As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.

Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"?

That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts.

Murder is a man-made legal construct. If something is legal, it is not murder. Any act that does not meet the legal definition of murder, is not murder.

If Roe were overturned, states such as California could, and likely would, have lawful abortion on demand.

As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few.

Your God may be a hateful, wrathful, avenging God. You are free to believe whatever you want. Resort to your invisible friend when your attempt at rational/factual argument fails is not persuasive.

2 Peter 3King James Version (KJV)

3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

For God's sake, all you have to do is watch ABC News, or CBS or NBC or any other reputable news source, or just Google it. I am not going to do it for you because I don't have the time to be constantly humoring you. BTW, it is no longer being called a 1000-year storm on some stations. It is now sometimes being called a 1500 to 2000 year storm because it is still going and is now plaguing Lousianna as well. And after that it is predicted to hit Mississippi as it goes on down the coast.

And the main reason I have not quoted any history textbooks that say what I said about the second coming of Jesus in 312AD is because none of them, not one, is currently in print because all school districts/ colleges in the US have replaced them with revisionist history. If you want to read one you are probably going to have to go to a used book store that specializes in very old textbooks. And I can assure you that none of them are on the internet, so that's not going to help you. That means you are going to have to do some serious digging/legwork on your own because I certainly dont have the time to do it for you. (But if you would for once be patient, I might do it for you after the big storm passes).

"Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad."

Well, I could but sorry I am not going to. That's for two very big reasons. First of all, all bills/laws passed by Congress are many many pages long and full of legalize that I or no one on earth except lawyers can possibly understand. Secondly, lest you forget, I am in the middle of the worst hurricane/ flood in recorded history and I am fighting for my life, and the life/ well being of my loved ones. So no, I am not about to humor you this time except to say, you read it, and you tell me what it says, and in plain English please and no legalize, and then I will consider responding on this issue.

"I am hardly a peaceful Buddhist. I am retired military. Honest to Buddha is a time-honored military expression."

I am also retired military and I have never ever heard that phrase before. But I do apologize if I falsely accused you of being a Buddhist. Sorry.

"As faith is the strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, appeal to one's personal belief absent proof is an appeal to authority not based on proof."

Everything I say is based entirely on historical and scientific facts and not on any faith or myths because I don't have faith that there is a God, I know there is a God based entirely on historical and scientific facts. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, I cut it out of the Bible (literally and you should see my Bible if you don't believe me). But the vast majority of the Bible I have found to be 100% true.

I think we have to take heart from the fact that God has said he will not destroy the Earth again by water,

He didn't destroy the earth with the Flood. After all, it is still here and perking along nicely.

It does seem that He's planning to do us all by destroying the earth with fire someday though.

Like burning up in fire is so much nicer than a simple flood.

And the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently).

[interpreter #41] As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.

[nolu chan #58] Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"?

[interpreter #65] Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it.

Actually, it says no such thing about partial-birth or third trimester abortions. Partial-birth abortion is illegal, your interpretation of Roe, based on alt-left sources and Planned Parenthood interpretation notwithstanding.

What Roe actually says is, "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, it it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe abortion excep[t where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

One does not need to overturn Roe v. Wade to make partial-birth abortion a crime. It is already criminalized by Federal statute of 5 November 2003.

What Federal law actually says is, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

- - - - - - - - - -

S.3 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Sponsor: Sen. Santorum, Rick [R-PA] (Introduced 02/14/2003)
Cosponsors: (45) Committee Reports: H. Rept. 108-288 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 11/05/2003
Became Public Law No: 108-105. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions)

Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and it became Public Law 108-105.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

As it appears codified at 18 United States Code, § 1531

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-74/sec.-1531/

18 U.S.C. 1531

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 74 - Partial-Birth Abortions (Sections 1531 - 1531)
Sec. 1531 - Partial-birth abortions prohibited

18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2015)

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) the term "partial-birth abortion" means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—

(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

(2) the term "physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

(2) Such relief shall include—

(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.

(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.

(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 108–105, §3(a), Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1206.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The enactment, referred to in subsec. (a), probably means the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 108–105, which enacted this section and was approved Nov. 5, 2003.

SHORT TITLE

Pub. L. 108–105, §1, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under this section] may be cited as the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'."

FINDINGS

Pub. L. 108–105, §2, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "The Congress finds and declares the following:

"(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant—is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

"(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

"(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined 'that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an 'undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the 'health' of the mother.

"(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.

"(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.

"(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not 'clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 'when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, 'if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently'. Id. at 574.

"(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge—the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

"(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the 'clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings—findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference—and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.

"(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 U.S.C. 10303(e)]. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in 'gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that '[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.'. Id. at 653.

"(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress' factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the 'bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c) [now 52 U.S.C. 10304], stating that 'congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980).

"(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 [Pub. L. 102–385, see Tables for classification]. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be 'seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, 'Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to "amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data" bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here', 512 U.S. at 665–66. Although the Court recognized that 'the deference afforded to legislative findings does "not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law," ' its 'obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'. Id. at 666.

"(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 'must-carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's 'sole obligation is "to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence." ' 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that '[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution "is far better equipped than the judiciary to 'amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon" legislative questions,' id. at 195, and added that it 'owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.'. Id. at 196.

"(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a 'health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

"(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

"(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, 'there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

"(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

"(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted medical practice', that it has 'never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that 'the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that 'there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is 'ethically wrong,' and 'is never the only appropriate procedure'.

"(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

"(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

"(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

"(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

"(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child 'in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a 'person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a 'person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

"(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 'ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the ' "partial birth" gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.

"(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children—obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child—and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

"(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

"(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

"(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

"(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit this inhumane procedure.

"(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned."

[nolu chan #57] "No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appea[l] to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them."

[interpreter #63] For God's sake, all you have to do is watch ABC News, or CBS or NBC or any other reputable news source, or just Google it. I am not going to do it for you because I don't have the time to be constantly humoring you.

I know you will not identify your imaginary reputable scientists, or your imaginary history books, because you can’t.

You have the time to prattle on and on, but not the time to type the name of a book and its author, or the name of a reputable scientist.

ABC, NBC, CBS, and Google are not reputable scientists. But I can do Google for one who is either too lazy, or just unwilling to do Google.

It is now sometimes being called a 1500 to 2000 year storm because it is still going and is now plaguing Lousianna as well. And after that it is predicted to hit Mississippi as it goes on down the coast.

Is the source of this claim spirit voices talking to you?

http://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-harvey-katrina-monster-storms-understanding-devastation-657079

Of the 25 most deadly hurricanes in the U.S. since the government began tracking storm fatalities, only Katrina occurred in the past 40 years. That storm directly caused 1,500 deaths.

[...]

If current estimates prove accurate, Harvey will likely end up among the 50 most deadly U.S. hurricanes according to government numbers.

[...]

In terms of the storm itself, Harvey doesn’t make much of an impression in wind speed, the standard way meteorologists evaluate hurricanes. When the storm first made landfall, it featured winds of up to 130 miles per hour, rendering it just barely a Category 4 hurricane on the five-step scale. Winds had tamed to 40 miles per hour for much of the storm’s duration. Hurricane Patricia in 2015 produced the fastest winds on record, reaching 200 miles per hour out at sea.

Instead, Harvey packed its real punch in water. On U.S. land, only a couple of tropical storms have ever equaled its rainfall: 1950’s Hiki in Hawaii, with 52 inches, and 1978’s Amelia in Texas, with 48 inches.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/harvey-comparison-katrina-ranking-damage-cost-estimate-how-does-hurricane/

While damage caused by Harvey is expected to total several billions of dollars, initial estimates are well below the totals caused by other major storms that hit New Orleans and New York. But as the storm continues, definitive estimates haven’t yet been totaled, and various research groups are gauging the total cost of damage all over the map.

According to Hannover Re, one of the largest reinsurers in the world, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused around $80 billion in insured losses the the New Orleans area. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 caused around $36 billion to the New York area.

“We are far from Katrina and Sandy in magnitude in the case of Hurricane Harvey,” a spokeswoman for Hannover Re told CNBC.

A source with knowledge of the market estimates told CNBC that current inured losses for Harvey are estimated to be at less than $3 billion so far.

However, the Insurance Information Institute gave a far different outlook on the damage cost. A source from the group told Fox Business that the flood damage alone caused by Harvey could end up matching the $15 billion caused by Katrina.

On Monday, other estimates started to surface, and a Enki Research group reportedly said it estimates $30 billion in damage.

Chuck Watson, a disaster modeler with Enki, told Bloomberg Markets in an email that the group took into account “the impact of relentless flooding on the labor force, power grid, transportation and other elements” when making its initial estimate.

If that holds true, that would put the damage from Harvey as one of the top eight hurricanes to strike the U.S.

https://www.livescience.com/60257-harvey-vs-katrina-storm-comparison.html

Harvey vs. Katrina: How Do These Monster Storms Compare?

By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer August 29, 2017 06:19am ET

Tropical Storm Harvey's historic rainfall and flooding continue to batter the Texas coast near the Gulf of Mexico, and Louisiana's southwestern coast is bracing to similarly face an onslaught of heavy rainfall and rising floodwaters in the coming days.

With significant rainfall and flooding still in the forecast, Harvey could rival the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina, which pummeled the Louisiana coast in 2005 and was one of the deadliest storms to ever strike the U.S. It caused 1,833 deaths and cost about $108 billion in damages, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).

What shaped these two catastrophic events, and how do they measure up against each other? [In Photos: Hurricane Harvey Takes Aim at Texas]

Harvey made landfall in Texas on Friday (Aug. 25) at 11 p.m. local time as a Category 4 hurricane, with maximum wind speeds surpassing 130 mph (209 km/h), The Washington Post reported. Later downgraded to tropical storm status, Harvey has since deposited more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain in regions of southeastern coastal Texas, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC).

In the Houston area alone, reports estimate nearly 30 inches (76 cm) of rain have fallen over two days, NHC officials reported, and life-threatening flooding is underway across inland areas in south-central Texas, with storm surges of up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) anticipated in some areas, according to the NWS. At least eight people have been killed and more than a dozen injured thus far, The Washington Post reported.

[...]

Accompanying Katrina was a massive storm surge — an abnormal rise in coastal sea levels, generated by storm activity — with waters cresting at heights of 10 to 25 feet (3 to 8 m), which more than made up for the hurricane's relatively low rainfall. Floodwaters inundated coastal Mississippi and southeastern Louisiana, leaving 80 percent of New Orleans under water that was slow to drain and lingered for weeks. [A History of Destruction: 8 Great Hurricanes]

It is still too soon to tell the extent of Harvey's storm surge, which is difficult to measure in real time while a storm is in progress, Michael Lowry, a scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research — a nonprofit consortium dedicated to the study of atmospheric science — wrote in a tweet on Aug. 26. In fact, scientists might need weeks to calculate Harvey's storm surge, Lowry added.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-compare-storms-trnd/index.html

12 years ago today, Katrina hit. Here's how it compares with Harvey.

By AJ Willingham, CNN

[...]

SIZE

When considering the damage a storm might inflict, size is only one of several factors. For instance, Harvey is relatively small when looking at the diameter of the tropical force winds it produces. It is also important to note that a large storm out in the ocean obviously is likely to produce much less damage than a smaller storm that travels inland.

Hurricane Harvey: 280 miles

Hurricane Katrina: 400 miles

Sandy (2012): 482 miles

Sandy, most commonly classified as a superstorm, was the second-largest hurricane on record by this definition. It caused significant damage to New York, New Jersey and other areas in the northern United States.

[...]

FLOODING POTENTIAL

While the storm has significantly weakened, it is still lingering on the Texas coast after days of wind and rainfall. This has led to unprecedented flooding and could have yearslong impact on infrastructure and communities. As of Monday, Harvey has dumped more than 11 trillion gallons of rain on Texas residents. According to the National Weather Service, the 49.2 inches of rain that fell from midnight August 25 to 9 a.m. August 29 is a record for the continental US.

The Hurricane Harvey rainfall is not the record for the world or the U.S., but is for the continental U.S.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/the-eight-deadliest-storms-in-history/16402

The eight deadliest storms in history

Daniel Martins
The Weather Network
Digital Reporter Monday, November 18, 2013, 11:56 AM -

The world watched in horror as Typhoon Haiyan lashed the central Philippines last week, causing the worst humanitarian crisis in the country's history.

Around 4,000 people have been confirmed dead in the aftermath of the typhoon, with thousands more still unaccounted for.

As devastating as the storm has been, the sad fact is that it is nowhere near the deadliest storm to strike Asia.

Here are eight tropical storms - known to us as hurricanes in the Atlantic, but called typhoons in the Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean - that stand as the deadliest known storms of all time.

2008: Cyclone Nargis

This was the deadliest storm to ever strike the Southeast Asian nation of Burma, also known as Myanmar.

The cyclone was packing winds of up to 164 km/h when it came ashore, bringing with it a monster storm surge that reached far inland up along the low-lying and densely-populated Irrawaddy Delta.

You can see what that means in the satellite comparison below:

More than 140,000 lives were lost, and the number may be higher, given that many bodies were washed out to sea and never recovered.

Infrastructure was also wrecked: The damage included 450,000 homes totally destroyed, hundreds of thousands more damaged, 4,000 schools and 75 per cent of medical centres, all in one of the poorest nations in Southeast Asia.

To make matters worse: The military junta that had ruled the nation for decades refused to allow foreign aid into the country. French, British and U.S. warships, laden with much-needed relief supplies, drifted idle off the country’s coast.

When the military finally allowed help in, it was three weeks later, and only civilian aid groups were allowed to the disaster zone, by which point the humanitarian crisis had only worsened.

1991: Bangladesh

This storm marks Bangladesh’s first appearance on this list, and by no means its last.

With winds of around 235 km/h, it was vastly more powerful than Cyclone Nargis when it came ashore.

Storm surge of more than 7 m was recorded as the sea roared up the low-lying riverlands that make up the vast majority of Bangladesh’s territory.

In the resulting floods, a little under 140,000 people were killed.

To understand why the death toll in this cyclone, and others that struck the country, is so enormous you have to look at population, terrain and infrastructure.

Territory-wise, Bangladesh is actually not much larger than our three Maritime Provinces combined, but it is home to around 150 million people, more than four times Canada’s population.

Almost all Bangladeshis live in and along the rivers that flow through Bangladesh, in very flat and densely cultivated terrain.

Add to that the fact that in poverty-stricken Bangladesh, much of the population also live in poor housing, so when the waters rise even seven metres, a huge and thickly populated area of land floods, leading to the staggeringly huge numbers of dead in this storm, and others like it.

Making matters worse: When the 1991 storm’s waters subsided, 400,000 acres of cropland had been swamped or damaged, with the soil and fresh water sources contaminated with salt from the sea.

1876: The Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh

Another catastrophe for Bangladesh, this one reaching back into the 19th Century, when the area was ruled as part of the British Empire.

This unrated cyclone struck the country’s Meghna River, a part of the Ganges delta. At 12 km in width at its most broad extent, it flows into one of the largest estuaries on Earth.

To the river’s normally calm waters were added a storm surge even higher than the 1991 cyclone, an estimated 12 metres according to this Bangladeshi government source.

More than 200,000 thousand people were killed, either due to the storm surge and strong winds, or due to the resulting famine and epidemics that followed.

It was déjà vu for the area: A similar storm struck the area in the 1500s, bringing violent thunder and lightning that reportedly lasted for five hours, killing thousands of people and livestock.

[...]

1970: The Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh

Given how often Bangladesh has been on this list, it is sadly fitting that the country itself was born in the wake of the deadliest tropical storm ever recorded.

Everything we’ve discussed so far – large populations, low-lying terrain, poor infrastructure – were all on display with this cyclone rolled in.

The strong winds and 10-metre storm surge left up to 500,000 people dead, including 100,000 fishermen. That blow to the fishery, along with on-land crops, helped contribute to a humanitarian crisis that may have been responsible for hundreds of thousands more deaths.

Bangladesh at the time was actually part of Pakistan, an exclave ruled from Islamabad but separated by thousands of kilometres of Indian territory.

Unrest had been brewing among the population of what was called “East Pakistan” for some time before the storm hit. So when the central government in West Pakistan bungled the response to the crisis, it was the last straw for many. Opposition parties won big in the national elections, and the region was in open revolt the next year.

The bloody civil war ended after eight months when India intervened on the side of the rebels.

Although Bangladesh won its independence, it continues to be a high-risk area for cyclones.

For some context on that half-million death toll: When we talked about the deadliest Atlantic hurricanes last month, the worst of those storms caused 27,000 deaths at most. It’s safe to say that as devastating as the storms close to home can be, they pale in comparison to what people on the shores of the Pacific and Indian oceans face.

So no, no Atlantic or Gulf storm ranks at or near the worst storm in history.

[nolu chan #57] My appeal of the Scribd computer program report of copyright violation was upheld and I can provide the complete text of the 1965 Act,

Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad."

[interpreter #63] Well, I could but sorry I am not going to. That's for two very big reasons. First of all, all bills/laws passed by Congress are many many pages long and full of legalize that I or no one on earth except lawyers can possibly understand. Secondly, lest you forget, I am in the middle of the worst hurricane/ flood in recorded history and I am fighting for my life, and the life/ well being of my loved ones. So no, I am not about to humor you this time except to say, you read it, and you tell me what it says, and in plain English please and no legalize, and then I will consider responding on this issue.

I accept your representation that your objection to the Act was that the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad," but you are so incapable of reading that or any other Act, that your claim is meaningless.

As for your feared many, many pages, I kindly provided a copy of 79 Stat. 911-922 which has the whole Act under consideratrion in twelve (12) pages.

I can assure you that what you attribute to the Immmigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 does not exist in the Act. As you cannot identify the imaginary content you rely upon for your misbegotten claim, I cannot help you.

On the positive side, you are not in the middle of the worst hurricane/flood in recorded history, but many miles and years removed from that storm.

You have the time to prattle on and on, but not the time to type the name of a book and its author,

Oh, the irony.

[interpreter #63] Everything I say is based entirely on historical and scientific facts and not on any faith or myths because I don't have faith that there is a God, I know there is a God based entirely on historical and scientific facts. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, I cut it out of the Bible (literally and you should see my Bible if you don't believe me). But the vast majority of the Bible I have found to be 100% true.

Darn, that is the best word salad I've seen in a while. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, you cut it out. But the vast majority of the Bible you have found to be 100% true.

The divinely inspired word is almost always true, with exceptions you have identified and excised, where the divinely inspired word was contradicted by facts.

Are you God? Just checking.

[interpreter #65] the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently).

Uh huh. The KING was the head of the church. And right now the Supreme Governor of the Anglican church is Queen Elizabeth II.

English laws were not supposed to be based on the bible. Your supposed knowledge of English law is absolutely abysmal. English law has no formal codification. Murder is a common law crime in England, not one established by Act of Parliament. You apparently espouse your own Sharia-like system of law, and proclaim that everybody knows that is the way it is supposed to be.

The United States adopted the common law system, and every one of the original colonies, by their constitution or by statues, adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Every state has adopted the common law system of law except Louisiana. Louisiana still has a thing for their old Napoleanic code system. The United States codified its laws and has no common law courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

English law is the common law legal system governing England and Wales, comprising criminal law and civil law.

English law has no formal codification: the essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts applying statute, and legal precedent (stare decisis) from previous cases. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest civil appeal court of the United Kingdom, is binding on every other court.

Some rulings are derived from legislation; others, known as common law, are based on rulings of previous courts. For example, murder is a common law crime rather than one established by an Act of Parliament. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, for example, now carries a mandatory life sentence rather than the death penalty.

[...]

Common law

Description

Common law is a term with historical origins in the legal system of England. It denotes, in the first place, the judge-made law that developed from the early Middle Ages as described in a work published at the end of the 19th century, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I,[2] in which Pollock and Maitland expanded the work of Coke (17th century) and Blackstone (18th century). Specifically, the law developed in England's Court of Common Pleas and other common law courts, which became also the law of the colonies settled initially under the crown of England or, later, of the United Kingdom, in North America and elsewhere; and this law as further developed after those courts in England were reorganised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts passed in the 1870s, and developed independently, in the legal systems of the United States and other jurisdictions, after their independence from the United Kingdom, before and after the 1870s. The term is used, in the second place, to denote the law developed by those courts, in the same periods (pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial), as distinct from within the jurisdiction, or former jurisdiction, of other courts in England: the Court of Chancery, the ecclesiastical courts, and the Admiralty court.

In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) "common law" is described as "The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's courts, which purports to be derived from ancient usage, and is embodied in the older commentaries and the reports of abridged cases", as opposed, in that sense, to statute law, and as distinguished from the equity administered by the Chancery and similar courts, and from other systems such as ecclesiasical law, and admiralty law.[3] For usage in the United States the description is "the body of legal doctrine which is the foundation of the law administered in all states settled from England, and those formed by later settlement or division from them".[4] Early development

Since 1189, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system; in other words, no major codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts. As the Parliament of England became ever more established and influential, legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today, judges are only able to innovate in certain very narrowly defined areas.

In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Anglicans.html

The roots of the Anglican, or English, Church go back as far as the 2nd century, but the church traces its current structure and status back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who ruled from 1509 to 1547. The events that led to the formation of the state Anglican Church are a curious mix of ecclesiastical, political, and personal rivalries. Henry petitioned Pope Clement VII for an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon but was denied. When Protestant Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry saw his chance to bypass the Pope’s authority and get what he wanted. In 1531, Henry compelled the English clergy to accept him as head of the church in England. In 1532, Henry forced the national convocation to agree in The Submission of the Clergy that they would not promulgate any papal bull in England without the king’s consent. In 1534, Henry led Parliament to pass a series of laws depriving the Roman Catholic Church of any authority in England. The Act of Supremacy declared the king to be “the supreme head of the church in England,” thus giving Henry the same legal authority over the English church that the Pope exercised over the Roman Catholic Church.

Here is an example of a 1700 English statute. I am at a loss to identify which part of the bible inspired it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I

Recital of Stat. 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. §2. and that the late Queen and Duke of Gloucester are dead; and that His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants.

Whereasin the First Year of the Reign of Your Majesty and of our late most gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Mary (of blessed Memory) An Act of Parliament was made intituled [An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and for setling the Succession of the Crown] wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted established and declared That the Crown and Regall Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to Your Majestie and the said late Queen during the joynt Lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen and to the Survivor And that after the Decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen the said Crown and Regall Government should be and remain to the Heirs of the Body of the said late Queen And for Default of such Issue to Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and the Heirs of Her Body And for Default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of Your Majesty And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance And that the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such Person or Persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing ... as aforesaid were naturally dead

[snip]

It does seem that He's planning to do us all by destroying the earth with fire someday though.

Like burning up in fire is so much nicer than a simple flood.

Well think of it this way, what we have done is not an improvement, what does the gardener do when the garden is unproductive? And it isn't as though we haven't been warned.

Fire can come in many ways, an asteroid strike could set the atmosphere on fire, comets could rain down, drought produces the conditions for wild fire, supervolcanoes, or we could just be stupid enough to do it to ourselves

Well think of it this way, what we have done is not an improvement, what does the gardener do when the garden is unproductive? ... Fire can come in many ways, an asteroid strike could set the atmosphere on fire, comets could rain down, drought produces the conditions for wild fire, supervolcanoes, or we could just be stupid enough to do it to ourselves

Huh? Christians were commanded to be fruitful and multiply.

Apparently, so were the Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and animists and assorted heathens.

We've been very fruitful.

So call down the wrath of God on yourself if that turns you on but leave the rest of us out of it.

BTW, asteroid strikes cannot set the atmosphere on fire except on the SyFy channel. Or the earth would have been destroyed billions of years ago. The earth is not that fragile or we wouldn't be here to bandy electrons about discussing it.

earthsky.org/astronomy-es...se-4-planets-bright-stars

If Venus appeared as the Morning Star that is a good omen. It it appeared as the Evening Star that is a bad omen. Anyone know?

I've seen it get darker during one of the storms that comes before a tornado. I was not in the path to see much. But the information you seek has been reported. Venus appeared as the Morning Star

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/usa-eclipse-2017.htm

August 21st 2017:

Positions of the Planets at Totality

by Martin J Powell

On August 21st 2017 millions of observers looked skywards to witness the first total solar eclipse over the USA mainland since 1979. The 'Great American Eclipse', visible from twelve states across the country from North-west to South-east, was the most photographed, filmed and talked-about solar eclipse in history. This article does not examine the eclipse itself, however, but the naked-eye planets which one could have expected to glimpse in the vicinity of the eclipsed Sun (and a little further afield) within the 2½ minutes or so of totality. A total solar eclipse is the only circumstance in which planets positioned on either side of the Sun (morning and evening planets) can be observed from Earth at the same time.

A fully eclipsed Sun with Venus and Mercury above it, observed from the Java Sea, Indonesia on March 9th 2016 (Photograph © Joseph A Carr)

A fully eclipsed Sun with Venus and Mercury above it, observed from the Java Sea, Indonesia on March 9th 2016 (Photograph © Joseph A Carr)

What Planets were Visible During the Eclipse?

There were potentially four naked-eye planets which were viewable during totality, two with ease and two with some difficulty. The two brightest would have been visible long before totality arrived:

Venus, at an apparent magnitude of -4.0 was easily seen against the twilit sky caused by the eclipse totality. In fact, it should have become visible some 15 minutes or more before totality, when the eclipse was still partial and the sky was slowly darkening. Venus was positioned 34° West of the Sun at the time of the eclipse and was about half-way through its 2017 morning apparition, having been visible as a 'Morning Star' before dawn for several months. The planet was positioned in the Eastern half of the constellation of Gemini, the Twins. Its two brightest stars Castor (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Gem or Alpha Geminorum, mag. +1.6) and Pollux (Greek lower-case letter 'beta' Gem or Beta Geminorum, mag. +1.1) were positioned a short distance above (North of) the planet, both of which should have been visible in the twilight of eclipse totality.

Jupiter (magnitude -1.6) was positioned 52° to the East of the Sun at eclipse totality. It should also have become visible during the partial phase of the eclipse. For observers along the track of totality who were located West of central Idaho, Jupiter could not be seen because the eclipse took place before the planet had risen (see table below). Jupiter was positioned in central Virgo, the Virgin, near its brightest star Spica (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Vir or Alpha Virginis, mag. +1.0) which should also have been glimpsed in the twilight of totality. Jupiter was an evening planet, visible after sunset, around 90% through its 2016-17 apparition.

Mars (mag. +1.8) was positioned just 8° to the West of the Sun. Mars was very distant from the Earth at this time and consequently it would have been more difficult than normal to spot in the twilight. Being considerably fainter than both Venus and Jupiter, it was only likely to become visible in the final seconds leading up to totality. The Red Planet, which appears pale orange to the naked-eye whenever it is bright, was positioned in Western Leo and would soon emerge out of the dawn twilight into the start of its 2017-19 apparition (in July 2018 Mars will reach its closest point to the Earth in almost fifteen years).

Mercury (mag. +3.4) was positioned 11° to the South-east of the Sun at the time of the eclipse. It was the faintest of the four planets visible during the eclipse and would have been the most difficult to detect. Mercury was at the end of its second evening apparition of 2017 and was the closest of the planets to Earth at this time.

At the time of the eclipse, the Sun was positioned in the Western half of the constellation of Leo, the Lion, not far from its brightest star, Regulus (Greek lower-case letter 'alpha' Leo or Alpha Leonis, mag. +1.4). Regulus itself may have been easy or difficult to discern, depending upon the brightness of the eclipsed sky and any glare effect caused by the Sun's corona. The brightness of an eclipsed sky is dependant on several factors and is difficult to determine in advance, so the magnitude of the faintest stars to be seen at totality is uncertain. Historically, eclipse observers have often seen stars with the naked-eye down to about magnitude +3.5, although photographic equipment will often detect stars of much fainter magnitude.

[snip]

[images and charts]

But I have one more question for you. Now that I know it has to be a good omen, I need to know what city Venus was over at high noon. That is the $64,000 dollar question (as the number 1 game show used to be called, now it's the Million Dollar question after about 60 years of inflation). And please keep in mind that God does not go by man's time (Daylght Savings Time), but His time. (But if you're looking for a million dollars from me, I'm going to have to pay you in Monopoly money, or maybe Pesos, because I don't have a million dollars in real money on me at the moment).

BTW, the Anglican Church was founded (officially) by St. Mark in 47AD (who was sent by St. Peter), and before that Joseph of Arimethea arrived in England / Canterbury and converted a bunch of people right after the crucifixion. So dont let anyone tell you that the Church in Rome is the oldest Church or the only Church founded by St. Peter. It is simply not true.

BTW, the Anglican Church was founded (officially) by St. Mark in 47AD (who was sent by St. Peter), and before that Joseph of Arimethea arrived in England / Canterbury and converted a bunch of people right after the crucifixion. So dont let anyone tell you that the Church in Rome is the oldest Church or the only Church founded by St. Peter. It is simply not true.

You're peddling some version of British Israelism.

It reminds me of an old LP poster (David Ben-Something), now dead of AIDS, who favored these ideas, mostly from Herbert Armstrong or his son Garner Ted Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. He was always on about the German pope and the EU and how he got deported from Israel some years before his death.

which part

Often, I'm dumbfounded by some of the questions that I receive.

Where was the question mark [?] within the scope of your earlier post just above?

I need to know what city Venus was over at high noon. ... And please keep in mind that God does not go by man's time (Daylght Savings Time), but His time.

I am not sure I can unscramble that question. Is God's time UCT? Local standard time varies from zone to zone, not that Venus would pay any mind to it. I am definitely not an astronomer, just a good finder of stuff.

http://celestialchart.com/ephemeris/

You can slug in a time here and get the position of Venus or other planets at the chosen UCT time.

At 12:00 UCT on 21 August 2017, Venus was at

Right Ascension 7h 44m 59.61s

Declinition 20° 45' 39.5"

I have no idea if that helps.

First it is both the King (or Queen) AND the Anglican Church (the Archbishop of Canterbury) who make the rules. The 2 roles of the king are to enforce the doctrine of the Church (as for what is a sin, and what is not) and to protect the Church from harm.

When Henry VIII made rules, he enforced them with beheading. It was simply his decree that broke the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted a Kennedy-like annulment and the Pope said no. So, he separated the Church of England from Rome and, wouldn't ya just know it, the now independent church gave him his Kennedy-like annulment. Wife #1 was annulled, #2 was executed, #3 died, #4 was annulled, #5 was executed, and #6 Henry died. (Joseph P. Kennedy obtained an annulment from the Archdiocese of Boston after 12 years of marriage, two kids, and a divorce. After ten years of bad publicity, the Vatican overturned the annulment.)

Spiritual rulings fell to Ecclesiastical courts.

And I know pretty much everything there is know about this subject, and that is because I'm an Anglican.

My father was Episcopal, my mother was Catholic. My mother said that in hospital, when I was born, she shared a semi-private room with a Jewish lady who also had a boy. The Jewish lady had the mohel come, and he did a two-fer and pronounced me an honorary member of the House of David. I have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish covered.

BTW, the Anglican Church was founded (officially) by St. Mark in 47AD (who was sent by St. Peter), and before that Joseph of Arimethea arrived in England / Canterbury and converted a bunch of people right after the crucifixion. So dont let anyone tell you that the Church in Rome is the oldest Church or the only Church founded by St. Peter. It is simply not true.

Until Henry VIII, the Church of England followed Roman Catholicism and acknowledged the authority of the Pope in Rome. In modern times, I have seen its polity listed as Episcopal. Way back, I spent two years living in Northern Ireland. To a Yank, it was amazing how neighborhoods could be segregated, Catholic and Protestant.

But yes, for some reason the Irish have historically preferred to submit to the Pope rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the rest of the British Isles have historically been loyal to their Archbishop rather than the Pope. And that is indeed the reason for a lot of fighting (and segregation, etc.) in Ireland over the centuries (unfortunately). And that's why my Grandmother's family left Ireland and came here. At least now most everyone has calmed down and just want peace (even though there are still some occasional flare-ups in that crazy country).

BTW, asteroid strikes cannot set the atmosphere on fire except on the SyFy channel. Or the earth would have been destroyed billions of years ago. The earth is not that fragile or we wouldn't be here to bandy electrons about discussing it.

Well it all depends on which version of history you believe, apparently 65 million years ago an asteroid wiped out just about every thing, it has been through many changes including millenia of ice, volcanic activity. It was people who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, Christians came later after those people apparently stuffed it up. I don't need to call down the wrath of God, the people will do it eventually, through unbelief

You are trying to rewrite history.

Not really. You either mislearned of misremember English history.

The Anglican Church had never once been subject to Rome or the Pope except when the Pope sent someone to conquer England and force them to submit to Rome (as with the Norman kings).

This is documented as categorically false.

King Henry VIII was denied an annulment by the Pope. Why did he ask for an annulment from the Pope? Why did he declare himself the head of the Church of England in order to get an annulment?

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church very seldom paid any attention to anything the Pope said except when they were forced to submit or be beheaded (as was also the case with Bloody Mary--that's why she is called Bloody Mary). And historically, it is/was the Archbishop who made the rules concerning divorce, not the Pope. I dont know why people think that started with Henry the 8th. That is not true.

I think it because it is a matter of documented history, and I can produce copies of the documents themselves.

The Pope excommunicated Henry VIII in 1533 because of his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy was issued in 1534. It is a fact. Here is a copy of the document from the English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 203, C.22, CAP. I, 26 Hen. VIII, Anno. Dom. 1534:

With the stroke of a pen, the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in Rome.

But that is not the end of the story. In 1554, there issued another Act of Supremacy from Henry's Catholic daughter Mary, English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 473, C. 8, CAP. VIII., Anno primo & secundo Philippi & Maria, A.D. 1554.

That one starts, [boldface added, archaic letters modernized]

An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome, since the twenjtieth Year of King Henry the Eigth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclestiastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the Laity.

Whereas since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eigth of famous Memory, Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign, and gracious Land and Queen, much false and erroneous Doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the Natural-born Subjects of this Realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other Foreign Countries, hath been sowen and spread abroad within the same: (2) By Reason whereof, as well the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such Time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the Seat Royal over us, and then by his Divine and gracious Providence that in marriage with the most noble and virtuous Prince the King our Sovereign Lord your Husband, the Pope's Holiness and the See Apolostick sent hither unto your Majesties (as unto Persons undehled, and by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad; (3) and we, after sundry long and grievous Plagues and Calamities, seeing by the Goodness of God our own Errors, have knowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been and are the rather at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance, to repeal and abrogate such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said twentieth Year of the said King Henry the Eigth, against the Supremacy of the See Apolostick, as in our Submission exhibited to the said most Reverend Father in God by your Majesties appeareth: The Tenour whereof ensueth.

II. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selvers particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might inpugne the same:

[...]

It is not possible to maintain that the England did not recognize the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, both before and after Act of Supremacy of Henry VIII in 1534. It is a matter of documented history.

The full Act of Supremacy of 1554 follows.

I do not allege that England recognized the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, I provide a complete copy of the document which did it, from the English Statutes at Large.

You are trying to rewrite history.

Not really. You either mislearned of misremember English history.

The Anglican Church had never once been subject to Rome or the Pope except when the Pope sent someone to conquer England and force them to submit to Rome (as with the Norman kings).

This is documented as categorically false.

King Henry VIII was denied an annulment by the Pope. Why did he ask for an annulment from the Pope? Why did he declare himself the head of the Church of England in order to get an annulment?

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church very seldom paid any attention to anything the Pope said except when they were forced to submit or be beheaded (as was also the case with Bloody Mary--that's why she is called Bloody Mary). And historically, it is/was the Archbishop who made the rules concerning divorce, not the Pope. I dont know why people think that started with Henry the 8th. That is not true.

I think it because it is a matter of documented history, and I can produce copies of the documents themselves.

The Pope excommunicated Henry VIII in 1533 because of his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy was issued in 1534. It is a fact. Here is a copy of the document from the English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 203, C.22, CAP. I, 26 Hen. VIII, Anno. Dom. 1534:

With the stroke of a pen, the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope in Rome.

But that is not the end of the story. In 1554, there issued another Act of Supremacy from Henry's Catholic daughter Mary, English Statutes at Large, 2 Stat. 473, C. 8, CAP. VIII., Anno primo & secundo Philippi & Maria, A.D. 1554.

That one starts, [boldface added, archaic letters modernized]

An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome, since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the Laity.

Whereas since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth of famous Memory, Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign, and gracious Land and Queen, much false and erroneous Doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the Natural-born Subjects of this Realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other Foreign Countries, hath been sowen and spread abroad within the same: (2) By Reason whereof, as well the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such Time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the Seat Royal over us, and then by his Divine and gracious Providence that in marriage with the most noble and virtuous Prince the King our Sovereign Lord your Husband, the Pope's Holiness and the See Apolostick sent hither unto your Majesties (as unto Persons undehled, and by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad; (3) and we, after sundry long and grievous Plagues and Calamities, seeing by the Goodness of God our own Errors, have knowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been and are the rather at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance, to repeal and abrogate such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said twentieth Year of the said King Henry the Eigth, against the Supremacy of the See Apostolick, as in our Submission exhibited to the said most Reverend Father in God by your Majesties appeareth: The Tenour whereof ensueth.

II. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selvers particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might inpugne the same:

[...]

It is not possible to maintain that the England did not recognize the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, both before and after Act of Supremacy of Henry VIII in 1534. It is a matter of documented history.

The full Act of Supremacy of 1554 follows.

I do not allege that England recognized the supremacy of the Pope in Rome, I provide a complete copy of the document which did it, from the English Statutes at Large.

But yes, for some reason the Irish have historically preferred to submit to the Pope rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

They did not and do not fight about religion.

The English invaded and conquered Ireland. Afterwards the Irish were largely ruled by Scots Presbyterians. The Irish and the invaders did not mix much, so one can observe the division as ethnic or religious, separatist or unionist, or republican or unionist.

For some reason the conquerors thought it a swell idea during the potato famine to be exporting food from Ireland. For some reason the starving Irish did not appreciate starving.

But the rest of the British Isles have historically been loyal to their Archbishop rather than the Pope.

Tell it to William Wallace. Scots and English get on swell.

And that is indeed the reason for a lot of fighting (and segregation, etc.) in Ireland over the centuries (unfortunately).

In the present tense, there is no fighting and seperation in Ireland, and there has not been for quite some time. The fighting and segregation is, and has been, in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. Note that Scotland and Northern Ireland are not part of Great Britain.

Ireland is a seperate sovereign nation altogether. The fighting in Northern Ireland was about the seperatists wanting to reunite the six counties of Northern Ireland with the twenty-six counties of the Republic of Ireland. They were partitioned in 1921.

And that's why my Grandmother's family left Ireland and came here.

The second largest religious group in Ireland is the Anglicans, at under 3%.

Northern Ireland (2011) had 40.2% Catholic, 20.7% Presbyterian, and 13.7% Anglican, and 3% Methodist.

When I lived in Northern Ireland, it was between the Battle of the Bogside and the start of internment. Derry (or Londonderry) was predominantly Catholic. When I say predominantly, in 2011 there were 67.4% Catholic to 19.4% Protestant. The districts were gerrymandered to result in Protestant control of the city council. The police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary or RUC, were 100% Protestant. Since 2001 it is the Police Service of Northern Ireland or PSNI, integrated, but still majority Ulster Protestant. All civil service jobs were Protestant. At the U.S. base, now closed, the civilian employees were nearly 100% Catholic.

At least now most everyone has calmed down and just want peace (even though there are still some occasional flare-ups in that crazy country).

Well, if it is crazy for a majority to oppose rule by an alien minority, they were crazy. The crazy ones consider it British Occupied Ireland. Until fairly recently, the Irish constitution also claimed all thirty-two counties and anyone born in Northern Ireland could just go to Ireland and get an Irish passport.

There have been dozens of uprisings since 1534. There will probably be more.

It has not really stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident_Irish_Republican_campaign

Excerpt

In the run-up to Christmas 2013, there was a surge in dissident republican activity. This included the first bombings in Belfast city centre in a decade. On 25 November a car bomb partially exploded outside Victoria Square Shopping Centre and a PSNI base. A man was forced to drive the bomb to the spot and raised the alarm. On 13 December a small bomb exploded in a holdall outside St Anne's Square, following a telephoned warning. Nobody was hurt in the attacks, which were claimed by ONH. Also in December, two PSNI patrols were the target of automatic gunfire in Belfast.

In February 2014 the Real IRA (or 'New IRA') sent seven letter bombs to British Army recruitment offices in south-east England; the first time republican militants struck in Britain since 2001. The following month, a PSNI Land Rover was hit by a horizontal mortar in Belfast. A civilian car was also hit by debris, but there were no injuries. It was the first successful attack of its kind in more than ten years. On 25 December in North Belfast, police came under fire but were not injured. The attacker was charged with attempted murder. Days later, on 27 November 2015, police in West Belfast came under heavy fire. No officers were wounded, thanks to their vehicle's armour-plating and bullet-proof glass.

They did not and do not fight about religion.

That is not true, not true at all, according to what Grandma told me. Her parents, being Protestants and therefore persecuted in Ireland for their religion,and also because of the potato famine you talk about which is only part of it, came to America to escape all of that. And in America she married a Jew. On the other side, my mother is/was a full-blooded German. That would never happen in Ireland or probably anywhere in Europe. I thank God every day that my parents met in America, the great "melting pot."

And it is not just in northern Ireland. Virtually all wars in the history of wars, or at least modern wars, have been fought over religion so your statemente is pretty laughable.

But I have some very Good News! I am predicting that in 2017, or else 2018, All of the Churches established by St. Peter, including my Church, will come back together as one, after 1000 years of the being united as one before the Pope got a wild hair up his butt and added one word to the Nicene Creed which caused the "Great Schism." And that is when all hell broke loose (i.e., the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and the Crusades, and all that).

Fast forward one thousand years to today. Now there are about 10,000 schisms, and counting, and the world has completely gone to hell.

And even as we speak my prediction is coming to pass. The Archbihop of Canterbury is currently holding talks with the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the stated purpose of bringing our Churches back together for the first time in a 1000 years. But the current Pope at the present time at least, is refusing to join the talks. But it may yet happen, but IMHO probably after the current Pope is dead. (And no I am not making a death threat, but everyone has to meet their maker at some point).

Anyhow, when all the Churches established by St. Peter and his successors come back together (including the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists, et al), then and only then will we be able to defeat the 7th head of Satan (Islam) in the final battle between good and evil. Then we will rule the Earth unhindered by Satan for a 1000 years! Barry Midyet BTW I haven't posted in 3 days basically because it took 3 days to get Harvey out of my boat, and for everything to return to some semblance of normal on the Gulf Coast and now a hurricane far worse than Harvey is coming, and I'm stocking up for the next one, a 4000 year storm the weathermen are saying.

I know all this because that is what I learned in the 7 week Catachism class I had to sit through in order to join the English Church.

They did not and do not fight about religion.

That is not true, not true at all, according to what Grandma told me. Her parents, being Protestants and therefore persecuted in Ireland for their religion,and also because of the potato famine you talk about which is only part of it, came to America to escape all of that.

Grandma didn't tell me much about Northern Ireland, but I lived there and married a local there.

Grandma is delusional if she thought protestants were persecuted in Ireland, or that it was about religion.

Your grandma would have to have left so long ago that it would most likely predate the 26 Counties becoming an independent nation in 1949 when it left the British Commonwealth.

The Potato Famine was from 1845 - 1852. It only affected the potato crop. During the famine, the country under British occupation and rule exported food. You do realize that your Granny had to be born 165 years ago to have been around during the Irish potato famine. It predates the American Civil War. It was the Catholics being persecuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Irish food exports during Famine

Rioters in Dungarvan attempt to break into a bakery; the poor could not afford to buy what food was available. (The Pictorial Times, 1846)

Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests. No such export ban happened in the 1840s.

Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food. In the magazine History Ireland (1997, issue 5, pp. 32–36), Christine Kinealy, a Great Hunger scholar, lecturer, and Drew University professor, relates her findings: Almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, and London during 1847, when 400,000 Irish men, women, and children died of starvation and related diseases. She also writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon, and ham actually increased during the Famine. This food was shipped under British military guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland; Ballina, Ballyshannon, Bantry, Dingle, Killala, Kilrush, Limerick, Sligo, Tralee, and Westport. A wide variety of commodities left Ireland during 1847, including peas, beans, onions, rabbits, salmon, oysters, herring, lard, honey, tongues, animal skins, rags, shoes, soap, glue, and seed. The most shocking export figures concern butter. Butter was shipped in firkins, each one holding 9 imperial gallons; 41 litres. In the first nine months of 1847, 56,557 firkins (509,010 imperial gallons; 2,314,000 litres) were exported from Ireland to Bristol, and 34,852 firkins (313,670 imperial gallons; 1,426,000 litres) were shipped to Liverpool, which correlates with 822,681 imperial gallons (3,739,980 litres) of butter exported to England from Ireland during nine months of the worst year of the Famine. The problem in Ireland was not lack of food, which was plentiful, but the price of it, which was beyond the reach of the poor.

And in America she married a Jew. On the other side, my mother is/was a full-blooded German. That would never happen in Ireland or probably anywhere in Europe. I thank God every day that my parents met in America, the great "melting pot."

It is not the most likely thing in Ireland, but mainly due to the scarcity of Germans and Jews.

And it is not just in northern Ireland. Virtually all wars in the history of wars, or at least modern wars, have been fought over religion so your statemente is pretty laughable.

The difference, of course, being that I lived there and married there during The Troubles, and you have no idea of what you are talking about. The Troubles have always been about a foreign occupying group. If the Mexicans conquered Texas and instituted Mexican rule, there would be some troubles, but religion would not be the cause. The new occupiers could declare complete freedom of religion and somehow I feel that the Texans would not be satisfied.

But I have some very Good News! I am predicting that in 2017, or else 2018, All of the Churches established by St. Peter, including my Church, will come back together as one, after 1000 years of the being united as one before the Pope got a wild hair up his butt and added one word to the Nicene Creed which caused the "Great Schism."

What was that one word?

And even as we speak my prediction is coming to pass. The Archbihop of Canterbury is currently holding talks with the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the stated purpose of bringing our Churches back together for the first time in a 1000 years. But the current Pope at the present time at least, is refusing to join the talks. But it may yet happen, but IMHO probably after the current Pope is dead. (And no I am not making a death threat, but everyone has to meet their maker at some point).

When the Catholic church adopts protestantism, it will cease to be the Catholic church. It remains the predominant Christian faith, in a sea of thousands of denominations, because it has not changed dramatically.

Anyhow, when all the Churches established by St. Peter and his successors come back together (including the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists, et al), then and only then will we be able to defeat the 7th head of Satan (Islam) in the final battle between good and evil.

It is good to hear that the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists are going to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church, the only church built by Jesus upon His rock, Peter. But I thought the Lutherans were established by Martin Luther, rahter than St. Peter or one of his successors, the Popes, the Holy See of Rome.

I'm stocking up for the next one, a 4000 year storm the weathermen are saying.

Be positive. If it is a 4,000 year storm the over and under on its arrival is 2,000 years, so expect it in 4,117 A.D.

[interpreter #94] Sorry, but I do not agree with you at all. The break with Rome in 1534 was just the latest in several breaks with Rome. In fact, it can well be argued that the Anglican Church was independent from Rome for a thousand years until the Pope sent the Norman Roman Catholic kings to conquer England by force.

We can agree to disagree. The historical documents clearly present historical facts, and you believe something else. You are completely entitled to your own opinions.

[interpreter #94] And England always had more liberal divorce laws than Rome, and that has nothing to do with Henry the 8th.

Of course, Henry VIII could get a divorce. But then, Henry VIII was a Catholic at the time and divorce meant ex-communication. And so, Henry VIII sought an ANNULMENT, not a divorce, from the Pope, so that he could remarry in the Church. The Pope said NO. And so it came to pass that Henry VIII started his own religion where his behavior, unacceptable to the Roman Catholic Religion, suddenly became acceptable. And then along came Queen Anne in 1559 and the Church of England bent a knee to Rome, begged forgiveness for its heresies, acknowledged the Supremacy of the Holy See in Rome, and rejoined the Church of Christ in Rome.

[interpreter #95] You are so funny. I cannot read one word of that small print old-English document, except for the tile which appears to have bloody Mary's name on it.

By Bloody Mary, I assume you mean the then reigning Queen of England and the then head of the Church of England.

I thought I had provided a nice clear excerpt, as well as a copy of the complete 458-year old document. It must not have appeared on your monitor for some reason so, to make amends, I will repeat what my copy says.

An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome, since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclestiastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the Laity.

Whereas since the twentieth Year of King Henry the Eighth of famous Memory, Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign, and gracious Land and Queen, much false and erroneous Doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the Natural-born Subjects of this Realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other Foreign Countries, hath been sowen and spread abroad within the same: (2) By Reason whereof, as well the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such Time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the Seat Royal over us, and then by his Divine and gracious Providence that in marriage with the most noble and virtuous Prince the King our Sovereign Lord your Husband, the Pope's Holiness and the See Apolostick sent hither unto your Majesties (as unto Persons undehled, and by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad; (3) and we, after sundry long and grievous Plagues and Calamities, seeing by the Goodness of God our own Errors, have knowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been and are the rather at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance, to repeal and abrogate such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said twentieth Year of the said King Henry the Eigth, against the Supremacy of the See Apolostick, as in our Submission exhibited to the said most Reverend Father in God by your Majesties appeareth: The Tenour whereof ensueth.

II. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selvers particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might inpugne the same:

[...]

As you can now hopefully see, there was an admission in 1559 that "the Spiritualty as the Temporalty of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the See Apostolick, and declined from the Unity of Christ's Church," and "by God's Goodness preserved from the common Infection aforesaid) and to the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God the Lord Cardinal Pool, Legate de latere, [was sent] to call us home again into the right Way from whence we have all this long while wandred and strayed abroad."

And they declared their repentance, "at the Contemplation of your Majesties received and embraced into the Unity and Bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our humble Submission and Promise made for a Declaration of our Repentance...."

And they took a knee and begged forgiveness from the See Apostolic, and acknowledged the Supremacy of the See Apostolic,

We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole Body of the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the same, in the Name of our selves particularly, and also of the said Body universally, in this our Supplication directed to your Majesties, with most humble Suit, that it may by your Graces Intercession and Mean be exhibited to the Father Pope July the third and the See Apostolick of Rome, do declare our selves very sorry and repentent of the Schism and Disobedience committed in this Realm and Dominions aforesaid against the said See Apostolic, either by making, agreeing or executing any Laws, Ordinances or Commandments, against the Supremacy of the said See....

I am sorry that only one word of the last copy was readable and hope this satisfies the deficiency.

But my main point is, there was also a lot of persecutions/conflicts during the Potato famine and through-out Ireland's history.

The founders of the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist Churches were all direct successors to Peter through the process called "the laying on of hands". But I did not say they were coming back together with the Roman Church (at least not any time soon). I said (or I meant to say) they would come back together with Canterbury and the six Orthodox Patriarchs, either in 2017 or 2018. At the present moment, the current Pope in Rome is refusing to take part in the talks which he considers blasphemy. But it can also be argued that it makes no difference. The Roman Catholic kings of today (the six Presidents and PM's of the six predominantly Roman Catholic nations in NATO) will overrule the Pope and unite as one with the Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox nations in the 24 Christian-nation Alliance that is prophesied, that will rule the Earth for a thousand years.

And the Roman Church has changed and dramatically. For one thing, the Pope now says the Roman Church is the only Church established by St. Peter. It is one of many Churches established by St. Peter including the Jerusalem and Antioch Churches as recorded in the Bible. That change is a brand new change in doctrine on top of many other changes (Luther listed 17) that Protestants are protesting.

As for Irma, what the Meterologists are basically saying is that Irma is the worst storm in recorded history, because history did not begin to be recorded until about 4000 yeas ago, which is when the Genesis account of the great flood in the Gaden of Eden was written, and Archeologists and other Sumerian writings confirm that a couple big floods did indeed occur in Mesopotamia about the time the Bible says it did. In other words, Irma is the biggest weather event since the days of Noah.

Barry M

Henry the 8th did NOT start his own religion. The Church of England was estabished in 47 AD for God's sake, and long before the Church in Rome.

I am afraid this is impossible. You cannot have a Church of England centuries before there was an England.

There was no England in 47 AD, and there was no Church of England in 47 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in the 10th century, and since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century, has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world.

The Church in Rome, the most holy Church of Jesus Christ, created by Jesus Christ and built upon His rock, St. Peter, existed from the time that Jesus Christ ordained it, with St. Peter being the first Pope, and the apostles being sent forth to spread the faith.

Matthew 16:18 (NAS) — "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matthew 16:18 (Living Bible) — "You are Peter, a stone; and upon this rock I will build my church; and all the powers of hell shall not prevail against it."

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) — "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Matthew 16:18 (DRB) — "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

Catholic doctrine would hold,

"Upon this rock": The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

The spreading of the faith then reached what would become England centuries later, and with that the most holy Church of Jesus Christ, under the papacy of St. Peter, became established in that land which, centuries later, would become England. It was not called the Church of England as there was no such place in existence. The Angles, from whom the name England is derived, did not arrive until the 5th century A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

The Church of England (C of E) is the state church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury (currently Justin Welby) is the most senior cleric, although the monarch is the supreme governor. The Church of England is also the mother church of the international Anglican Communion. It traces its history to the Christian church recorded as existing in the Roman province of Britain by the third century, and to the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury.

The English church renounced papal authority when Henry VIII failed to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in the 1530s. The English Reformation accelerated under Edward VI's regents, before a brief restoration of papal authority under Queen Mary I and King Philip. The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach and the Elizabethan Settlement charted a course enabling the English church to describe itself as both Catholic and Reformed:

King Henry VIII, as his predecessors, was a member of the Catholic Church established in England. The only way he could remarry in the Church was to obtain an annulment. Within his then-Catholic faith, a divorce meant ex-communication. When Henry VIII sought an annnulment from the Catholic Church in Rome, and said annulment was denied by the Pope, Henry VIII had a mad and, in 1534, renounced the authority of the Pope and started a religion with himself as the head honcho, and this new religion recognized an annulment granted to Henry VIII, and recognized Henry VIII through numerous annulments, divorces, and spousal beheadings.

In 1555, when Henry VIII had the decency to die, Queen Mary renounced the heresies of Henry VIII, acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope in religious matters, begged forgiveness, and the Church of England rejoined the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome. In 1559, Queen Elizabeth again seperated from the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.

It is ludicrous to maintain that the Church of England was founded about 500 years before England was founded. It is equally ludicrous to maintain that Henry VIII sought an annulment from the Pope in Rome if he was not of that Church. Nor would it make sense to declare a seperation from the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome if the Church of England was not of that church. Nor could Queen Anne and the Church of England rejoin the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome had it not been of that church. Queen Anne only renounced the heresies of Henry VIII. Had the Church of England not been of the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome for the previous 1,500 years, renouncing the heresies of Henry VIII would have been seriously underwhelming.

Well it was my greatgrandparents who experienced the potato famine (who I didn't know because I wasn't born yet).

Well, what you said was,

That is not true, not true at all, according to what Grandma told me. Her parents, being Protestants and therefore persecuted in Ireland for their religion, and also because of the potato famine you talk about which is only part of it, came to America to escape all of that.

I was just pointing out that any actual observation of the famine was at least 165 years ago, pre-dating the American Civil War.

At page 8 of your book, you point out that Great Grandpa was a Christian and a Jew, and attended synagogue on Saturday and church on Sunday. I seriously doubt he was persecuted for being a Christian on Sunday. As for Jews in Ireland 165 years ago, I have no idea. Historically, the total Jewish population of IOreland peaked at around 5,000, and there are about 1,500 today, with the majority having been in Dublin.

But my main point is, there was also a lot of persecutions/conflicts during the Potato famine and through-out Ireland's history.

This is undoubtedly true, as stated. It is historical fact that the persecutions were of the Irish who were almost entirely Catholic, by the occupiers who were not.

The Irish were forbidden to speak or teach the Irish language, to keep their name if it were something like O'Sullivan (the "O" had to go), and in times of famine, they were denied any government aid if they owned land. They were given the choice of forfeiting their land or starve. They were not in a position to persecute anyone.

The founders of the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist Churches were all direct successors to Peter through the process called "the laying on of hands". But I did not say they were coming back together with the Roman Church (at least not any time soon).

The Church of England left the most holy Roman Catholic Church in 1534 A.D., but took a knee, admitted heresy, begged forgiveness, and rejoined the most holy Roman Catholic Church in 1559, later to depart once again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in the 10th century, and since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century, has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world.

And the Roman Church has changed and dramatically. For one thing, the Pope now says the Roman Church is the only Church established by St. Peter.

- - - - -

The founders of the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist Churches were all direct successors to Peter through the process called "the laying on of hands". But I did not say they were coming back together with the Roman Church (at least not any time soon).

What you said:

Anyhow, when all the Churches established by St. Peter and his successors come back together (including the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists, et al)

St. Peter did not found a church. Jesus founded a church. By the biblical words directly attributed to Jesus Christ, He founded a church upon His rock, St. Peter. Jesus Christ founded one such church, as stated at Matthew 16:18. If all the churches established by men are not coming back together with the church founded by Jesus Christ, what are they coming back to together with? How can all the churches established by St. Peter (sic - Jesus) and his successors (sic - Jesus), not include the Church of Christ established by Jesus upon His rock, Peter?

"Laying on of hands" is not the process of Jesus Christ as memorialized at Matthew 16:18. I don't care if someone chooses to do that, but I do not personally find that in any bible. What I find in the bible is that Jesus founded His church, and by what act he did so.

In your book, The Revelation, A Historicist View, Westbow Press, © 2017 by Barry Midyet, Westbow Press rev. date 3/2/2017, at page 20, you assert that,

[T]he Anglican Church, now the de facto head honcho of the West, will soon replace Rome as the western lampstand.

Not only is the Anglican Church not the de facto head honcho of the West, it is collapsing in England on center stage, in a dramatic way. Organized Christian religion has been declining, but the Anglican Church is leading the way.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983

New research: 49% have no religion, Anglican Church collapse continues, Islam increases ten-fold since 1983

Posted: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:43
National Secular Society

[...]

The percentage of non-religious people has increased from 31% in 1983, to 49% in 2014. Conversely, the share belonging to the Church of England has fallen from 40% to 17% over the same time period.

This means that by-far the single largest group of people is the non-religious. Based on estimates from the Office of National Statistics, there are 24.7 million non-believers in the UK. The next single-highest group is Anglicans on 8.6 million. However, according to the NatCen figures, the "nones" have outnumbered Anglicans since at least 1994- when there were over 2 million more non-believers.

The picture is different for non-Anglican Christians however. Roman Catholics have dropped by only 2 percentage points, from 10% of the population in 1983 to 8% last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/church-of-england-attendance-decline-30-years-general-assembly

Church of England expects attendance to fall for next 30 years

C of E general assembly hears ‘much gloomier’ prediction as congregations age and young people spurn organised religion

The scale of the Church of England’s atrophy has been starkly set out by figures presented to its general assembly that show church attendance will continue to fall for the next 30 years.

Previously, the church predicted that its decline in numbers was likely to continue for another five years before recovering.

But John Spence, the C of E’s finance chief, said on Wednesday that the decline was expected to continue for another three decades, with today’s figures of 18 people per 1,000 regularly attending church falling to 10 per 1,000. An 81-year-old was eight times more likely to attend church than a 21-year-old, he said.

“On all likely measures of success, given the demographics of the church, it is unlikely we will see a net growth in church membership within the next 30 years,” said Spence. “I could have given you other facts, but I think you get the point.”

The figures illustrate the challenge facing a church whose congregations are ageing as the millennial generation increasingly spurns organised religion.

[snip]

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/11/08/4571329.htm

How the Church of England Lost the English People

Linda Woodhead
ABC Religion and Ethics
8 Nov 2016

Linda Woodhead is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University. She is the co-author of That Was the Church That Was: How the Church of England Lost the English People.

"The Church of England. Loving Jesus with an air of superiority since 597." So goes the old joke, but the last few decades have seen this once-proud Church brought it to its knees.

The Church of England's own statistics, published late last month, show attendance falling relentlessly by 1% a year, and funerals declining even faster - down 30% since 2005. Today only about 1% of the population (750,000) are in one of its churches on Sunday, and fewer than one in three have an Anglican funeral.

Church leaders like to blame "secularization" but a glance at the Church of England's sister churches in Scandinavia shows this can't be the whole story.

Take the Church of Denmark, a fellow Reformation church integral to the project of nation-building and existing today in the context of an affluent liberal democracy. Its decline is far slower than the Church of England's, with over three-quarters of Danes still choosing to pay church tax, 83% having a Church funeral and two-thirds of Danish babies baptised.

Compare that with England where well under a third of the population identify as Church of England and just 1 in 10 babies are baptised. The only similarity between the two is a very low rate of Sunday churchgoing: around 1% of the population. But for these societal rather than congregational churches, Sunday attendance has never been as important as occasional offices.

As a sociologist of religion, I have spent much of my career tracking the Church of England's collapse; as an Anglican who once trained ordinands, my concern is more than professional. This year I published a book with Andrew Brown, religious correspondent of the London Guardian, to explain what went wrong.

The underlying answer we give in That Was the Church That Was is, in some ways, blindingly obvious: religion flourishes when it is enmeshed with the lives of those it serves and dies when it no longer connects. Societal churches depend on a healthy relationship with their societies, even when there is mutual criticism. But in England, after the 1980s, the increasingly stretched ties between the two snapped. Church and society spun off in different orbits. The gulf is now so profound that, despite residual constitutional ties, the chance of reconciliation is virtually zero.

[snip]

https://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2015/06/04/uk-49-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983/

New research: 49% have no religion, Anglican Church collapse continues, Islam increases ten-fold since 1983

Posted: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:43

New findings by the National Centre for Social Research have confirmed the long-term collapse in affiliation with the Church of England and the huge increase in non-belief.

Strikingly, the research also found that there had been a ten-fold increase in those identifying with Islam in the past 32 years. In 1983, Islam represented around half a percentage point of Britain’s population but in 2014 it had reached 5%, the research found.

“The proportion of people saying that they are Anglican has fallen quite dramatically in the last ten years, coinciding with a rise in people saying they are not religious,” NatCen noted.

The percentage of non-religious people has increased from 31% in 1983, to 49% in 2014. Conversely, the share belonging to the Church of England has fallen from 40% to 17% over the same time period.

[snip]

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rome.htm

An Orthodox Comment on the Decline of Anglicanism:

The Path to R.O.M.E., R.O.M.A. and R.O.M.A.N.Z.

The consecration in the USA of an active homosexual to the Anglican episcopate is leading to a Schism in the worldwide Anglican communion.

At first sight it may seem very strange that it is this which may lead to the final collapse of that denomination. Anglicanism was always based on a compromise between Protestantism and Catholicism in the desire to avoid the descent of a State into Civil War. For centuries Anglicanism has boasted of its 'comprehensiveness', the idea that 'dogmas' do not matter. As such, in the nineteenth century, Anglicanism laid the foundation-stone of ecumenism.

In recent decades it seemed not to matter in Anglicanism whether you believed or not in the Holy Trinity, in the Divinity of Christ, in the Resurrection, in the Virginity of the Ever-Virgin, in sacraments and therefore a male priesthood. Faith could be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Belief in the basics was optional. Being all things to all men, you could believe in anything you wanted - except in disunity. All the above divergences were indeed swept under the carpet - and as a result outward unity survived. And now this, the challenge to simple Christian morality, is leading to the suicide of a denomination.

However, looking more deeply at this phenomenon, we should not be surprised. The rejection of the fundamental revelations to the Church about the nature of God, the rejection of the 'dogmas' formulated by the saints of the first millennium, leads inevitably to the rejection of basic Christian morality. After an initial period of hypocrisy, sooner or later the collapse of the spiritual and dogmatic basis of any Christian group leads automatically to its moral collapse.

This is a law. Without spirituality, there is hypocrisy, followed by visible moral collapse. Here it is happening before our very eyes, proof that spiritual collapse always precedes moral collapse. The loss of belief in basic spiritual truths leads to the loss of belief in basic moral truths. Never underestimate the moral significance of the spiritual revelations of dogma.

Some are now looking to Catholicism as a refuge from Protestant divisions and sectarianism. But not many. Everybody knows that once the present ailing Pope has gone from the stage, Catholicism, especially in Western countries, may well implode. 99% of Western Catholics do not accept Papal Infallibility, clerical celibacy or rulings against artificial contraception. The gulf between the ordinary Roman Catholic and the Vatican has rarely been so wide. Pedophile scandals have ruined Catholicism, both morally and financially, even in recent strongholds like Ireland. In many ways the ill-health of Pope John-Paul II seems to be symbolic of that of a whole organisation, teetering on the brink of decay and division. An old, frail and shaky structure which is about to die, having come to the term of it historical existence.

Others look to the Orthodox Churches for authority.

[snip]

As for the Anglican Church, it may be fast losing members in England (and the US branch), but world-wide it is growing, and especially in Africa. Even in the US, there are some Episcopal Churches that are growing. They are the ones who have not changed anything from what St.Peter and the first- century Church taught, and do not ordain/hire gay priests or perform same- sex marriages for example.

But the main reason I say the Anglican Church is the de facto head-honcho in the west is because Great Britain and the US, both founded by Anglicans, are the two most powerful nations on Earth, in other words,the de facto head honcho(s) of the west, if not the whole Earth.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is merely just making it official. The Patriarch of Constantinople has already removed the Roman Church (about a thousand years ago as prophesied in the letter to Ephesus which is also directed to Rome), and a thousand years later he is now planning on replacing Rome with Canterbury, which is also hinted at (or signified) in the Revelation (See Rev. 2:5 for starters). And it is occurring right on time. In the Dispensational View of things, the Church was united as one for 1000 years, then it was not for 1000 years, now it will be united as one again and for a thousand years (with or without Rome because Rome can be replaced, but it may be that Rome may also rejoin with the other Churches at some point to fully complete the picture). Either way, it will result in a glorious Heaven on Earth for a thousand years.

But I am very impressed that you have actually read my book. Did you buy a copy or are you just reading from Amazon's free excerpt? I suspect the latter. But if you want to read the whole thing and for cheap, I am pleased to announce that my updated e-book version is now out. It is available at BN.com (Barnes and Nobles). It has 20 full-color images, some of them original paintings, and is so much better than the B&W paperback version.

The e-book is quite affordable at $3.99 and it doesn't waste any trees, so it is a win-win deal.

[interpreter #102] You just love to nit-pick everything I say. There may not have been a country called England in 47 AD, but I can assure you that Canterbury existed in 47AD, and that a Church was founded there in 47AD.

The first rule of digging holes is, when you in up to your neck, stop digging.

What you had claimed:

[interpreter #100] The Church of England was established in 47 AD for God's sake, and long before the Church in Rome.

I responded with the inconvenient fact the England did not exist until the 5th century A.D. I do not consider it nitpicking that you have the Anglican church existing in Durovernum Cantiacorum 47 A.D., when the Church in Canterbury was established in 597 A.D. when both England and Canterbury actually existed.

In your latest reimagination of history, based on nothing, you fantasize that the city of Canterbury was there in 47 A.D., and that at that time the Anglican Church was established with an Archbishop of Canterbury of said Anglican Church.

Excretions emanating from your cranial sphincter do not replace facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durovernum_Cantiacorum

Durovernum Cantiacorum

Watling Street linked Britain to the rest of the Roman Empire.

Durovernum Cantiacorum was a town and hillfort (oppidum) in Roman Britain at the site of present-day Canterbury in Kent. It occupied a strategic location on Watling Street at the best local crossing of the Stour, which prompted a convergence of roads connected to the ports of Dubris (Dover), Rutupiae (Richborough), Regulbium (Reculver) and Portus Lemanis (Lympne). Considerable archaeological evidence of Roman activity has been found in Canterbury, much of which can now be found in the Roman Museum built on the remains of a Roman townhouse.

Origins

Plan of Durovernum

from The Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury and The Saxon Saints Buried Therein

The name Durovernum Cantiacorum is Latin for "Durovernum of the Cantiaci", preserving the name of an earlier British town whose ancient British name has been reconstructed as *Durouvernon ("Stronghold by the Alder Grove"),[1] although the name is sometimes supposed to have derived from various British names for the Stour.[2] The Iron-Age oppidum at the site was triple-ditched. The site seems to have been occupied and fortified by the Romans shortly after their invasion in AD 43. Military occupation continued until at least the time of Boudica's rebellion.

Development

There is no evidence of much development in Durovernum until the Flavian period (69-96), after demilitarisation.[3] It became the civitas capital of the Cantiaci (Cantii) tribes.

A large religious and administrative complex was soon established at its centre, consisting of forum and basilica, temple enclosure and theatre. The theatre, originally built around AD 80, was totally rebuilt in the early 3rd century. It was probably associated with religious festivals as much as the dramatic arts. The public baths were just to the north-east. A number of other possible temple and/or church sites have also been identified. The town was enclosed by defensive walls in the late 3rd century and was given single-arched gateways. Private buildings within the walls were originally of timber, but were later replaced with stone and some furnished with mosaic floors. An extensive complex of wooden pipes serviced the town. Industries included brick, tile and pottery production, as well as bronze working. There were many commercial shops, notably a baker's shop with donkey-driven millstone. Cemeteries outside the town appear to have continued in Christian use and St Martin's Church appears to be built around an old Roman mausoleum which stood in one of these.

Decline

Because of its links with Gaul, Durovernum seems to have survived in good order until the Romans administration left around AD 410. However, after that, its decline was rapid. Hired mercenaries were used to defend the town but they revolted and, by the time of the Battle of Aylesford in the mid-5th century, the Jutes had taken over the area. The British and Latin name survived as the medieval Latin placenames Dorobernia and Dorovernia,[2] but it also became known in Old Welsh as Cair Ceint ("Fortress of Kent")[4][5] and in Old English as Cantwareburh ("Kentish Stronghold"),[6] which developed into the modern "Canterbury".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury

Early history

St. Augustine's Abbey, which forms part of the city's UNESCO World Heritage Site, was where Christianity was brought to England.

Main article: Durovernum Cantiacorum

The Canterbury area has been inhabited since prehistoric times. Lower Paleolithic axes, and Neolithic and Bronze Age pots have been found in the area.[11] Canterbury was first recorded as the main settlement of the Celtic tribe of the Cantiaci, which inhabited most of modern-day Kent. In the 1st century AD, the Romans captured the settlement and named it Durovernum Cantiacorum.[6] The Romans rebuilt the city, with new streets in a grid pattern, a theatre, a temple, a forum, and public baths.[12] Although they did not maintain a major military garrison, its position on Watling Street relative to the major Kentish ports of Rutupiae (Richborough), Dubrae (Dover), and Lemanae (Lymne) gave it considerable strategic importance.[13] In the late 3rd century, to defend against attack from barbarians, the Romans built an earth bank around the city and a wall with seven gates, which enclosed an area of 130 acres (53 ha).[12] St. Augustine's Abbey gateway

Despite being counted as one of the 28 cities of Sub-Roman Britain,[8][9] it seems that after the Romans left Britain in 410 Durovernum Cantiacorum was abandoned except by a few farmers and gradually decayed.[14] Over the next 100 years, an Anglo-Saxon community formed within the city walls, as Jutish refugees arrived, possibly intermarrying with the locals.[15] In 597, Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to convert its King Æthelberht to Christianity. After the conversion, Canterbury, being a Roman town, was chosen by Augustine as the centre for his episcopal see in Kent, and an abbey and cathedral were built. Augustine thus became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.[16] The town's new importance led to its revival, and trades developed in pottery, textiles, and leather. By 630, gold coins were being struck at the Canterbury mint.[17] In 672, the Synod of Hertford gave the see of Canterbury authority over the entire English Church.[10]

In 597, Pope Augustine sent Augustine to convert the people to Christianity. The Pope did that. In 597, when Canterbury and England actually existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury

Augustine of Canterbury

Not to be confused with Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine of Canterbury (born first third of the 6th century – died probably 26 May 604) was a Benedictine monk who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 597. He is considered the "Apostle to the English" and a founder of the English Church.[3]

Augustine was the prior of a monastery in Rome when Pope Gregory the Great chose him in 595 to lead a mission, usually known as the Gregorian mission, to Britain to Christianize King Æthelberht and his Kingdom of Kent from Anglo-Saxon paganism. Kent was probably chosen because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the King of Paris, who was expected to exert some influence over her husband. Before reaching Kent, the missionaries had considered turning back, but Gregory urged them on, and in 597, Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury.

King Æthelberht converted to Christianity and allowed the missionaries to preach freely, giving them land to found a monastery outside the city walls. Augustine was consecrated as a bishop and converted many of the king's subjects, including thousands during a mass baptism on Christmas Day in 597. Pope Gregory sent more missionaries in 601, along with encouraging letters and gifts for the churches, although attempts to persuade the native Celtic bishops to submit to Augustine's authority failed. Roman bishops were established at London and Rochester in 604, and a school was founded to train Anglo-Saxon priests and missionaries. Augustine also arranged the consecration of his successor, Laurence of Canterbury. The archbishop probably died in 604 and was soon revered as a saint.

Augustine of Canterbury was a Roman Catholic Benedictine missionary sent by the Pope to convert King Æthelberht from Anglo-Saxon Paganism to Christianity. Mission accomplished in 597.

550 years after your bleatings about 47 A.D., King Æthelberht from Anglo-Saxon Paganism to Christianity, by a Roman Catholic Benedictine missionary sent by the Roman Catholic Pope Gregory the Great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict

Order of Saint Benedict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Benedictine" redirects here.

For the Orthodox Benedictines, see Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox).

For the Anglican order of the same name, see Order of St. Benedict (Anglican).

For other uses, see Benedictine (disambiguation).

"O.S.B." redirects here. For other uses, see OSB.

Internationally, the order is governed by the Benedictine Confederation, a body, established in 1883 by Pope Leo XIII's Brief Summum semper, whose head is known as the Abbot Primate. Individuals whose communities are members of the order generally add the initials "OSB" after their names.

[...]

England

The English Benedictine Congregation is the oldest of the nineteen Benedictine congregations. Augustine of Canterbury and his monks established the first English Benedictine monastery at Canterbury soon after their arrival in 597. Other foundations quickly followed. Through the influence of Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, and Dunstan, the Benedictine Rule spread with extraordinary rapidity, and in the North it was adopted in most of the monasteries that had been founded by the Celtic missionaries from Iona. Many of the episcopal sees of England were founded and governed by the Benedictines, and no less than nine of the old cathedrals were served by the black monks of the priories attached to them.[1] Monasteries served as hospitals and places of refuge for the weak and homeless. The monks studied the healing properties of plants and minerals to alleviate the sufferings of the sick.[4]

Germany was evangelized by English Benedictines. Willibrord and Boniface preached there in the seventh and eighth centuries and founded several abbeys.[1]

In the English Reformation, all monasteries were dissolved and their lands confiscated by the Crown, forcing their Catholic members to flee into exile on the Continent. During the 19th century they were able to return to England, including to Selby Abbey in Yorkshire, one of the few great monastic churches to survive the Dissolution.

[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Benedictine_Congregation

English Benedictine Congregation

The English Benedictine Congregation (abbr. EBC) unites autonomous Roman Catholic Benedictine communities of monks and nuns and is technically among the oldest of the 18 congregations that are affiliated in the Benedictine Confederation (the oldest being the Camaldolese).

History and administration

Although the EBC claims technical canonical continuity with the congregation erected by the Holy See in 1216, that earlier English Congregation was destroyed at the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1535-40. The present English Congregation was revived and restored by Rome in 1607-33 when numbers of Englishmen and Welshmen had become monks in continental European monasteries and were coming to England as missioners.

At the beginning of the 21st century the EBC has Houses in the United Kingdom, the United States, South America and Africa.

Every four years the General Chapter of the EBC elects an Abbot President from among the Ruling Abbots with jurisdiction, and those who have been Ruling Abbots. He is assisted by a number of officials. Periodically he undertakes a Visitation of the individual Houses. The purpose of the Visitation is the preservation, strengthening and renewal of the religious life, including the laws of the Church and the Constitutions of the congregation. The President may require by Acts of Visitation, that particular points in the Rule, the Constitutions and the law of the Church be observed.

The current Abbot President is Abbot Christopher Jamison, former Abbot of Worth Abbey.

Houses of the present Congregation

United Kingdom:

• Ampleforth Abbey, fdd 1608 at Dieulouard
• Belmont Abbey, fdd 1859
• Buckfast Abbey, fdd 1882
• Colwich Abbey (nuns), fdd 1651 in Paris
• Curzon Park Abbey (nuns), fdd 1868
• Douai Abbey, fdd 1615 in Paris
• Downside Abbey, fdd 1607 in Douai
• Ealing Abbey, fdd 1897
• Stanbrook Abbey (nuns) fdd 1625 in Cambrai
• Worth Abbey, fdd 1933

As for the Anglican Order of St. Benedict, pimping off the name of the Roman Catholic saint, they were late comers to the party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St._Benedict_(Anglican)

Order of St Benedict (Anglican)

See also Order of Saint Benedict (Orthodox) for information on the Eastern Orthodox order of this name.

The Roman Catholic equivalent may be found at the Order of Saint Benedict and the Benedictine Confederation.

There are a number of Benedictine Anglican religious orders, some of them using the name Order of St. Benedict (OSB). Just like their Roman Catholic counterparts, each abbey / priory / convent is independent of each other. The vows are not made to an order, but to a local incarnation of the order, hence each individual order is free to develop its own character and charism, yet each under a common rule of life after the precepts of St. Benedict. Most of the communities include a confraternity of oblates. The order consists of a number of independent communities:

[...]

England

Alton Abbey, Alton, Hampshire. Men. Founded in 1884 as the Order of St Paul. https://altonabbey.com/

Edgware Abbey (The Community of St. Mary at the Cross), Edgware, Greater London. Women. Founded 1866; dedicated to stand with Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the cross, thus sharing in her commitment to embrace all people in Christ's love. Black tunic and scapular with modernised headdress, black veil, and leather belt. Over the years the community's work has evolved to meet the present needs of elderly frail people for nursing or residential care. This care provision continues in Henry Nihill House at Edgware Abbey, where Residents enjoy close links with the community, its worship and its life. www.edgwareabbey.org.uk

Salisbury Priory, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Men. Founded at Pershore 1914; resited at Nashdom Abbey, Buckinghamshire, 1926; resited at Elmore Abbey, Berkshire, 1987. In 2011 they relocated again to Salisbury.

Malling Abbey, West Malling, Kent. Women. Original foundation c. 1090. Re-founded in London 1891; resited to Somerset 1906; resited to West Malling 1916. www.mallingabbey.org

Mucknell Abbey, Stoulton, Worcestershire. A mixed-sex abbey with an ecumenical focus founded in 1941, and previously located at Burford Priory. www.mucknellabbey.org.uk

[...]

Regarding Malling Abbey, the original Roman Catholic Benedictine monastery was established circa 1090, and terminated with the surrender of Malling to the Crown on 28 October 1538 during Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries. The Anglican Benedictine community of nuns that has made its home at Malling Abbey since 1916 was founded in 1891.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malling_Abbey

The manor of West Malling was given by King Edmund I to Burgric (or Burhic), Bishop of Rochester, in 946. The land was lost to the church in the Danish Wars but was restored to the diocese in 1076. About 1090, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester and monk of Bec Abbey in Normandy, chose Malling as the site of his foundation for a community of Benedictine nuns, one of the first post-Conquest monasteries for women. Just before his death in 1108, Gundulf appointed the French nun Avicia as the first abbess.

Gundulf had endowed the community with the manor of Malling and Archbishop Anselm had given the manor of East Malling. Royal grants gave the nuns the rights to weekly markets and annual fairs as well as wood-cutting and pasturage rights in nearby royal forests. Bequests and gifts also added to the community’s income.

As the abbey prospered, West Malling became a flourishing market town. In the four-and-a-half centuries of Benedictine life at the abbey, major events included a fire in 1190 which destroyed much of the abbey and town, the Black Death in 1349 which reduced the community to four nuns and four novices, and the surrender of Malling to the Crown on 28 October 1538 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

[...]

Present

The Anglican Benedictine community of nuns that has made its home at Malling Abbey since 1916 was founded in 1891 as an active parish sisterhood. The sisters worked among the poor in Edmonton, north London, until they became attracted to the Benedictine contemplative life through the preaching of Abbot Aelred Carlyle. In 1906, they moved to a farmhouse in Baltonsborough, a remote village in Somerset, to begin their enclosed monastic life under Benedictine vows. In 1916, the trustees of Malling Abbey invited them to move to the more spacious and historic abbey and to continue its tradition of Benedictine prayer, worship, work, study and hospitality.

You are also ignoring the fact that St. Peter also established a Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and in Alexandra. I have not made anything up.

I definitely did not ignore your heretical claim that St. Peter established a church. Jesus Christ established His church. St. Peter went about spreading the faith, not establishing new churches. The church established by Jesus Christ was not a building or set of buildings, but a faith, a religion. There is the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ, assisted by his apostles, did not establish dozens of churches. They established ONE church. That ONE church was spread widely about the world.

It is the official teaching/doctrine of the Anglican Church so you are really dissing the Archbishop of Canterbury, and not merely me.

I cannot take your word for it that something is the official word of someone else. Document it.

And can you please explain why all Popes, until very recently, taught that St. Peter established all the Orthodox Churches in addition to the Church in Rome? What you are spouting off is revisionist history, and a lie.

I cannot explain your inane ramblings about some or all Popes.

That I decline to explain your symptoms does not indicate that I am lying.

Obviously, you are lacking in reading comprehension, or else you do not know English. I said Grandma told me about what my Greatgrandma said about Ireland.

Gee, I thought I understood that perfectly. You said your source was someone who gave you hearsay about a place she never lived in or visited, and about a famine of which she had no personal knowledge whatever.

As I stated, "I was just pointing out that any actual observation of the famine was at least 165 years ago, pre-dating the American Civil War."

You said, "Her [Grandmas's) parents, being Protestants and therefore persecuted in Ireland for their religion, and also because of the potato famine you talk about which is only part of it, came to America to escape all of that."

What you state is still nonsensical ignorance of Irish history.

And in most of Ireland in most of its history, sometimes the Roman Catholics were in charge and persecuting Protestants, and sometimes the Protestants were in charge and persecuting Roman Catholics.

This is, of course, a load of rubbish. The Irish were Gaelic-speaking Celts (pronounced as Kelts) when the English speaking British conquered Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

The Norman invasion of the late 12th century marked the beginning of more than 800 years of direct English rule and, later, British involvement in Ireland. In 1177 Prince John Lackland was made Lord of Ireland by his father Henry II of England at the Council of Oxford.[1] The Crown did not attempt to assert full control of the island until the rebellion of the Earl of Kildare threatened English hegemony. Henry VIII proclaimed himself King of Ireland and also tried to introduce the English Reformation, which failed in Ireland. Attempts to either conquer or assimilate the Irish lordships into the Kingdom of Ireland provided the initial impetus for a series of Irish military campaigns between 1534 and 1603. This period was marked by a Crown policy of plantation, involving the arrival of thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers, and the consequent displacement of the pre-plantation Catholic landholders. As the military and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland became more pronounced in the early seventeenth century, sectarian conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history.

The 1614 overthrow of the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament was realised principally through the creation of numerous new boroughs which were dominated by the new settlers. By the end of the seventeenth century, recusants (as adherents to the older religion were now termed), representing some 85% of Ireland's population, were then banned from the Irish Parliament. Protestant domination of Ireland was confirmed after two periods of war between Catholics and Protestants in 1641-52 and 1689-91. Political power thereafter rested entirely in the hands of a Protestant Ascendancy minority, while Catholics and members of dissenting Protestant denominations suffered severe political and economic privations under the Penal Laws.

Only Protestant denominations who dissented with the ruling minority were the subject of political and economic privations, and that was by the ruling minority, not the Irish Catholics.

In the 5th century A.D., Roman Britain was Roman Catholic and exported their religion to Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Ireland

Christianity has existed in Ireland since the 5th century and arrived from Roman Britain (most famously associated with St. Patrick), forming what is today known as Gaelic Christianity. It gradually gained ground and replaced the old pagan traditions. The Catholic Church in Ireland cites its origin to this period and considers Palladius as the first bishop sent to the Gaels by Pope Celestine I. However, during the 12th century a stricter uniformity in the Western Church was enforced, with the diocesan structure introduced with the Synod of Ráth Breasail in 1111 and culminating with the Gregorian Reform which coincided with the Norman invasion of Ireland.

As Ireland came to be occupied by the English Crown, which attempted to export the Protestant Reformation into Ireland, Irish national identity coalesced around the Irish Catholic concept in the 16th century.

So when in history did the Irish Catholics occupy a position of power to persecute the Protestants??? Cite a source other than your grandma told you that your great grandma told her.

But I dont even pretend to be an expert on Ireland, and if you want to say that most of the time in recent years it has been Protestants persecuting Roman Catholics, I might concede that, but if true, it is payback for when the Roman Catholics were in charge and doing the persecuting.

The Roman Catholics were never in charge from the time they were conquered until Dominionhood for 26 counties in 1922 and Statehood for those 26 counties in 1949.

In the 6 partitioned counties, the Catholics have not been in power since the conquest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

"A Protestant state" (1921–1972)

The 1920 Government of Ireland Bill created the state of Northern Ireland, which consisted of the six northeastern counties of Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Armagh.[39] From 1921 to 1972, Northern Ireland was governed by a Unionist government, based at Stormont in east Belfast. Unionist leader and first Prime Minister, James Craig, declared that it would be "a Protestant State for a Protestant People".

There followed,

Direct rule (1972–1999)

For the next 27½ years, with the exception of five months in 1974, Northern Ireland was under "direct rule" with a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the British Cabinet responsible for the departments of the Northern Ireland government. Direct Rule was designed to be a temporary solution until Northern Ireland was capable of governing itself again.

I was there during both the Protestant state and Direct rule.

Following Direct rule,

Devolution and direct rule (1999–present)

More recently, the Belfast Agreement ("Good Friday Agreement") of 10 April 1998 brought – on 2 December 1999 – a degree of power sharing to Northern Ireland, giving both unionists and nationalists control of limited areas of government.

However, both the power-sharing Executive and the elected Assembly were suspended between January and May 2000, and from October 2002 until April 2007, following breakdowns in trust between the political parties involving outstanding issues, including "decommissioning" of paramilitary weapons, policing reform and the removal of British army bases.

In new elections in 2003, the moderate Ulster Unionist and (nationalist) Social Democrat and Labour parties lost their dominant positions to the more hard-line Democratic Unionist and (nationalist) Sinn Féin parties. On 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA announced the end of its armed campaign and on 25 September 2005 international weapons inspectors supervised the full disarmament of the PIRA. Eventually, devolution was restored in April 2007.

Note that the degree of power sharing is between unionists and nationalists. The dissent is not about how to finish the Lord's Prayer.

Your knowledge of Irish history does not exist. Where in this history is your alleged period "when the Roman Catholics were in charge and doing the persecuting."

Here is who was held the power,

Protestant ascendancy (1691–1801)

The majority of the people of Ireland were Catholic peasants; they were very poor and largely inert politically during the eighteenth century, as many of their leaders converted to Protestantism to avoid severe economic and political penalties. Nevertheless, there was a growing Catholic cultural awakening underway.[27] There were two Protestant groups. The Presbyterians in Ulster in the North lived in much better economic conditions, but had virtually no political power. Power was held by a small group of Anglo-Irish families, who were loyal to the Anglican Church of Ireland.

- - - - - - - - - -

As for the Anglican Church, it may be fast losing members in England (and the US branch), but world-wide it is growing, and especially in Africa.

As I stated, and to which you now nominally reply or avoid,

In your book, The Revelation, A Historicist View, Westbow Press, © 2017 by Barry Midyet, Westbow Press rev. date 3/2/2017, at page 20, you assert that,

[T]he Anglican Church, now the de facto head honcho of the West, will soon replace Rome as the western lampstand.

Not only is the Anglican Church not the de facto head honcho of the West, it is collapsing in England on center stage, in a dramatic way. Organized Christian religion has been declining, but the Anglican Church is leading the way.

When you said the Anglican Church is now the de facto head honcho of the West, and will soon replace Rome, what you meant was that there were some Anglican missionaries stomping in African elephant dung. You could have just said that. However, they are probably outnumbered by Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons.

Even in the US, there are some Episcopal Churches that are growing. They are the ones who have not changed anything from what St.Peter and the first- century Church taught, and do not ordain/hire gay priests or perform same- sex marriages for example.

On the other hand, on page 28 of your book (no index in the 21st century!) you observe that your Church, the Episcopal Church, "has lost a lot of members and is dying. All of the letters are so prophetic and so true." Of course, that was published all the way back in January.

But the main reason I say the Anglican Church is the de facto head-honcho in the west is because Great Britain and the US, both founded by Anglicans, are the two most powerful nations on Earth, in other words,the de facto head honcho(s) of the west, if not the whole Earth.

And on page 29 of our book, you told your story of disgruntlement with your church, the Episcopal church, your consideration of an alternative, and finding the Serbian Orthodox Church in Houston, not to be confused with the Serbian Orthodox church in Galveston which had become Americanized. Ultimately you rejected that alternative after encountering two hurdles, having to give up all your existing beliefs, and having to bow your head all the way to the ground. So you "returned to the Episcopal church ... that [you] were born into." But all that is so last January.

And the Anglican church can claim a 0.3% following in the United States, with the Episcopalians claiming 0.9%, which certainly gives them a right to rule the West and establish a dynasty and rule the entire Earth. Because REASONS.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is merely just making it official. The Patriarch of Constantinople has already removed the Roman Church (about a thousand years ago as prophesied in the letter to Ephesus which is also directed to Rome), and a thousand years later he is now planning on replacing Rome with Canterbury, which is also hinted at (or signified) in the Revelation (See Rev. 2:5 for starters).

Did you happen to notice that the Roman Catholic church is still around and, as you said, book, page 28, the Episcopal church "has lost a lot of members and is dying." I believe dying is not a good sign. And with the Anglican church at 0.3%, three-tenths of one per cent, one needs a search party to find them.

Then again, book at 42, I see a reference to "The US church, and especially the Episcopal Church which founded our great nation." It is truly amazing, the things one can learn just by reading. I never knew that the Episcopal church was the U.S. church, and had founded the United States of America. My episcopal dad failed me on that one, and my history teachers.

But I am very impressed that you have actually read my book. Did you buy a copy or are you just reading from Amazon's free excerpt? I suspect the latter.

I am impressed that you are impressed that I can read a book. Your first statement in the comment to which I now reply stated, "Obviously, you are lacking in reading comprehension, or else you do not know English." I suspect you are merely impressed with my being a fast learner.

I am hurt that you suspect I only read free excerpts. I suspect you don't know what Amazon has excerpted and placed online. You do not think there is a whole copy online, available for free, do you?

But I do have an inquiry to make about the contents of your book at pages 93 to 95.

On page 93, you show a shutterstock depiction of the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States, with your caption being "The New Jerusalem on dollar bill."

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27807.pdf

The reverse of the Great Seal, sometimes referred to as the spiritual side of the seal, contains the 13-step pyramid with the year 1776 in Roman numerals on the base. At the summit of the pyramid is the Eye of Providence in a triangle surrounded by a Glory (rays of light) and above it appears the motto Annuit Coeptis. Along the lower circumference of the design appear the words Novus Ordo Seclorum, heralding the beginning of the new American era in 1776.

[...]

Although drawings of the obverse side of the Great Seal were done immediately upon adoption of the design in 1782, the first reverse was not drawn until 4 years later. A Philadelphia engraver, James Trenchard, working from the written description, produced a full page engraving of the reverse for the October 1786 issue of Columbian Magazine. He followed the law closely and produced an elongated, 13-step unfinished pyramid, with the two mottos, the date in Roman numerals, and the Eye of Providence in a blaze of glory.

The second drawing of the reverse was probably done by the artist and historian, Benson J. Lossing, to accompany an article he wrote on the Great Seal for the July 1856 issue of Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. Lossing gave his rather square pyramid a deep perspective and filled the ground around it with flowers and grass. He also changed Trenchard’s right Eye of Providence to a left eye, which it has been ever since. This drawing has influenced all later realizations of the written description of 1782, with the exception of the Great Seal Centennial Medal struck in 1882. The back of this medal, which followed closely Trenchard’s design, was the first realization of the reverse to be issued officially by the U.S. Government.

The design for the reverse was made available by the Continental Congress in case it was desired to impress the back surfaces of wax pendant seals. The United States used pendant seals for treaties from 1815 to 1871, but the backs were never impressed. Enthusiasm for cutting a die of the reverse has diminished, and to this day one has not been cut. The current official design of the reverse of the Great Seal follows almost exactly the Lossing drawing, and can be seen on the $1 bill.

Depicted in your book is the 1856 Benson Lossing drawing. On page 94 you observe that all the worthy will have to live on a new Earth, and said "new Earth is no doubt Mars." You further observe that living on Mars would require "a huge enclosed habitat like the New Jerusalem." On page 95 you further observe that on the reverse side of the dollar bill "the US is represented by the New Jerusalem," and that it is depicted as a pyramid because "our founding fathers, and most scientists, have deemed that for a structure the size of the New Jerusalem to support its own weight and be able to withstand earthquakes and storms, etc., it has to be pyramid shaped." And you observe that the New Jerusalem "happens to be exactly the right height for a space elevator on Mars, which is necessary for easy travel (for God and humans?) between the stars."

How was it determined that the pyramid on the Great Seal was just the right size for a space elevator? It has never existed except as a concept or as a drawing about four inches tall. And it is only 13 blocks high.

Why would we, much less God, need a space elevator? Can't they just use an eight chevron stargate powered by a zero point module, as all the scientists have said? And why would God need a device to travel ? Isn't He omnipresent, everywhere at once all the time?

How does a drawing of an unfinished pyramid from 1856 show that our founding fathers thought the U.S. was New Jerusalem and a pyramid was needed to withstand earthquakes and storms on Mars?

And most scientists who have deemed that we need a pyramid on Mars — who are they? Where can we read or hear what they said, in their own words? What did Dr. Daniel Tanz say?