Make $$$ Selling Ads

Category Archives: faith


appreciation faith insights Joan Winifred knowledge leadership loyalty mind food spiritual food study things i learned Truth

‘on a scale from 1 to 10 how would…’

‘wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole…’

‘9 times out of 10…’




Number ten in a Biblical (book of Revelation) sense…means earthly completeness.

Excerpted reading (1) a FAV book.

While Jesus is praying, he is transfigured before them. The apostles see his face shine as the sun and see his garments become brilliant as light, glitteringly white.

Then, two figures, identified as “Moses and Elijah,” appear. They start talking to Jesus about his ‘departure that is to occur at Jerusalem.’ (Luke 9:30, 31) His departure evidently refers to Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection, which he recently spoke of. (Matthew 16:21) This conversation proves that contrary to what Peter urged, Jesus’ humiliating death is not something to be avoided.

Fully awake now, the three apostles watch and listen in amazement. This is a vision, yet it appears so real that Peter begins to get personally involved in the scene, saying: “Rabbi, it is fine for us to be here. So let us erect three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” (Mark 9:5) Does Peter want the tents set up so that the vision will be prolonged for some time?

While Peter is speaking, a bright cloud covers them and a voice from the cloud says: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” At hearing God’s voice, the frightened apostles fall on their faces, but Jesus urges them: “Get up. Have no fear.”

Elijah’s appearance in the vision raises a question. “Why,” the apostles ask, “do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” Jesus replies: “Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him.” (Matthew 17:10-12) Jesus is speaking about John the Baptist, who fulfilled a role similar to Elijah’s. Elijah prepared the way for Elisha, and John did so for Christ.

How strengthening this vision is to Jesus and to the apostles! It is a preview of Christ’s Kingdom glory. Thus the disciples saw “the Son of man coming in his Kingdom,” as Jesus had promised. (Matthew 16:28) While on the mountain, they were “eyewitnesses of his magnificence.” Though the Pharisees wanted a sign to prove that Jesus was to be God’s chosen King, he would not give them one. But Jesus’ close disciples were allowed to see Jesus’ transfiguration, which confirms Kingdom prophecies. Thus, Peter could later write: “We have the prophetic word made more sure.”​—2 Peter 1:16-19.

excerpted reading (2)

The father is desperate, because even Jesus’ disciples have not been able to help. In response to the man’s desperate appeal, Jesus gives the encouraging assurance: “That expression, ‘If you can’! Why, all things are possible for the one who has faith.” Immediately the father cries out: “I have faith! Help me out where I need faith!”​—Mark 9:23, 24.

Jesus notices the crowd running toward him. With all of these looking on, Jesus rebukes the demon: “You speechless and deaf spirit, I order you, get out of him and do not enter into him again!” In departing, the demon causes the boy to scream and have many convulsions. Then the boy lies there motionless. Seeing this, many people say: “He is dead!” (Mark 9:25, 26) But when Jesus takes the boy’s hand, he rises and is “cured from that hour.” (Matthew 17:18) Understandably, the people are astonished at what Jesus is doing.

Earlier, when Jesus sent the disciples forth to preach, they were able to expel demons. So now, privately in a house, they ask him: “Why could we not expel it?” Jesus explains that it was because of their lack of faith, saying: “This kind can come out only by prayer.” (Mark 9:28, 29) Strong faith along with prayer for God’s empowering help was needed to expel the powerful demon.

Jesus concludes: “Truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard grain, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20) How powerful faith can be!

Obstacles and difficulties that block progress in Jehovah’s service may seem to be as insurmountable and irremovable as a literal mountain. Yet, if we cultivate faith, we can overcome such mountainlike obstacles and difficulties.

Tests are a part of life. (Got my share of pop quizzes and quiz-givers!;) Tests of faith (whatever state of our faith) come grain-like and mountain-like.

Hey Mon:) most likely, HER speaking of mountains…check this out:

A miraculous event witnessed by Peter, James, and John, in which Jesus’ “face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant as the light.” (Mt 17:1-9; Mr 9:2-10; Lu 9:28-36) Mark says that on this occasion Jesus’ outer garments became “far whiter than any clothes cleaner on earth could whiten them,” and Luke states that “the appearance of his face became different.” The transfiguration occurred on a mountain sometime after Passover of 32 C.E., quite a while before Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem.

Just before the transfiguration, Jesus and his disciples were in the region of Caesarea Philippi, the present-day village of Banyas. (Mr 8:27) It is unlikely that Christ and the apostles departed from this vicinity or region when going to the “lofty mountain.” (Mr 9:2) Mount Tabor has been viewed as the traditional site from about the fourth century C.E., but lying about 70 km (40 mi) SSW of Caesarea Philippi, it seems an improbable location.​—See TABOR No. 1.

Mount Hermon, on the other hand, is only about 25 km (15 mi) NE of Caesarea Philippi. It rises to a height of 2,814 m (9,232 ft) above sea level and would therefore be “a lofty mountain.” (Mt 17:1) Hence, the transfiguration may have taken place on some spur of Mount Hermon. This is the view of many modern scholars, though the Bible’s silence on the matter leaves the exact location uncertain.

The transfiguration probably took place at night, for the apostles “were weighed down with sleep.” (Lu 9:32) At night the event would be more vivid, and they did spend the night on the mountain, for it was not until the next day that they descended. (Lu 9:37) Just how long the transfiguration lasted, however, the Bible does not say.

Prior to ascending the mountain, Christ had asked all of his disciples: “Who are men saying that I am?” whereupon Peter replied: “You are the Christ.” At that Jesus told them that he would die and be resurrected (Mr 8:27-31), though he also promised that some of his disciples would “not taste death at all” until they had first seen “the Son of man coming in his kingdom,” or “the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mt 16:28; Mr 9:1) This promise was fulfilled “six days later” (or “eight” according to Luke, who apparently includes the day of the promise and that of the fulfillment) when Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus into “a lofty mountain” (Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2; Lu 9:28) where, while praying, Jesus was transfigured before them.

M.E. aka Moses & Elijah…& “hoʹra·ma” Drama:)

During Jesus’ transfiguration, Moses and Elijah also appeared “with glory.” (Lu 9:30, 31;Mt 17:3; Mr 9:4) They talked about Christ’s “departure [a form of the Greek word eʹxo·dos] that he was destined to fulfill at Jerusalem.” (Lu 9:31) This eʹxo·dos, exodus or departure, evidently involved both Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection to spirit life.

Some critics have endeavored to class the transfiguration as simply a dream. However, Peter, James, and John would not logically all have had exactly the same dream. Jesus himself called what took place a “vision” (Mt 17:9), but not a mere illusion. Christ was actually there, though Moses and Elijah, who were dead, were not literally present. They were represented in vision. The Greek word used for “vision” at Matthew 17:9 is hoʹra·ma, also rendered “sight.” (Ac 7:31) It does not imply unreality, as though the observers were laboring under a delusion. Nor were they insensible to what occurred, for they were fully awake when witnessing the transfiguration. With their literal eyes and ears they actually saw and heard what took place at that time.​—Lu 9:32.

Yahweh speaks:

As Moses and Elijah were being separated from Jesus, Peter, “not realizing what he was saying,” suggested the erecting of three tents, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. (Lu 9:33) But as the apostle spoke, a cloud formed (Lu 9:34), evidently (as at the tent of meeting in the wilderness) symbolizing Jehovah’s presence there on the mountain of the transfiguration. (Ex 40:34-38) From out of the cloud there came Jehovah’s voice, saying: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” (Lu 9:35) Years later, with reference to the transfiguration, Peter identified the heavenly voice as that of “God the Father.” (2Pe 1:17, 18) Whereas in the past God had spoken through prophets, he now indicated that he would do so through his Son.​—Ga 3:24; Heb 1:1-3.

The apostle Peter viewed the transfiguration as a marvelous confirmation of the prophetic word, and by having been an eyewitness of Christ’s magnificence, he was able to acquaint his readers “with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Pe 1:16, 19) The apostle had experienced the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that some of his followers would “not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mr 9:1) The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.

Fortified & Strengthened:

The transfiguration, it seems, served to fortify Christ for his sufferings and death, while it also comforted his followers and strengthened their faith. It showed that Jesus had God’s approval, and it was a foreview of his future glory and Kingdom power. It presaged the presence of Christ, when his kingly authority would be complete.

[excerpted reading (3) & my highlight: Insight On the Scriptures, Vol. 2,Transfiguration” pp.1120-1121.]
1/8/19 @ 2:34 p.m.

p.s. reference: excerpted readings (4) & (5) :

[“Christ the Focus of Prophecy” w 05/ 1/15 pp. 10-15]

Published by:

status : slart (?)(.)(!)

appreciation art attitude conscientious-ness courage education faith family God insights Joan Winifred literacy Proverbs spiritual food study things i learned Transformations trust Truth wisdom

SL + ART?? Sl (ant) + art = slanted art.

“slart”…what could be categorized as “slart”?!…

(Let me START with myself: including my blog?!…LOL;) “art” in many form is…in the “eye” of the beholder? not calling myself an artist nor poet…things to which i aspire? perhaps:)!)

am a work in progress; that’s for sure!:)…hopefully at the hands of the Great Potter.

(some media is a lot of contrived ‘slart’ it seems, eh?)

Does slant = biased?! it more than a preference? or is it being prejudiced?

Which lens does an artist choose to use? What is his/her starting “point” ?

which angle? which slant?!

Also encapsulates:

to (cause to) lean in a position that is not vertical; to (cause to) slope:

Italic writing slants to the right.
The evening sun slanted (= shone with the light moving in a slopethrough the narrow window.

to present information in a particular way,especially showing one group of people, one side of an argument, etc. in such a positive or negative way that it is unfair:

The police claimed that reports in the media were slanted against/towards the defendant.
[Cambridge Dictionary]
Truth is the Target. Truth—my target—(and) my “accurate” destination. Truth is the target for which I aim. My personal priority/my spiritual battle is NOT with transient idea(s), culture(s), status, prestige, politics, etc.
How to read? (A Living Literacy?) A definite consideration, right?? or is it left?!
You know, an obvious, but not all languages read left to right like English. Hebrew is written right to left.
So, from my “spiritual” perspective: some things have to be read from the “correct” starting point…(for understanding).


Recently read this “courageous” experience and found it “Truth” “Faith” strengthening…as a person who accepts HaShem, Shem Hameforash, “Yahweh”.  (My family heritage is Lithuanian on my Mom’s side…including some Cherokee on my Dad, Isaac’s, side …my family background gravitates toward strong spirituality. My upbringing included Highly Valuing Scripture/God’s Word above man’s. Daily readings a routine. However, the emphasis was : Truth Transcends Tradition!)

“Buy truth and never sell it, also wisdom and discipline and understanding.”​—PROV. 23:23.

back to “Courageous” & encouraging experience read🙂

From his early years, a Jewish businessman named Aaron was taught that God’s name is not to be pronounced. However, Aaron had a thirst for truth. He was thrilled when a Witness showed him that by combining vowel points with the four Hebrew consonants of God’s name, it could be pronounced “Jehovah.” Excitedly, he went to the synagogue to share his wonderful discovery with the rabbis. Their reaction was not what Aaron expected. Instead of sharing his joy of learning the truth about God’s name, they spit on him and treated him as an outcast. His family bonds became strained. Undaunted, he continued to buy truth and served as a bold Witness of Jehovah for the rest of his life. Like Aaron, in order to walk in the truth, we are willing to pay the price of accepting whatever changes may occur in our social status or family relationships.

I don’t buy lies…and comes with a cost…which i’ve been paying. To me—it’s worth it! And having a conscience that lets One sleep soundly/peacefully helps lots. Being well-rested aids with decision-making, eh? 😉
Question for Reflection:
Do i value Truth over Tradition?
at times in life…we draw with melting crayon and perhaps, progress to extra-fine point-pen. De”pen”ds 🙂

further reading…pen? writer?..reader..

We do not find the truth in God’s Word without effort. We must be willing to make whatever sacrifices are needed to obtain it.

5, 6. (a) How can we buy truth without money? Illustrate. (b) How does truth benefit us?

Even something that is free may come at a cost. The Hebrew word translated “buy” at Proverbs 23:23 can also mean “acquire.” Both words imply making an effort or exchanging something for an item of value. We might illustrate the idea of buying truth this way. Let us say that a market advertises “Free Bananas.” Will those bananas miraculously appear on our table? No. We have to make the effort to go to the market to pick them up. Are the bananas free? Yes, but we must expend the effort and take the time to go to the market. Similarly, we do not need money to buy truth. However, we must make an effort to obtain it.

Read Isaiah 55:1-3Jehovah’s words recorded by Isaiah shed further light on what it means to buy truth. In this Bible passage, Jehovah compares his word to water, milk, and wine. Like a drink of cool, clear water, God’s words of truth are refreshing. Also, just as milk strengthens us and helps children to grow, Jehovah’s nourishing words strengthen us and help us to grow spiritually. Further, Jehovah’s words are also like wine. In what way? In the Bible, wine is associated with rejoicing. (Ps. 104:15) So by telling his people to “buy wine,” Jehovah assures us that living according to his words will make us rejoice. (Ps. 19:8) What a beautiful way to illustrate the beneficial effects of learning and applying God’s words of truth!

Another “Courageous” example…
Maria was swinging a golf club even before she was old enough to go to school. She continued to develop her golfing skills during high school and eventually earned a university scholarship. Golf was her life, and her goal was to enjoy a lucrative career as a professional golfer. Then Maria started to study the Bible, and she loved the truths she was learning. She was pleased with the changes that the truth helped her make in her life. She said: “The more I adjusted my attitude and lifestyle to the Bible’s standards, the happier I became.” Maria realized that it would be difficult for her to pursue both spiritual and material riches. (Matt. 6:24) She paid the price of giving up her lifelong goal of becoming a professional golfer and the prospects of gaining riches and fame. However, as a result of buying truth, she now […]enjoys what she describes as “the happiest, most meaningful life possible.” [excerpted readings: “Buy Truth and Never Sell It” w 11/2018]
Oh! joanie, a truth-seeker, huh?…yep, am “happily” going bananas! 🙂   
and Cheering—Keep Seeking Truth Reader:)

1/6/19 @ 6:03 p.m.

Published by:

Intangibility vs. Tangibility

attitude faith insights Joan Winifred leadership Truth

Some of us, Fellow-Humans, place a value (in varying degrees) and/or highly value the tangible: the taste, the touch. Some of us, Fellow-Breathing-Thinking-Life, place a value (along a spectrum) and/or highly value the intangible: the impalpable; the untouchable, the abstract.

An “authentic” life aka authentic/honest and non-hypocritical living…seems, to me, to be a constant/consistent juggle…a balancing act and, at times, a difficult tightrope walk of the intangible and the tangible…or the tangible v. the intangible v. the intangible v. the tangible…ad infinitum?!

It looks like and feels like and sounds like…”some” of our “human” problems may be (?!) attributed to devaluing the intangible over the tangible and vice versa…at inappropriate times! Significant Times, in life, may call for prioritizing the tangible over the intangible and at Other Worthy Times…the intangible over the tangible.

However, i think…an authentic/honest/real life walk in life means not abdicating/abandoning one (tangibility and intangibility) over the other…but simultaneously in tandem…keeping both lights on brightly.

Better is a handful of rest than two handfuls of hard work and chasing after the wind.” (Ecclesiastes 4:6)

{Curious;) to me how the above-mentioned wise-Biblical verse comes to mind…cause I am tired today.}

Perhaps, only a perfect human can actually walk on water. (:)) Sort of an aside: this thought brings me to the Sage of Peace also known to some as the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived: Jesus. He adroitly handled the intangible and tangible with a complete union/unity/an impactful immediacy (and longevity)…aka miracle worker. Is that what a miracle worker does??…perfectly measures, synthesizes, aligns the tangible with the intangible/the intangible with the tangible…in an instant unification…effectuating positive changes. (A superlative Leader, A positive-change agent of real-reality.)

For example, positive changes for women.  How, When, Who, What:  has “really” emancipated or enslaved women?? technology?

Jesus, back in the first century…

Consider, for example, the occasion when Jesus spoke to a woman at a well. “A woman of Samaria came to draw water,” says John’s Gospel account, and “Jesus said to her: ‘Give me a drink.’” Jesus was willing to talk with a Samaritan woman in public, even though most Jews had no dealings with Samaritans. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, for Jews “conversation with a woman in a public place was particularly scandalous.” Jesus, however, treated women with respect and consideration and was neither racially prejudiced nor gender prejudiced. On the contrary, it was to the Samaritan woman that Jesus for the first time plainly identified himself as the Messiah.​—John 4:7-9, 25, 26.

On another occasion Jesus was approached by a woman who for 12 years had been suffering from an embarrassing and debilitating flow of blood. When she touched him, she was instantly healed. “Jesus turned around and, noticing her, said: ‘Take courage, daughter; your faith has made you well.’” (Matthew 9:22) According to the Mosaic Law, a woman in her condition was not supposed to be in a crowd of people, let alone touch others. Yet, Jesus did not berate her. Rather, he compassionately comforted her and addressed her as “daughter.” How that word must have put her heart at ease! And how happy Jesus must have been to cure her!

no tampon–no toxic shock!

Jesus could have appeared first to Peter, John, or one of the other male disciples. Instead, he dignified women by allowing them to be the first eyewitnesses of his resurrection. An angel instructed them to inform Jesus’ male disciples about this astonishing event. Jesus said to the women: “Go, report to my brothers.” (Matthew 28:1, 5-10)Jesus was certainly not affected by the prejudices common to Jews of his day, according to which women could not serve as legal witnesses.

So, far from being biased against women or condoning chauvinistic attitudes toward them in any way, Jesus showed that he respected and appreciated women. Violence against them was completely contrary to what Jesus taught, and his attitude, we can be sure, was a perfect reflection of the way his Father, Jehovah, sees things.

Women Under Divine Care

“Nowhere in the ancient Mediterranean or Near East were women accorded the freedom that they enjoy in modern Western society. The general pattern was one of subordination of women to men, just as slaves were subordinate to the free, and young to old. . . . Male children were more highly esteemed than female, and baby girls were sometimes left to die by exposure.” That is how one Bible dictionary describes the prevailing attitude toward females in ancient times. In many cases, they were almost put on the same level as slaves.

The Bible was written at a time when customs reflected this attitude. Even so, divine law as expressed in the Bible showed a high regard for women, which was in marked contrast with the attitudes of many ancient cultures.

Jehovah’s concern for the welfare of women is evident from the several instances in which he acted in behalf of his female worshippers. Twice he intervened to protect Abraham’s beautiful wife, Sarah, from being violated. (Genesis 12:14-20; 20:1-7) God showed favor to Jacob’s less-loved wife, Leah, by ‘opening her womb,’ so that she bore a son. (Genesis 29:31, 32) When two God-fearing Israelite midwives risked their lives to preserve Hebrew male children from infanticide in Egypt, Jehovah appreciatively “presented them with families.” (Exodus 1:17, 20, 21) He also answered Hannah’s fervent prayer. (1 Samuel 1:10, 20) And when the widow of a prophet faced a creditor who was about to take her children as slaves to pay off her debt, Jehovah did not leave her in the lurch. Lovingly, God enabled the prophet Elisha to multiply her supply of oil so that she could pay the debt and still have sufficient oil for her family. She thus preserved her family and her dignity.​—Exodus 22:22, 23; 2 Kings 4:1-7.

The prophets repeatedly condemned the exploitation of women or the use of violence against them. The prophet Jeremiah told the Israelites in Jehovah’s name: “Render justice and righteousness, and deliver the one that is being robbed out of the hand of the defrauder; and do not maltreat any alien resident, fatherless boy or widow. Do them no violence. And do not shed any innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:2, 3) Later, the rich and powerful in Israel were condemned because they had evicted women from their homes and mistreated their children. (Micah 2:9) The God of justice sees and condemns as evil such suffering caused to women and their children.

The “Capable Wife”

An appropriate view of a capable wife is presented by the ancient writer of the Proverbs. Since this beautiful description of the role and the status of a wife was included in Jehovah’s Word, we can be sure that he approves of it. Far from being oppressed or being viewed as inferior, such a woman is appreciated, respected, and trusted.

The “capable wife” of Proverbs chapter 31 is a vigorous and industrious worker. She works hard at what is “the delight of her hands” and engages in trade and even real estate transactions. She sees a field and proceeds to buy it. She makes undergarments and sells them. She gives belts to the tradesmen. She is vigorous in her strength and activity. Moreover, her words of wisdom and her loving-kindness are greatly appreciated. As a result, she is highly esteemed by her husband, by her sons and, most important, by Jehovah.

Women are not to be the oppressed victims of men who take advantage of them, mistreat them, or subject them to abuse of any kind. Instead, the married woman is to be the happy and accomplished “complement” of her husband.​—Genesis 2:18.

Assigning Honor:

When writing to Christian husbands about how they should treat their wives, the inspired writer Peter urged husbands to imitate the attitudes of Jehovah and Jesus Christ. “You husbands, continue . . . assigning them honor,” he wrote. (1 Peter 3:7) Assigning honor to a person implies that one values and respects such a one highly. Thus, the man who honors his wife does not humiliate her, downgrade her, or treat her violently. Rather, he demonstrates by his words and his deeds​—in public and in private—​that he cherishes and loves her. [excerpted reading reference: How Do God and Christ View Women? Awake! 2008]

{From my own personal study of the scriptures/including various research on commentary (not specifically included in this post)…

i’ve found Jesus to be–Genuinely-Compassionate, Beyond-Genius; an Authentic-Leader way ahead of 1st century and 21st century culture(s)…i.e., in his just treatment of male and female humans as valuable individuals…and in the miraculous manner of care (spiritual/physical) given.}

Aside aside…

Is it a water (adroitly balancing/adeptly working the intangible and tangible in tandem unison) walk where You see less fuzzy and more clearly?? and are able to avoid the here and now obstacles and/or any future obstacles in your immediate step and in your pathway…now and in the future?

Seems so.

When we hit the switch…up or down…we turn on either the tangible lights and off the lights of our perceptions, (faith?) etc.

It takes a grand measure of wisdom, discernment, patience and smarts, incredible abilities, along with cumulative positive traits to distinguish those important/significant times where we need to synthesize discreetly and to act appropriately and in a self-disciplined manner.

Perhaps, some highly-educated spiritual-self-helpers among us/the non-instant gratification seekers…see the wisdom in elevating the intangible over the tangible as a necessary and as being very prudent and very smart in most situations.

μὴnot σκοπούντωνlooking at ἡμῶνof us τὰthe (things) βλεπόμεναbeing seen ἀλλὰbut τὰthe (things) μὴnot βλεπόμενα,being seen, τὰthe (things) γὰρfor βλεπόμεναbeing seen πρόσκαιρα,temporary, τὰthe (things) δὲbut μὴnot βλεπόμεναbeing seen αἰώνια.everlasting.  2 Corinthians 4:18 –The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures

while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting. 2 Corinthians 4:18–New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)

We need our intangible (aka a “convinced” faith) to be a solid, trustworthy, TRUTHFUL/ACCURATE foundation (of mind and heart)…we cannot walk on “rotten planks”…an inferior position.

A convinced faith and mere fantasy are not the same thing! DUH!;)


11/07/18 @ 3:02 p.m.

Published by:

monkey see = see monkey = understand(?) monkey!

Breathing-Fragile-Life conscientious-ness education faith God humility insights Joan Winifred knowledge mind food science & spirituality study things i learned trust Truth


Greetings “Human” Reader🙂  This is the third post in a series:
2. unmuting-mutations and 1. evolution-pollution  debunking the so-called “theory”…of Evolution…does NOT meet the criteria for theory: “In science, the term “theory” refers to “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

OOPS, excuse me;) let me be more “specific” for any who may squabble over semantics…”Scientific” Theory: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.” [excerpted on-line dictionary descriptions/definitions of term(s): “theory” and specifically “Scientific” theory that most agree on.]

Relevant excerpted Readings for You:) My-Fellow-Human-Skilled-Reasoning-Reader(s) and TRUTH-Thinker(s)-for-Your-Self-er(s)!!:) 

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

[…]astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠8

Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual changeGenes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”​—Italics added.  (my highlights)

25 Then Hitching (an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe) concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”⁠19

[Excerpted Chapter 2, Disagreements About Evolution—Why? Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pp. 14-24]

Nope, my SOLID faith aka “accurate belief system” is NOT based on credulity (nor doubts) nor (seemingly complicated) fantasy. Or deceptive-imaginative-works of… fictitious/fabricated art(?)

some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.⁠Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠4

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. […], there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

4. From evolution’s standpoint, why is the absence of living “ape-men” so strange?

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?

5. What impression do the accounts leave about the fossil evidence for human evolution?

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day?

6. (a) Were earlier theories about human evolution based on fossil evidence? (b) Why could evolution gain acceptance without solid evidence?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”⁠5

7-9. How much fossil evidence for human evolution is there now?

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠7

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”⁠Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”⁠9

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”⁠10 The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”⁠11 Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record.And the true origin of modern humans​—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—​is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”⁠12

(Fossil “Evidence” ?!! Audacity Paucity…PITIFUL!…time to bury evolution! in a creation coffin)

10. What does the evidence show about the appearance of modern-type humans?

10 Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.”⁠13 Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?”⁠14 Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

Where Are the “Links”?

11. What is admittedly “the rule” in the fossil record?

11 However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

12. In what has the lack of links resulted?

12 Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Family Tree…

15 The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”⁠21

16. Why did two scientists omit a family tree for evolution in their book?

16 In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

17, 18. (a) How can what some evolutionists consider “lost” be “found”? (b) How does the fossil record confirm this?

17 Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

18 The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

19, 20. On what are drawings of “ape-men” based?

19 However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”⁠23

20 Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”⁠24Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠25

21. What, really, are the depictions of “ape-men”?

21 Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”⁠26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”⁠27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”⁠28

22. How have many supporters of evolution been deceived?

22 In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.⁠29

What Were They?

23. What really were some fossils that had been presumed to be ancestors of man?

23 If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”⁠30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”⁠31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

24. What problems arise in trying to establish Aegyptopithecus as an ancestor of humans?

24 Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus​—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)⁠32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)⁠33 Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)⁠34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”

25, 26. (a) What claim was made about Ramapithecus? (b) On what fossil evidence was it reconstructed so as to appear as an “ape-man”?

25 Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus​—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”⁠35

26 What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable​—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”⁠36 Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature​—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”⁠37

27. Later evidence proved what regarding Ramapithecus?

27 However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”⁠38 Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws​—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—​sneak into this manward-marching procession?”⁠39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

28, 29. What claim was made for Australopithecus?

28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus​—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

29 For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.”⁠40 The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”⁠41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”⁠42

30, 31. What does later evidence show regarding Australopithecus?

30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian​—not human.[..]44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47

32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?

32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49

“Serious” Stuff Studied for humble Reflection:

“Why did “inferior” apes and monkeys survive, but not a single “superior” “ape-man”?”

“There is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take (evolutionists’) theorising out of the realms of fantasy”

“Based on just teeth and parts of jawbones, Ramapithecus was called “the first representative of the human family.” Further evidence showed that it was not”

“As is the case in the fossil record, today there is great variety in size and shape of bone structure in humans. But all belong to the human “kind””

“Piltdown man was accepted as a “missing link” for 40 years until exposed as a fraud. Parts of an orangutan jaw and teeth had been combined with parts of a human skull”

Small & Tall…

36. What are the facts regarding apelike fossils of the past, and humanlike fossils?

36 Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created​—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that​—apes, or monkeys—​not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.” [excerpted readings:  Chapter 7, “Ape-Men”—What Were They? pp. 83-98]

{draft 7/25/18 @ 10:57 p.m.

too exhausted to finish this tonight@11:01 p.m.}

In my living world…As a full-grown, heterosexual, mature woman…i can clearly d-i-s-t-i-n-g-u-i-s-h between a full-grown, heterosexual, mature man…AND a monkey at the zoo!🙂 Can You:) ?

See Man = Understand Man(?)(!)

okay, time for references and footnotes, eh?!

Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Chapter 2, Disagreements about Evolution–Why? footnotes:

8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19.

19. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 103, 107, 108, 117.

Chapter 7

“Ape-Men”​—What Were They?

1. Science 81, “How Ape Became Man,” by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, April 1981, p. 45.

2. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 31.

3. Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.

4. Lucy, p. 27.

5. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41.

6. Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.

7. New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

8. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55.

9. Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737.

10. Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.

11. The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

12. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

13. The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, p. 324.

14. The Universe Within, by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 45.

15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.

16. Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.

17. Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.

21. The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

22. Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.

23. The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151.

24. Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41.

25. Lucy, p. 286.

26. New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259.

27. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224.

28. Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304.

29. Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pp. 109, 110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1983, pp. 201-226.

30. Lucy, p. 315.

31. Origins, p. 40.

32. Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58.

33. The New York Times, “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes,” by Bayard Webster, February 7, 1980, p. A14; “Fossils Bolster a Theory on Man’s Earliest Ancestor,” by Bayard Webster, January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16.

34. Origins, p. 52.

35. Ibid., p. 56.

36. Ibid., p. 67.

37. The New York Times, “Time to Revise the Family Tree?” February 14, 1982, p. E7.

38. New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982, p. 873.

39. Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/​September 1979, p. 86.

40. The Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey, 1970, p. 299.

41. The New York Times, “Bone Traces Man Back 5 Million Years,” by Robert Reinhold, February 19, 1971, p. 1.

42. Man, Time, and Fossils, by Ruth Moore, 1961, pp. 5, 6, 316.

43. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 142.

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.

45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.

46. Lucy, p. 38.

47. Origins, p. 86.

48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.

49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

published post July 26, 2018 @1:33 p.m., Florida, USA

Published by:
Make $$$ Selling Ads