful of dollars would be offered to Canadians impacted for loss of life, loss of limb, for contaminated property and so on.
In our opinion the legislation represents an almost cavalier attitude toward an energy source with the potential for catastrophic levels of damage and with no consideration of the risk levels as established by actuarial norms. We have proposed amendments to the bill to protect the interests of Canadians.
Earlier the parliamentary secretary said that the NDP wanted to have the compensation limit remain at the very low level in the earlier legislation. I must clarify that misleading statement because it could not be further from the truth. We feel that the cap proposed by the government should be unlimited. If one considers the NDP amendments together, they would have that effect. Following the principle of the polluter pays, nuclear operators should be prepared to cover a larger portion of the liability for their actions.
Canadians need to ask, why such a low limit? I will start by setting the legislation in the context of the recent events at Chalk River.
As with the legislation, it is important to ask whose interests the government was protecting when it fired the nuclear safety inspector for doing her job, or when the natural resources minister mused about having the private sector build a nuclear reactor to power the tar sands.
Last December's crisis at the nuclear plant in Chalk River gave Canadians cause for concern. It certainly has not inspired our confidence that the Conservatives will put safety ahead of profits.
First, for a decade both Liberal and Conservative governments ignored deficiencies in the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada, and that has been well documented by the Auditor General.
Second, Conservatives ran emergency legislation through the House supposedly to settle medical emergencies due to a long-time dispute between AECL and Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission, and that is now questionable.
Finally, the Conservatives continued with their trademark bullying tactics of silencing those who disagreed with them and fired the head of CNSC for stubbornly standing up for the safety of Canadians.
The way in which the Conservatives handled the Chalk River crisis raises concerns about whether safety is paramount to them.
Other worrisome questions have emerged about the Conservative privatization agenda.
The minister commented publicly on this. In the Globe and Mail, of November 2007, the Minister of Natural Resources said:
It is time to consider whether the existing structure of AECL is appropriate in a changing marketplace.
In an interview with Sun Media, the minister said:
It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, in my mind. I think nuclear can play a very significant role in the oil sands.
He admitted that he had been involved in discussions about a two year exclusive deal with Calgary based Energy Alberta Corporation to establish the Candu reactor technology in the oil sands.
The legislation facilitates the government's intention to privatize the nuclear industry. First it fired the safety inspector. Now it wants to set up an insurance plan that would take liability away from the operators, placing it on the backs of Canadians.
The government's drive to privatize all that is government, including the nuclear industry, should be a red flag to those who think money should not be the main driver in nuclear energy. It is too risky to leave it to the whim of the market. We know the Conservatives hands-off approach to government. They look the other way at efforts to privatize our health care system. If there is one other industry where money should not be the main driver, it is the nuclear industry. It cannot be left to the whim of the market nor to its cost cutting patterns for increased efficiency. Government should be subsidizing this industry.
I see my time has run out, but I assume I will be able to continue after question period.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
Government Orders
2 p.m.
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The hon. member's time has expired, but there will be five minutes for questions and comments consequent on her speech after question period.
Auditor General's Report
Government Orders
2 p.m.
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada dated May 2008, with an addendum on environmental petitions from July 1, 2007 to January 4, 2008.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Charles Caccia
Statements by Members
2 p.m.
Jim Abbott Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hon. Charles Caccia, who passed away this weekend.
In 1993, as a veteran parliamentarian, Charles must have been bemused when 201 rookies, myself included, came to this place. I clearly recall turning up at Charles' environment committee without a starting point of a clue what committee was about.
Charles took me through the steps, always exhibiting the highest sense of respect and patience. He encouraged my participation in parliamentary associations. He emphasized the importance and the significance of members of Parliament attending on the world stage.
Charles Caccia was a man who proudly marched to his own drummer frequently leading the way where others had not gone. Although he and I had little in common politically or philosophically, it is an honour for me to have this opportunity to pay him tribute.
Charles Caccia was a man who made this Chamber a better place in his 36 years and into the future through those of us who remain. In that respect, Charles Caccia lives on in our Parliament today.
Charles Caccia
Statements by Members
2 p.m.
Joe Volpe Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to honour Charles Caccia.
[Member spoke in Italian and provided the following translation:]
He was an accomplished Parliamentarian and former Minister of Labour and the Environment. My heartfelt condolences are extended to his family, his friends, but above all to the community.
As a student, I involved myself in his first federal campaigns. At the time, he, like no other, succeeded in personally expressing the collective character and personality of the people he represented, people from other countries, with abundant energy and resources adaptable to the creation of a new and "just society"; as it was defined by the new Prime Minister of the period.
We, Italian Canadians, saw him as a vehicle for change, and integration into a society that emphasized civic responsibility and concerns for one's neighbours.
In Davenport, his dedication became iconic and for new arrivals, a role model. Thanks Charles.
South Shore Volunteer Centre
Statements by Members
2 p.m.
Caroline St-Hilaire Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House today to mark the 30th anniversary of the Centre de bénévolat de la Rive-Sud. This organization has been promoting volunteerism in various spheres of activity since 1978.
Thirty years of experience, 30 years of providing support, 30 years of helping others—that is worth celebrating.
With a dedicated professional staff, quality services, exceptional guidance and the contribution of over 900 volunteers at the ready, the Centre de bénévolat de la Rive-Sud helps meet the needs of families, children, seniors, the disabled and the most disadvantaged.
It is no secret: volunteerism represents the cornerstone of community action. In addition, this real economic engine contributed $70 billion to Quebec and Canada and more than 500,000 full-time positions in 2000.
A big thank you to all the volunteers, stakeholders and administrators of the Centre de bénévolat de la Rive-Sud for their commitment, which is a true sign of the region's vitality.
Statements by Members
2 p.m.
Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I represent the area of Burnaby—New Westminster which is the centre of the Canadian mosaic and the most diverse community on earth. Over 100 languages are spoken in our small area and all faiths are represented here. The population is made up of substantially new Canadians, people who have come to make a difference and help build this great country of Canada.
The changes to immigration proposed by the Conservative government will negatively impact new Canadians. Brought in with the tacit support of the Liberal leader and his caucus, these changes are designed to bring in cheap labour and temporary workers rather than put the focus of immigration on community building.
The NDP will continue our push for the recognition of credentials, so that doctors, nurses and engineers who come to Canada can practice their professions rather than do low-skill work. We will continue to push for adequate immigration funding so that new Canadians can be reunited with their families.
The NDP will fight the unfair changes. We will fight this discrimination and we will firmly stand up as the only voice for new Canadians in the House of Commons.
Gordon Bell
Statements by Members
2:05 p.m.
Colin Mayes Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, driving west through beautiful British Columbia, along the Trans-Canada Highway, beyond the majestic Canadian Rockies, are the Three Valley Lake Chateau and Three Valley Gap Heritage Ghost Town.
As breathtaking as these facilities and site are, what is more amazing is that they were all built by one man and his family. That man was Gordon Bell. He was a visionary, craftsman and entrepreneur.
Fifty years ago, Gordon came across this site. Others would have observed it as 27 acres of mud and marsh, but Gordon envisioned a place where he could build a dream. He began with a little coffee shop, then developed a motel, restaurant, hotel, and frontier theme park.
Gordon and his family, over the past 50 years, have been building this dream. When Gordon was asked how one man could undertake such a project, he would always say, as he put his arm around his bride of 50 years, "First you have to start with a good woman".
Gordon Bell died earlier this year. He left an impressive tourist attraction, but more than that he left a close-knit family that is carrying on his legacy and dream.
CBC Radio Orchestra
Statements by Members
2:05 p.m.
Don Bell North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, Thursday, March 27, was a dark day for the Vancouver-based CBC Radio Orchestra, when it was announced that its funding would be cancelled. Over one-third of the musicians in the orchestra are residents of my riding of North Vancouver. On April 20, I attended what may unfortunately have been one of orchestra's final scheduled concerts.
I urge the government to ensure that adequate funding is available to allow CBC Radio to continue its mandate to play an important role in showcasing Canadian talent and enriching our cultural heritage.
I also join with Canadians across the country to ask the government and CBC Radio management to confirm the heritage value and status of our 70-year-old CBC Radio Orchestra, and to ensure that it is able to continue to contribute to the cultural enrichment of Canadians.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here at Polka Dot Design, we want you to make every Halloween special, which is why we have the silliest and spookiest selection of Halloween party invitations around. Halloween is a fun and festive holiday that deserves the very best in invitation design. We carry such a wide array of invitations, from scary invites for a children's October birthday party to a costume party like no other. If you're looking for a ghoulishly good time, then Polka Dot Design has you covered.
The abundance of celebratory cards we feature for the Halloween holiday is sure to make choosing the right one a very easy decision. Take our customizable Halloween invitations for example. Each invitation can be curated to your liking in order for a more personalized feel. Whether you're throwing a one-of-a-kind costume gala, or just bringing the neighbors together to bob for apples, our selection of customizable Halloween invitations are sure to be a hit.


text:
Artist Collection: (76 of 276)< Previous | Next >
Tags: black & White, Angels, Landscape, Fantasy, emotion
- + MOUSE OVER image to zoom in
- + CLICK to enlarge
a walk in the cloudsby the art of darren vannoy & element 9 graphic design
- Medium
- Digital
- Artist Notes
- A Walk In The Clouds is part of the Black & White Collection. Originally published under Greedy Fly Effects™ These prints have been reworked and cleaned up for publication on the Untapped Source Website. ©Element 9 Art Design™ 2010
- Contact Artist Send Artist an Email
More about the art of darren vannoy & element 9 graphic design
- Location
- illinois, usa
- Artist Biography
- Fine Art Books: The Art of Darren Vannoy has published several Fine Art books now available at Blurb.com- www.blurb.com/user/element9 Element 9 Graphic Design™ is part of a collective of registered sites by Artist Darren Vannoy. Sister sites are: ...


text:
No Items in Shopping Cart
Miniature replicas of real crimped aluminum roofing material. Package of two 5 inch x 7 inch sheets, .002 inch thick. Material cuts easily with scissors. By K&S Engineering.Note: Sheets have minor dings and dents consistent with full size materials and are not guaranteed to be defect-free.


text:
The diagnosis of diabetes in cats can be stressful for the pet owner, but those who closely monitor the disease over time can help ensure that their companion lives a healthy and long life.
When the cat is initially diagnosed, you'll likely be headed to veterinary hospitals on a regular basis in order to get bloodwork done. This will tell the veterinarian the average glucose levels in the cat. However, most animals get stressed when they have blood taken or go to the hospital, which can elevate their glucose samples and result in false readings, according to VCA Animal Hospitals. This is why the owner will also need to do their own testing at home.
Performing a urinalysis is a good way to test glucose levels, and there are a variety of products that can do this. Using non-absorbing plastic pellets will ensure that urine remains in the litter box for the owner to test. There are also strips that can be hidden inside the litter box that will change color based on the results. Once the cat has begun diabetes treatment, this should be performed on a weekly basis. Blood sugar monitoring at home has also become a routine procedure and your veterinarian can discuss the technique with you.
As cats continue to live with feline diabetes, owners can regularly take their pet in to test for serum fructosamine concentrations. These tests are accurate for detecting blood sugar trends over the past weeks, but won't detect the most recent changes, so they are best used for long-term approximations of your cat's response to treatments.
Diabetes is a condition that can be successfully managed in cats with appropriate diet, medication and monitoring at home by you and regular rechecks with your veterinarian.


text:
Jump to navigation
Be a donor
The Doomsday Clock is an internationally recognized design that conveys how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making. First and foremost among these are nuclear weapons, but the dangers include climate-changing technologies, emerging... Read More
To refine your results, use the filters in the right column.
Some people consider physician Wouter Basson South Africa's Josef Mengele. During the 1998 Truth and Reconciliation hearings on Project Coast, South Africa's apartheid-era chemical and biowarfare programs, Schalk Janse van Rensburg, a veterinarian, stated that Basson, the program's head, wanted to devise a way to kill individuals that would appear undetectable to a forensics laboratory.