but surprise surprise, people find new uses for having a more powerful processor in modern computers.
New "uses":
Windows 98
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
No surprise. Just a couple of Windows' generations ago, 256 MB of system memory was considered wildly excessive. Vista laughs out loud at that spec. Just to run the plain OS!
I've always thought it rather bizarre that Jesus is supposed to have been born on a fixed day (25th December), but his death (which is arguably even more important to Christianity) just kind of floats about sometime in spring.
Yes, this is ironic, because we do know the exact day (on the Hebrew calendar) of Jesus' resurrection, yet we do not know the day or even the season of His birth! I follow the argument for a Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) birth in the fall --born on the first day of the feast and circumcised on the eighth day of the feast, a high Sabbath called Shemini Atzeret, the day after the "Great Hosanna." "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us..." - John 1:14
Why can't they just agree on a single date and stick to it? I mean, they make up so much other nonsense and claim it as hard fact, so why not this as well?
The main reason has to do with the anti-Jew sentiment in the early Church (4th century+). They threw out the Biblical/Jewish calendar and holy days and devised its own ways concerning "Christian holy days." Contributing to the confusion today may also be that the word pascha in the scripture is outrageously "translated" to Easter in the King James Version Bible.
Easter is supposed to mark Messiah's resurrection, not the execution. The execution fulfilled the feast of Passover. The resurrection fulfills the Feast of Firstfruits three days later.
The execution and resurrection are historically separated by three days. Thus, "Good Friday" should be "Good Thursday." If Christians want to observe the day of the execution, they should simply go with Passover, the 15th of Nissan, regardless of the day of the week.
Actually, most Messianic Jews don't like the "Jews for Jesus" organization very much. It doesn't uphold Torah observance (which is probably a big factor as to why churches support it so much), and some of its tactics are unnecessarily offensive or otherwise brazenly inappropriate.
'Til then, sod off while we wait for the real Maschiach who ain't afraid to get involved in politics.
No, Huckabee was right: "[Mashiach] was too smart to ever run for public office." And when He comes back, He won't be coming to take a side. He'll be coming to take over! Politics shmolitics. He is Melech ha-Olam!
Why does your translation of the New Testament use Hebrew names?
They were Hebrew people. It's a matter of respect to call people by their actual names. Many Aramaic/Hebrew names have been Hellenized, Latinized, Anglicized, and then Americanized. This version of the Bible, which includes the B'rit Chadasha (see Yirmeyahu 31), seeks to restore the authentic Jewish "air" of the text.
It gives the thing an air of Jewish authenticity
Rather, mainstream translations give it a false air of goyishe heterodoxy.
It's like Yosef when he was ruling under Pharaoh in Mitzrayim. When his brothers came to him, they didn't recognize him. Because it had been so long? Doubtful; note that he recognized them. They didn't recognize him because he was seated on a throne in a pagan palace (kind of like how we perceive the Jesus of the Church?) He spoke Egyptian language and wore Egyptian clothes. He'd been given an Egyptian name. He shaved off his Jewish beard and put on make-up as was customary in that culture. This is the way a son of Israel had been outwardly assimilated by the Egyptians. Yosef was SALVATION (yeshuah), the savior, for the b'nei Yisrael, placed there by Elohei avoteinu, for such a time as that, yet his true identity was concealed--hester panim. (Btw, Yosef's Egyptian name, Tzafnat Pa'aneach, means "Decipherer of Hidden Codes.") They thought he was out to get them. Then, he spoke to his brothers in their language--HIS native language--"Ani Yosef." Then, God opened their eyes! And may yours be opened.
Now there was a man of the Perushim. His name was Rav Nakdimon, a [Sanhedrist] katzin (leader) of the Yehudim. This one came to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach under cover of lailah and said to him, "Rabbi, we have da'as that you are a moreh from Hashem having come, for no one is able these otot (miraculous signs) to do, which you do, unless Hashem is with him."
In reply, he said to him, "Omein, omein, I say to you, unless someone is born anew [born again, Yn 1:13; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Isa 52:1; Ezek 44:7,9], he is not able to see the Malchut Hashem."
Rav Nakdimon says to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, "How is a man, being old, able to be born? Surely he is not able into the womb of immo a second time to enter and to be born?"
In reply, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach said, "Omein, omein, I say to you: unless someone is born of mayim (TEHILLIM 36:10 [9]) and Ruach Hakodesh [YECHEZEL 36:25-27; 37:14], he is not able to enter into the Malchut Hashem [Lk 17:21]. That which is born of basar is basar, and that which is born of the Ruach is ruach. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'It is necessary for you to be born again, born anew.' The ruach (wind, Spirit) blows where it wishes, and the sound of it you hear, but you do not have da'as of where it comes from and where it goes [KOHELET 11:5]; so it is with everyone having been born of the Ruach Hakodesh. [YECHEZKEL 37:9]"
In reply, Rav Nakdimon said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, "How is it possible for these things to happen?"
In reply, he said to him, "You hold the teaching office of rabbi, of moreh b'Yisroel and of these things you do not have da'as? Omein, omein, I say to you, that of which we have da'as we speak, and of that which we have seen, we give solemn edut (testimony), and the solemn edut of us you [pl.] do not receive. If I told you [pl.] about things of the Olam Hazeh and you have no emunah, how will you have emunah if I tell you about the things of the Olam Haba? And no one has ascended into Shomayim except the one having descended out of Shomayim, the Ben HaAdam [Dan 7:13-14; Prov 30:4; Dt 30:12].
"And as Moshe lifted up the nachash in the wilderness [Num 21:8-9], so it is necessary for there to be a hagbah (lifting up) of the Ben HaAdam [Ps 22; Isa 53]. That everyone having emunah [Gn 15:l-6; Num 14:11; Ex 14:31] in him may have Chayyei Olam [Dan 12:2; Isa 52:13]. For Hashem so had ahavah (agape) for the Olam Hazeh that Hashem gav
The impression given by the text of Genesis is that things were created having maturity (i.e., having the appearance of age and of "past" formative events) in their first instant of existence.
The man Adam was never a baby. Neither was the universe.
Given the choice between some insulting theoretical interpretation of the past which they've never had any personal experience with, and a life-giving present help and future hope they have had experience with, is it any wonder that they chose Christianity over evolution?
This is an insightful post. It reminds me of some commentary I read in a siddur during a High Holy Days service. To the best of my memory, it said:
If this (what we believe in) is true, it is the only thing that matters. If it isn't true, nothing matters. There is the confidence that you can't go wrong even if you're not right.
So Yeshua said to the Twelve, "Don't you want to leave too?"
Shim`on Kefa answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the word of eternal life."
- Yochanan 6:67-68
I'm replying to this post of yours in the story "Israelis Sue Government For Laser Cannons." I can't respond there because I moderated in that discussion (not your posts).
So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too
At this point in the sentence, I had no idea which side you were taking. I think readers of both biases were cheering you on thinking you were sticking up for their side. But then I reread it and saw the word "country," and reasoned that you must have been supporting Israel.
then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back,
The depictions of "Palestine" in Arab propaganda don't show any hollowed out areas of undesirable land. They seem to want it all. However, if they think that certain parts of the land are "uninhabitable," I'm sure there are plenty of Jewish "occupiers" who would love to "occupy" this "uninhabitable" land.
while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous.
There is only one side that is capable of running an infrastructure. Did you see Gaza after the Jews left town three years ago? The Arabs ran in and ruined it. Who is providing infrastructure for the PA areas now? Israel! Very generously so, even as the Arabs in those areas are deliberately killing Israeli civilians, including children. PA Arabs live each day by the grace and compassion extended to them by the Jewish State. I'm talking electricity, water, hospitals, etc. While thousands of rockets are hitting Israeli towns (well outside "occupied" territory), just last week, the state of Israel sent 392 trucks delivering foodstuffs, medical and other humanitarian supplies through the crossings into Gaza.
Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?
To set the record straight, all of that land PLUS Jordan PLUS Lebanon PLUS parts of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq used to be JEWISH land! Receiving that won't happen without the Messiah, but I'm just sayin'...
Anyway... Since the original state mandate in 1948, Israel has acquired land only in response to beating back Arab nations after those nations had instigated attacks. Even so, it has shown great grace (to its own detriment) and given back a lot of that land. Greedy?
Please note, there has never been a country called Palestine. This requires a major history lesson, which you may begin here.
The irony here is very rich. "Palestine" is a historic name with which the PLO chose to identify. They call themselves "Palestinians," which in Hebrew, means essentially "nomads." Wanderers. Migratory people. The "state" of nomads is not to have a state! Look at the Bedouins in Israel. The well-intentioned government built some houses for them, but they refused. Nomads live in tents. They have no nation or homeland.
Another good tidbit is "Hamas," which means "violence" in Hebrew. The Bible says that God will rid the land of hamas. In Psalm 11:5, God says that He hates those who love hamas. Who would Jesus bomb? Now you know.
If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.
I've seen the Skeptic's Annotated Bible before. It amazes me that non-believers keep referencing it as something substantive. If I didn't know better, I would think that it was a parody site created by Christians to mock the "heathens."
The answers to most of the issues raised are easily solved through basic reading comprehension. It is obvious that the one writing the content at that site has absolutely no interest in understanding the subject matter. I'll answer some of them now.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
It does not say He didn't make light-producing objects, just not the sun and stars. Besides, God Himself radiates light, as it says in book of Revelation (in the prophecy about the New Earth that says there will be no need for sun or stars).
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
The higher waters are the clouds in the atmosphere. The lower waters are the seas.
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
God created plants as mature plants, not as seeds. They survived just fine for the period of less than 24 hours until the sun was created.
In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
No, the signs are for day-times, seasons, and holy days. The other verses TELL you exactly what the nature of the "signs" are. This is an example of WILLING ignore-ance. There's no way you can't see the answer.
"I have given you every herb... and every tree... for meat." 1:29
That is exactly correct!... in the English of the era of King James. I strongly discommend the use of the KJV Bible. The Hebrew word rendered "meat" there is related to the word for "eat." It means "food," which is how all modern Bibles translate it.
God created a man and a woman, and he "called their name Adam." So the woman's name was Adam, too! 5:2
The word "adam" in Hebrew is not necessarily masculine. It means "person" or "humankind."
When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons.
[Three sons in one year? Was that with one (nameless) wife or several?] 5:32
This statement is repeated again in 6:10, so the timing of the begetting is ambiguous. 6:18 says Noah had one wife.
Esau and Jacob were already fighting each other in the womb. 25:22
This is a great spiritual truth. They are still fighting today in the Holy Land.
God removes the wheels from the Egyptians' chariots. 14:25
God divided the sea with a "blast of [his] nostrils." 15:8
The Bible frequently resorts to anthropomorphism in describing God. Otherwise, there would be no way to intimately describe an infinite God.
God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9
According to the Biblical calendar, the 6000 years (actually 5768 years) is NOT counted from the beginning of the creation of the universe -- it's counted from the creation of the human soul (ie, "Adam"), which happens at the very tail-end of the creation account. That's a mere 6 days' difference. "Six thousand years" is only an estimate, anyway -- plus or minus a few hundred years.
The creation story is not meant to be a literal account of anything To me, it comes off as a very literal daily log of events. "Vai'hi erev, vai'hi voker, yom [echad, sheni, etc.]"
Evolution is a theory of how species change over time as a response to their environment. The existence of life is an axiom of evolution. It doesn't matter how life started, but once it does evolution comes into play.
Yes, it does matter.
There is a strategy I use in multiple-choice questions when there is an "All of the above" (AOTA) option. I don't first labor to verify all of (a) through (d) in order to choose (e)-AOTA. Sometimes it would seem that more than one option was true, and I would be tempted to go ahead and choose AOTA. But I know that if I can find just one option that is false, then AOTA cannot be right. One certain negative short-circuits the deliberation process.
If no supportable materialistic explanation of abiogenesis can be found, then it precludes the possibility of the materialist process of evolution. Even though we do see evidence of evolution at the "micro" scale (limited speciation), the stages before (genesis) and after that are lacking evidence. The doctrine of Evolutionism requires an AOTA answer. However, if the theory is cut off at the root, it has no true branches. Even the answer options that did seem right turn out to have been misclassified as parts of a theoretical framework that doesn't exist in reality.
They do believe in speciation within the originally created broad "kinds," which is generally what creationists mean when they say "microevolution."
The problem in these discussions is that terms are moving targets, or actually multiple targets that sometimes get munged. There are several definitions in the dictionary for "evolution" and "theory," for instance. Not even a so-called "scientific" definition of evolution is pinned down, because evolutionists themselves use the word differently. They try to apply the word as often as possible, and this keeps expanding what it means. It's understandable that people have felt the need to break down the bloated term into parts.
The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew which has no vowels. In order to read it, a Rabi would have to know the context of the words.
The phrase in question (from Genesis 1:5) in Hebrew is "Va'y'hi erev, va'y'hi voker, yom echad." First, all of these are common, everyday words (pun intended), including yom (day), erev (evening), and boker (morning). Second, remember that Hebrew was a living, spoken language at the time this was written. Even if the vowel sounds changed over time, the meaning of the words would not. Third, and most important, the context makes it easy to determine the meaning of difficult words. There are very few places in the Bible where scholars suggest that the true vowels might differ from those of the traditional, Masoretic text. I don't think Genesis 1 is one of them.
Others can point flaws to modern English translations such as the the Leviticus's part about homosexuality that there was no word for homosexual in ancient Greek. The literal translation meant "soft" or "feminine" which in ancient times more or less meant "weak willed".
I'll quote from an extremely literal version of the Bible in the interest of transparency.
"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is." - Leviticus 18:22 (Young's Literal Translation)
Seems pretty clear to me. There a number of Hebrew words that mean "abomination." The one used there, to'ei'vah, is the most extreme in its condemnation. I don't know about the Greek, but the Torah still stands. "Law then do we make useless through the faith? let it not be! yea, we do establish law." - Romans 3:31 (YLT)
The odd thing is that the Catholic Church and many Jewish Rabbis appear to have no problem with idea of evolution and big bang because they do not adhere to something that conflicts with the idea of genesis seeing that god could have used that as his method.
I believe that this is merely caving in to the secular forces. There is a fear in certain religious circles of being seen as irrelevant in the modern world. Evangelical Protestants respond to this kind of pressure by doing things like having rock-type music in services or throwing church Super Bowl parties. The more liberal Christians (and Jews), are not so rooted in faith. They are more likely to respond by bending, folding, and flaking, or flat-out mutilating their traditional beliefs in order to mesh them with popular teachings such as evolution. Fear, lack of faith, social insecurity, and the threat of public ridicule nicely account for the caving in to evolution. I suspect that there are many crypto-creationists; people in certain fields and professions who must mask their true beliefs and pretend to go along with the Darwinist tide in order to maintain their jobs or status. We have seen this in the global warming inquisition. Scientists who think it's hogwash keep their lips zipped because they don't want to be persecuted.
Ironically, most Christians who are literalists seems to ignore many of the dietary rules (Kosher, Parva, etc) set forth in the old testament that many modern Jews adhere (which also Muslims follow) and seem to not notice that Jews only read the bible in Hebrew due to the fact of the forementioned translation issues.
Vertinox, this is a great point. Thank you for this! I must attribute comments such as yours right here on Slashdot as a major reason why I have become committed to keeping kashrut! The issue is consistency. That word I mentioned above, to'ei'vah -- abomination. It's used in reference to homosexuality. It's also used in reference to unclean animals (in the context of food) (Deuteronomy 14:3). Christians like to quote the former usage, but never the latter. Sounds like what they call "Cafeteria Christianity" -- putting on your tray only what you want, leaving the rest on the line. "ABOMINATION!" their placards read at certain anti-sodomy protests. I want to say, "You swine scarfers EAT abominations
You're not one of the creationist fundies that I'm talking about, since you accept natural selection as part of the process that has created the life we see today.
I'm glad that the world's foremost creationist ministry, Answers In Genesis, is now considered among the enlightened creationists.
Right, my browser is the venerable telnet.exe on port 80, conveniently located in the Start Menu by default... If you don't know of any good download sites, Archie to the rescue!... Yes, the tool for downloading files is called FTP. HTTP is for that newfangled hyper-active text. Now get off my lawn!
Sorry, are you proposing the Bible as a realistic source of third-party, first-hand, contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus?
The New Testament is a compilation of first-hand accounts (and other writings). Now you want to disqualify these records because they're not "third-party"? There are plenty of apocryphal (extra-Biblical) "Gospels," if that's what you're looking for. There are other writings, too.
Really, this is not debated much anymore by scholarly skeptics. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Jesus' existence. The tactics today are either hijacking Jesus and morphing Him into a champion for a pet cause (e.g. environmentalism, communism, ecumenism, even Islam) or simply denying His miracles, messiahship, and deity.
"Adam" is not an historical figure, but an allegorical one, a representative of our human nature.
The New Covenant writings say that the Messiah came as the last Adam. Do you believe that Jesus was merely an allegorical figure like the first Adam and not a particular human being?
The problem that a lot of "cultural Christians" have is that they want to pretend that the Older Covenant is just metaphorical stories while things in the Newer Covenant literally happened as described.
Jesus made reference to Noah, Jonah, Abraham, and others, and there is nothing to indicate that He thought these men or the Biblical stories about them were not historical or literal. Jesus refers to the literal man Jonah and the three literal days that he spent inside the big fish, saying that He too would be in darkness for three days (between His execution and resurrection).
When you go to the church, emphasis is placed on the gospels and the New Testament.
Unfortunately. This has led to unbalanced teaching by not keeping in mind the whole body of Scripture.
Jesus was seen as a political rebel,
Political rebel? He even subserviently paid His taxes and taught His disciples to do so as well (the oldest, Peter, in particular). So many of Yeshua's Jewish fans were irked precisely because He refused to get political. Paul, likewise, teaches us to respect political authorities.
partly because his intention was to bring a new message, discarding most of the strict views of the time (Old Testament),
WHOSE oh-so-"strict" views are represented by the Elder Testament? Those of the Pharisees? Moses? We know that "all Scripture is inspired by God (lit. "God-breathed") and is profitable for teaching (doctrine), for rebuking (verification), for correcting, and for training in righteousness (the behavior that God requires)." (2 Timothy 3:16) Does the Son of God rebel against His Father? Is the triune God at war with Himself? Multiple personalities? Schizophrenic? Which of the Biblical prophecies foretold that one of the signs of the Messiah would be that He would make null and void the entire (or even a jot or tittle of) the Word of God (as written up to that time)? That divine instruction would be casually discarded in the name of tolerance? "Do not assume that I came to destroy the Law.... Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. 5:17,19)
in favor of a new one: tolerance and love among people.
I don't know what kind of new tolerance you mean. Yeshua introduced no new tolerance of sin. Love among people has always been a fundamental part of Scripture. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is originally from Leviticus 19:18.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a chimp. *smirks*
New "uses":
Windows 98
No surprise. Just a couple of Windows' generations ago, 256 MB of system memory was considered wildly excessive. Vista laughs out loud at that spec. Just to run the plain OS!Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
In 2008, people will travel in levitating, hypersonic personal aircraft called mePods.
I've always thought it rather bizarre that Jesus is supposed to have been born on a fixed day (25th December), but his death (which is arguably even more important to Christianity) just kind of floats about sometime in spring.
Yes, this is ironic, because we do know the exact day (on the Hebrew calendar) of Jesus' resurrection, yet we do not know the day or even the season of His birth! I follow the argument for a Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) birth in the fall --born on the first day of the feast and circumcised on the eighth day of the feast, a high Sabbath called Shemini Atzeret, the day after the "Great Hosanna." "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us..." - John 1:14
Why can't they just agree on a single date and stick to it? I mean, they make up so much other nonsense and claim it as hard fact, so why not this as well?
The main reason has to do with the anti-Jew sentiment in the early Church (4th century+). They threw out the Biblical/Jewish calendar and holy days and devised its own ways concerning "Christian holy days." Contributing to the confusion today may also be that the word pascha in the scripture is outrageously "translated" to Easter in the King James Version Bible.
Easter is supposed to mark Messiah's resurrection, not the execution. The execution fulfilled the feast of Passover. The resurrection fulfills the Feast of Firstfruits three days later.
The execution and resurrection are historically separated by three days. Thus, "Good Friday" should be "Good Thursday." If Christians want to observe the day of the execution, they should simply go with Passover, the 15th of Nissan, regardless of the day of the week.
Actually, most Messianic Jews don't like the "Jews for Jesus" organization very much. It doesn't uphold Torah observance (which is probably a big factor as to why churches support it so much), and some of its tactics are unnecessarily offensive or otherwise brazenly inappropriate.
'Til then, sod off while we wait for the real Maschiach who ain't afraid to get involved in politics.
No, Huckabee was right: "[Mashiach] was too smart to ever run for public office."
And when He comes back, He won't be coming to take a side. He'll be coming to take over! Politics shmolitics. He is Melech ha-Olam!
They were Hebrew people. It's a matter of respect to call people by their actual names. Many Aramaic/Hebrew names have been Hellenized, Latinized, Anglicized, and then Americanized. This version of the Bible, which includes the B'rit Chadasha (see Yirmeyahu 31), seeks to restore the authentic Jewish "air" of the text.
It gives the thing an air of Jewish authenticity
Rather, mainstream translations give it a false air of goyishe heterodoxy.
It's like Yosef when he was ruling under Pharaoh in Mitzrayim. When his brothers came to him, they didn't recognize him. Because it had been so long? Doubtful; note that he recognized them. They didn't recognize him because he was seated on a throne in a pagan palace (kind of like how we perceive the Jesus of the Church?) He spoke Egyptian language and wore Egyptian clothes. He'd been given an Egyptian name. He shaved off his Jewish beard and put on make-up as was customary in that culture. This is the way a son of Israel had been outwardly assimilated by the Egyptians. Yosef was SALVATION (yeshuah), the savior, for the b'nei Yisrael, placed there by Elohei avoteinu, for such a time as that, yet his true identity was concealed--hester panim. (Btw, Yosef's Egyptian name, Tzafnat Pa'aneach, means "Decipherer of Hidden Codes.") They thought he was out to get them. Then, he spoke to his brothers in their language--HIS native language--"Ani Yosef." Then, God opened their eyes! And may yours be opened.
Now there was a man of the Perushim. His name was Rav Nakdimon, a [Sanhedrist] katzin (leader) of the Yehudim. This one came to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach under cover of lailah and said to him, "Rabbi, we have da'as that you are a moreh from Hashem having come, for no one is able these otot (miraculous signs) to do, which you do, unless Hashem is with him."
In reply, he said to him, "Omein, omein, I say to you, unless someone is born anew [born again, Yn 1:13; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Isa 52:1; Ezek 44:7,9], he is not able to see the Malchut Hashem."
Rav Nakdimon says to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, "How is a man, being old, able to be born? Surely he is not able into the womb of immo a second time to enter and to be born?"
In reply, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach said, "Omein, omein, I say to you: unless someone is born of mayim (TEHILLIM 36:10 [9]) and Ruach Hakodesh [YECHEZEL 36:25-27; 37:14], he is not able to enter into the Malchut Hashem [Lk 17:21]. That which is born of basar is basar, and that which is born of the Ruach is ruach. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'It is necessary for you to be born again, born anew.' The ruach (wind, Spirit) blows where it wishes, and the sound of it you hear, but you do not have da'as of where it comes from and where it goes [KOHELET 11:5]; so it is with everyone having been born of the Ruach Hakodesh. [YECHEZKEL 37:9]"
In reply, Rav Nakdimon said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, "How is it possible for these things to happen?"
In reply, he said to him, "You hold the teaching office of rabbi, of moreh b'Yisroel and of these things you do not have da'as? Omein, omein, I say to you, that of which we have da'as we speak, and of that which we have seen, we give solemn edut (testimony), and the solemn edut of us you [pl.] do not receive. If I told you [pl.] about things of the Olam Hazeh and you have no emunah, how will you have emunah if I tell you about the things of the Olam Haba? And no one has ascended into Shomayim except the one having descended out of Shomayim, the Ben HaAdam [Dan 7:13-14; Prov 30:4; Dt 30:12].
"And as Moshe lifted up the nachash in the wilderness [Num 21:8-9], so it is necessary for there to be a hagbah (lifting up) of the Ben HaAdam [Ps 22; Isa 53]. That everyone having emunah [Gn 15:l-6; Num 14:11; Ex 14:31] in him may have Chayyei Olam [Dan 12:2; Isa 52:13]. For Hashem so had ahavah (agape) for the Olam Hazeh that Hashem gav
The impression given by the text of Genesis is that things were created having maturity (i.e., having the appearance of age and of "past" formative events) in their first instant of existence.
The man Adam was never a baby. Neither was the universe.
This is an insightful post. It reminds me of some commentary I read in a siddur during a High Holy Days service. To the best of my memory, it said: If this (what we believe in) is true, it is the only thing that matters. If it isn't true, nothing matters. There is the confidence that you can't go wrong even if you're not right. So Yeshua said to the Twelve, "Don't you want to leave too?"
Shim`on Kefa answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the word of eternal life."
- Yochanan 6:67-68
So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too
At this point in the sentence, I had no idea which side you were taking. I think readers of both biases were cheering you on thinking you were sticking up for their side. But then I reread it and saw the word "country," and reasoned that you must have been supporting Israel.
then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back,
The depictions of "Palestine" in Arab propaganda don't show any hollowed out areas of undesirable land. They seem to want it all. However, if they think that certain parts of the land are "uninhabitable," I'm sure there are plenty of Jewish "occupiers" who would love to "occupy" this "uninhabitable" land.
while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous.
There is only one side that is capable of running an infrastructure. Did you see Gaza after the Jews left town three years ago? The Arabs ran in and ruined it. Who is providing infrastructure for the PA areas now? Israel! Very generously so, even as the Arabs in those areas are deliberately killing Israeli civilians, including children. PA Arabs live each day by the grace and compassion extended to them by the Jewish State. I'm talking electricity, water, hospitals, etc. While thousands of rockets are hitting Israeli towns (well outside "occupied" territory), just last week, the state of Israel sent 392 trucks delivering foodstuffs, medical and other humanitarian supplies through the crossings into Gaza.
Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?
To set the record straight, all of that land PLUS Jordan PLUS Lebanon PLUS parts of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq used to be JEWISH land! Receiving that won't happen without the Messiah, but I'm just sayin'...
Anyway... Since the original state mandate in 1948, Israel has acquired land only in response to beating back Arab nations after those nations had instigated attacks. Even so, it has shown great grace (to its own detriment) and given back a lot of that land. Greedy?
Please note, there has never been a country called Palestine. This requires a major history lesson, which you may begin here.
The irony here is very rich. "Palestine" is a historic name with which the PLO chose to identify. They call themselves "Palestinians," which in Hebrew, means essentially "nomads." Wanderers. Migratory people. The "state" of nomads is not to have a state! Look at the Bedouins in Israel. The well-intentioned government built some houses for them, but they refused. Nomads live in tents. They have no nation or homeland.
Another good tidbit is "Hamas," which means "violence" in Hebrew. The Bible says that God will rid the land of hamas. In Psalm 11:5, God says that He hates those who love hamas. Who would Jesus bomb? Now you know.
If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.
The answers to most of the issues raised are easily solved through basic reading comprehension. It is obvious that the one writing the content at that site has absolutely no interest in understanding the subject matter. I'll answer some of them now.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
It does not say He didn't make light-producing objects, just not the sun and stars. Besides, God Himself radiates light, as it says in book of Revelation (in the prophecy about the New Earth that says there will be no need for sun or stars).
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
The higher waters are the clouds in the atmosphere. The lower waters are the seas.
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
God created plants as mature plants, not as seeds. They survived just fine for the period of less than 24 hours until the sun was created.
In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
No, the signs are for day-times, seasons, and holy days. The other verses TELL you exactly what the nature of the "signs" are. This is an example of WILLING ignore-ance. There's no way you can't see the answer.
"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." 1:29
That is exactly correct! ... in the English of the era of King James. I strongly discommend the use of the KJV Bible. The Hebrew word rendered "meat" there is related to the word for "eat." It means "food," which is how all modern Bibles translate it.
God created a man and a woman, and he "called their name Adam." So the woman's name was Adam, too! 5:2
The word "adam" in Hebrew is not necessarily masculine. It means "person" or "humankind."
When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons. [Three sons in one year? Was that with one (nameless) wife or several?] 5:32
This statement is repeated again in 6:10, so the timing of the begetting is ambiguous. 6:18 says Noah had one wife.
Esau and Jacob were already fighting each other in the womb. 25:22
This is a great spiritual truth. They are still fighting today in the Holy Land.
God removes the wheels from the Egyptians' chariots. 14:25
Here is the evidence. Old news, really. There are a few videos about this.
God divided the sea with a "blast of [his] nostrils." 15:8
The Bible frequently resorts to anthropomorphism in describing God. Otherwise, there would be no way to intimately describe an infinite God.
God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9
Yes, because there is no atonement f
The creation story is not meant to be a literal account of anything To me, it comes off as a very literal daily log of events. "Vai'hi erev, vai'hi voker, yom [echad, sheni, etc.]"
Yeah, it's funny how people who advocate suicide missions (whether for science or 72 virgins) never volunteer themselves.
Evolution is a theory of how species change over time as a response to their environment. The existence of life is an axiom of evolution. It doesn't matter how life started, but once it does evolution comes into play.
Yes, it does matter.
There is a strategy I use in multiple-choice questions when there is an "All of the above" (AOTA) option. I don't first labor to verify all of (a) through (d) in order to choose (e)-AOTA. Sometimes it would seem that more than one option was true, and I would be tempted to go ahead and choose AOTA. But I know that if I can find just one option that is false, then AOTA cannot be right. One certain negative short-circuits the deliberation process.
If no supportable materialistic explanation of abiogenesis can be found, then it precludes the possibility of the materialist process of evolution. Even though we do see evidence of evolution at the "micro" scale (limited speciation), the stages before (genesis) and after that are lacking evidence. The doctrine of Evolutionism requires an AOTA answer. However, if the theory is cut off at the root, it has no true branches. Even the answer options that did seem right turn out to have been misclassified as parts of a theoretical framework that doesn't exist in reality.
And what comes after yottaflop?
I don't know, but it would be a lottaflop!
Actually AiG draw an artificial distinction between what they call "macroevolution" and "microevolution". [Citation needed]
Actually, AiG have long discouraged using the terms micro- and macroevolution.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (next to last on the list)
They do believe in speciation within the originally created broad "kinds," which is generally what creationists mean when they say "microevolution."
The problem in these discussions is that terms are moving targets, or actually multiple targets that sometimes get munged. There are several definitions in the dictionary for "evolution" and "theory," for instance. Not even a so-called "scientific" definition of evolution is pinned down, because evolutionists themselves use the word differently. They try to apply the word as often as possible, and this keeps expanding what it means. It's understandable that people have felt the need to break down the bloated term into parts.
The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew which has no vowels. In order to read it, a Rabi would have to know the context of the words.
The phrase in question (from Genesis 1:5) in Hebrew is "Va'y'hi erev, va'y'hi voker, yom echad." First, all of these are common, everyday words (pun intended), including yom (day), erev (evening), and boker (morning). Second, remember that Hebrew was a living, spoken language at the time this was written. Even if the vowel sounds changed over time, the meaning of the words would not. Third, and most important, the context makes it easy to determine the meaning of difficult words. There are very few places in the Bible where scholars suggest that the true vowels might differ from those of the traditional, Masoretic text. I don't think Genesis 1 is one of them.
Others can point flaws to modern English translations such as the the Leviticus's part about homosexuality that there was no word for homosexual in ancient Greek. The literal translation meant "soft" or "feminine" which in ancient times more or less meant "weak willed".
I'll quote from an extremely literal version of the Bible in the interest of transparency.
"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is." - Leviticus 18:22 (Young's Literal Translation)
Seems pretty clear to me. There a number of Hebrew words that mean "abomination." The one used there, to'ei'vah, is the most extreme in its condemnation. I don't know about the Greek, but the Torah still stands. "Law then do we make useless through the faith? let it not be! yea, we do establish law." - Romans 3:31 (YLT)
The odd thing is that the Catholic Church and many Jewish Rabbis appear to have no problem with idea of evolution and big bang because they do not adhere to something that conflicts with the idea of genesis seeing that god could have used that as his method.
I believe that this is merely caving in to the secular forces. There is a fear in certain religious circles of being seen as irrelevant in the modern world. Evangelical Protestants respond to this kind of pressure by doing things like having rock-type music in services or throwing church Super Bowl parties. The more liberal Christians (and Jews), are not so rooted in faith. They are more likely to respond by bending, folding, and flaking, or flat-out mutilating their traditional beliefs in order to mesh them with popular teachings such as evolution. Fear, lack of faith, social insecurity, and the threat of public ridicule nicely account for the caving in to evolution. I suspect that there are many crypto-creationists; people in certain fields and professions who must mask their true beliefs and pretend to go along with the Darwinist tide in order to maintain their jobs or status. We have seen this in the global warming inquisition. Scientists who think it's hogwash keep their lips zipped because they don't want to be persecuted.
Ironically, most Christians who are literalists seems to ignore many of the dietary rules (Kosher, Parva, etc) set forth in the old testament that many modern Jews adhere (which also Muslims follow) and seem to not notice that Jews only read the bible in Hebrew due to the fact of the forementioned translation issues.
Vertinox, this is a great point. Thank you for this! I must attribute comments such as yours right here on Slashdot as a major reason why I have become committed to keeping kashrut! The issue is consistency. That word I mentioned above, to'ei'vah -- abomination. It's used in reference to homosexuality. It's also used in reference to unclean animals (in the context of food) (Deuteronomy 14:3). Christians like to quote the former usage, but never the latter. Sounds like what they call "Cafeteria Christianity" -- putting on your tray only what you want, leaving the rest on the line. "ABOMINATION!" their placards read at certain anti-sodomy protests. I want to say, "You swine scarfers EAT abominations
You're not one of the creationist fundies that I'm talking about, since you accept natural selection as part of the process that has created the life we see today.
I'm glad that the world's foremost creationist ministry, Answers In Genesis, is now considered among the enlightened creationists.
"Why do evolutionists claim that natural selection supports evolution?"
"How does it fit into the creation model?"
Right, my browser is the venerable telnet.exe on port 80, conveniently located in the Start Menu by default... If you don't know of any good download sites, Archie to the rescue!... Yes, the tool for downloading files is called FTP. HTTP is for that newfangled hyper-active text. Now get off my lawn!
he knows predators will find his regular haunts
Dogs know of predators lurking under the couch?* Are there bears and tigers in the backyard?
*(I had a miniature dachshund that liked to hide under the couch.)
Sorry, are you proposing the Bible as a realistic source of third-party, first-hand, contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus?
The New Testament is a compilation of first-hand accounts (and other writings). Now you want to disqualify these records because they're not "third-party"? There are plenty of apocryphal (extra-Biblical) "Gospels," if that's what you're looking for. There are other writings, too.
Really, this is not debated much anymore by scholarly skeptics. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Jesus' existence. The tactics today are either hijacking Jesus and morphing Him into a champion for a pet cause (e.g. environmentalism, communism, ecumenism, even Islam) or simply denying His miracles, messiahship, and deity.
"Adam" is not an historical figure, but an allegorical one, a representative of our human nature.
The New Covenant writings say that the Messiah came as the last Adam. Do you believe that Jesus was merely an allegorical figure like the first Adam and not a particular human being?
The problem that a lot of "cultural Christians" have is that they want to pretend that the Older Covenant is just metaphorical stories while things in the Newer Covenant literally happened as described.
Jesus made reference to Noah, Jonah, Abraham, and others, and there is nothing to indicate that He thought these men or the Biblical stories about them were not historical or literal. Jesus refers to the literal man Jonah and the three literal days that he spent inside the big fish, saying that He too would be in darkness for three days (between His execution and resurrection).
Actually, there's no first-person accounts of Jesus actually having existed at all.
2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3; Luke 1:1-3; Acts 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:6-8; John 20:30-31; Acts 19:39-42; 1 Peter 5:1; Acts 1:9; Acts 2:22; Acts 26:24-28
I recommend reading the book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
When you go to the church, emphasis is placed on the gospels and the New Testament.
... Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. 5:17,19)
Unfortunately. This has led to unbalanced teaching by not keeping in mind the whole body of Scripture.
Jesus was seen as a political rebel,
Political rebel? He even subserviently paid His taxes and taught His disciples to do so as well (the oldest, Peter, in particular). So many of Yeshua's Jewish fans were irked precisely because He refused to get political. Paul, likewise, teaches us to respect political authorities.
partly because his intention was to bring a new message, discarding most of the strict views of the time (Old Testament),
WHOSE oh-so-"strict" views are represented by the Elder Testament? Those of the Pharisees? Moses? We know that "all Scripture is inspired by God (lit. "God-breathed") and is profitable for teaching (doctrine), for rebuking (verification), for correcting, and for training in righteousness (the behavior that God requires)." (2 Timothy 3:16) Does the Son of God rebel against His Father? Is the triune God at war with Himself? Multiple personalities? Schizophrenic? Which of the Biblical prophecies foretold that one of the signs of the Messiah would be that He would make null and void the entire (or even a jot or tittle of) the Word of God (as written up to that time)? That divine instruction would be casually discarded in the name of tolerance? "Do not assume that I came to destroy the Law.
in favor of a new one: tolerance and love among people.
I don't know what kind of new tolerance you mean. Yeshua introduced no new tolerance of sin. Love among people has always been a fundamental part of Scripture. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is originally from Leviticus 19:18.
Find ET, and you change the course of the human race forever.
For good or for bad?
Tag: whatcouldpossiblygowrong