Elected county officials, codes and ordinances, policies and other data provided by the National Association of Counties.

Provides genealogical information for researchers, brief history of the county, and links to the towns.

Provides current disaster and emergency information. Includes tips for staying safe during thunderstorms, floods, hurricanes, and winter storms.

Official site provides county history, municipalities, events, local attractions, officials, deeds, commissioners, and sheriffs department links.

Provides information on business events, activities and membership.

County seat located in South Paris. Provides information about members of Congress, State Legislators, cities, towns, law enforcement, schools, media, courts, census bureau, economic, and population estimates.

In article , Robert Sutherland
says...

>Mr.Felts:
>
>1. The problem with that interpretation is that it fails to do justice
>to two central portions of the Book of Job.

I have tried pointing this out to Mr. Felts before. I wish you better luck than
I had:-(

>(a) Job does put God on trial. (Job 27:1-31:33)

Job does _call_ for God to be put on trial, yes. But it is all too easy to
pretend that that call fell on deaf ears, and ignore the difficulty of
explaining God's appearance at the end of the book, or rationalize it away as
something _other_ than the answer to the summons.

In particular, it is too easy to believe that Job spoke boastfully in 21:1-6 in
defense of his own righteousness. After all, we have heard such words from
others all too often -- and in their case, it really _was_ boastfullness.

But this is why it is SO important to understand what God really means when He
calls Job PERFECT. Yet many are blinded by the false definition of 'perfect'
that allows Job to be considered perfect by 'declaratory righteousness', i.e.,
he was perfect only because God said so, NOT because he obeyed all
righteousness.

>He claims God is the
>author of undeserved evil in the world and must explain himself.

Your reference to such a large section, Job 27:1-31:33, leaves it unclear why
you think that Job made this specific complaint: others have read it as
something rather different, that Job was demanding specifically why God had
allowed _Job_ himself to be so smitten. The rest of 27:1-31:33 was explaining
why Job felt he had the right to make this demand.

>(b) God ultimately indicates Job was ‘right' in what he said about
>God. (Job 42:7-8) The Hebrew for "right" there is "kuwn" which means
>"to establish as right or true".[1] "The root meaning is to bring
>something into being with the consequence that its existence is a
>certainty."[2]

Although I did not go into this much detail on the word KUN (H3559) as you did,
I have reminded people of this often in this NG. Again, I wish you better luck
than I had.

>It does not carry with it any nuance of "sincerity"
>such that God might be understood to be excusing Job for speaking
>"sincerely", but "incorrectly".[3]

But did anyone claim this in this thread? Why do you mention it here?

>God is saying Job spoke "correctly".

Yes! And this is exactly what the mindless spokesmen for "conventional piety"
and "arbitrary righteousness" cannot bear to recognize!

>God declares Job's three friends have spoken "folly".
>The Hebrew word behind "folly" is "nebalah" which means "a senseless,
>impious,