Make $$$ Selling Ads

Category Archives: justice

Plate of Words

appreciation attitude book clean communication conscientious-ness courage education forgiveness Freedom healing heart humility insights Joan Winifred justice kindness knowledge love mind food respect science & spirituality spiritual food study things i learned True v. False Religion trust Truth wisdom

This post/piece of writing is serving up words like food on a plate, huh?

What food do You:) like to eat??

What food is personally healthy for You and any particular/specific dietary needs You may have??

Personally, my palate does NOT prefer rotten food nor excrement on a plate (aka profanity, etc.)

DISGUSTING!!

Yucky Yuckiness:(

I don’t serve nastiness and bitterness for mind nor body food.

I “try” to treat Others and speak to Others in the respectful, truthful manner with which I would like to be treated or spoken to/of…no, I am NOT perfect; obviously. Just trying to be just and kind.

Oh, and not be disgustingly…repulsive.

And No! I don’t avoid difficult nor taboo topics. Nor does that mean wimpingly nor limpingly lightly treading on egg shells.

Yeah, i do laugh ..at “funny” jokes…and I do like dark/light humor.

“Does not the ear itself test out words as the palate tastes food?” (Job 12:11)

My personal palate prefers rich, healthy YUMMY food!:) Aka high-quality content.

P.Q.C.

For all the choosers of palatable/delicious/truthful words, this song You’ll appreciate:)

Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person. (Colossians 4:6)

9/24/18 @ 12:21 p.m.

Further reading: excerpted:  chapter 17 (from another Fav book): (my highlghts blue)

“Can You Trust the Bible? Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?”

[…], Isaac Newton, said: “No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible.”⁠9

The Bible and Health

12. How did a physician contrast common superstitions regarding health with statements in the Bible?

12 Throughout the centuries there has been great ignorance on matters of health. A physician even observed: “Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat,” and others. Yet he explained: “No such statements are found in the Bible. This in itself is remarkable.”⁠10

13. What hazardous medical treatment was prescribed by ancient Egyptians?

13 It is also remarkable when one compares hazardous medical treatments used in the past with what the Bible says. For example, the Papyrus Ebers, a medical document of the ancient Egyptians, prescribed the use of excrement to treat various conditions. It directed that human excrement mixed with fresh milk be applied as a poultice to lesions that remain after scabs fall off. And a remedy for drawing out splinters reads: “Worms’ blood, cook and crush in oil; mole, kill, cook, and drain in oil; ass’s dung, mix in fresh milk. Apply to the opening.”⁠11 Such treatment, it is now known, can result in serious infections.

14. What does the Bible say about waste disposal, and how has this been a protection?

14 What does the Bible say about excrement? It directed: “When you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with [a digging instrument] and turn and cover your excrement.” (Deuteronomy 23:13) So, far from prescribing excrement in medical treatment, the Bible directed the safe disposal of sewage. Up until the present century the danger of leaving excrement exposed to flies was generally not known. This resulted in the spread of serious fly-borne diseases and the death of many people. Yet the simple remedy was on record in the Bible all the time, and it was followed by the Israelites over 3,000 years ago.

15. If Bible advice regarding touching dead persons had been followed, what medical practice resulting in many deaths would have been avoided?

15 During the last century medical personnel would go directly from handling the dead in the dissecting room to conducting examinations in the maternity ward, and they would not even wash their hands. Infection was thus transferred from the dead, and many others died. Even when the value of hand washing was demonstrated, many in the medical community resisted such hygienic measures. Doubtless unknown to them, they were rejecting the wisdom in the Bible, since Jehovah’s law to the Israelites decreed that anyone touching a dead person became unclean and must wash himself and his garments.​—Numbers 19:11-22.

16. How was wisdom beyond human knowledge shown in directing that circumcision be performed on the eighth day?

16 As a sign of a covenant with Abraham, Jehovah God said: “Every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised.” Later this requirement was repeated to the nation of Israel. (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:2, 3No explanation was given why the eighth day was specified, but now we understand. Medical research has discovered that the blood-clotting element vitamin K rises to an adequate level only by then. Another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the eighth day than at any other time during a child’s life. Based on this evidence, Dr. S. I. McMillen concluded: “The perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day.”⁠12 Was this mere coincidence? Not at all. It was knowledge passed on by a God who knew.

17. What is another discovery of science that confirms the Bible?

17 Another discovery of modern science is the degree to which mental attitude and emotions affect health. An encyclopedia explains: “Since 1940 it has become more and more apparent that the physiologic function of organs and the organs systems are closely allied to the state of mind of the individual and that even tissue changes may occur in an organ so affected.”⁠13However, this close connection between mental attitude and physical health was long ago referred to in the Bible. For instance, it says: “A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones.”​—Proverbs 14:30; 17:22.

18. How does the Bible direct people away from damaging emotions and emphasize showing love?

18 The Bible, therefore, directs people away from damaging emotions and attitudes. “Let us walk decently,” it admonishes, “not in strife and jealousy.” It also counsels: “Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from you along with all badness. But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate.” (Romans 13:13; Ephesians 4:31, 32) Especially does the Bible recommend love. “Besides all these things,” it says, “clothe yourselves with love.” As the greatest proponent of love, Jesus told his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you.” In his Sermon on the Mount he even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Colossians 3:12-15; John 13:34;Matthew 5:44) Many may scoff at this, calling it weakness, but they pay a price. Science has learned that lack of love is a major factor in many mental ills and other problems.

19. What has modern science discovered regarding love?

19 The British medical journal Lancet once noted: “By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and to restore the mind.”⁠14 Similarly, a noted stress specialist, Dr. Hans Selye, said: “It is not the hated person or the frustrating boss who will get ulcers, hypertensions, and heart disease. It is the one who hates or the one who permits himself to be frustrated. ‘Love thy neighbor’ is one of the sagest bits of medical advice ever given.”⁠15

20. How did a doctor compare Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount with psychiatric advice?

20 Indeed, the Bible’s wisdom is far ahead of modern discoveries. As Dr. James T. Fisher once wrote: “If you were to take the sum total of all the authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene​—if you were to combine them, and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage—​if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount.”⁠16

The Bible and History

21. About a hundred years ago, how did critics view the historical value of the Bible?

21 After Darwin’s publication of his theory of evolution, the Bible’s historical record came under widespread attack. Archaeologist Leonard Woolley explained: “There arose towards the close of the nineteenth century an extreme school of critics which was ready to deny the historical foundation of practically everything related in the earlier books of the Old Testament.”⁠17 In fact, some critics even claimed that writing did not come into common usage until the time of Solomon or afterward; and, therefore, the early Bible narratives could not be relied upon since they were not put into writing until centuries after the events occurred. One of the exponents of this theory said in 1892: “The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narratives treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing.”⁠18

22. What has been learned about the ability of early peoples to write?

22 In recent times, however, a great deal of archaeological evidence has accumulated to show that writing was common long before the time of Moses. “We must again emphasize,” archaeologist William Foxwell Albright explained, “that alphabetic Hebrew writing was employed in Canaan and neighboring districts from the Patriarchal Age on, and that the rapidity with which forms of letters changed is clear evidence of common use.”⁠19 And another leading historian and excavator observed: “That the question should ever have been raised whether Moses could have known how to write, appears to us now absurd.”⁠20

23. What was discovered regarding King Sargon, resulting in what revision of views?

23 Time and again the Bible’s historical record has been substantiated by the uncovering of new information. The Assyrian king Sargon, for example, was for a long time known only from the Bible account at Isaiah 20:1. In fact, during the early part of the last century this Bible reference to him was discounted by critics as of no historical value. Then archaeological excavations produced the ruins of Sargon’s magnificent palace at Khorsabad, including many inscriptions regarding his rule. As a result, Sargon is now one of the best known of the Assyrian kings. Israeli historian Moshe Pearlman wrote: “Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views.”⁠21

24. How closely does an Assyrian account of Sargon compare with the Bible account regarding the conquest of Samaria?

24 One of Sargon’s inscriptions tells of an episode that previously had been known only from the Bible. It reads: “I besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it.”⁠22 The Bible account of this at 2 Kings 17:6 reads: “In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and then led Israel into exile.” Regarding the striking similarity of these two accounts, Pearlman observed: “Here, then, were two reports in the annals of the conqueror and the vanquished, one almost a mirror of the other.”⁠23

25. Why should we not expect that Biblical and secular records would agree in every respect?

25 Should we expect, then, that Biblical and secular records would agree in every detail? No, as Pearlman notes: “This kind of identical ‘war reporting’ from both sides was unusual in the Middle East of ancient times (and on occasion in modern times too). It occurred only when the countries in conflict were Israel and one of its neighbours, and only when Israel was defeated. When Israel won, no record of failure appeared in the chronicles of the enemy.”⁠24 (Italics added.) It is not surprising, therefore, that Assyrian accounts of the military campaign into Israel by Sargon’s son, Sennacherib, have a major omission. And what is that?

26. How does the account by Sennacherib compare with that found in the Bible regarding his military expedition into Israel?

26 Wall reliefs from King Sennacherib’s palace have been discovered that depict scenes of his expedition into Israel. Written descriptions of it were also found. One, a clay prism, reads: “As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities . . . Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. . . . I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the katrû-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord.”⁠25 So, Sennacherib’s version coincides with the Bible where Assyrian victories are concerned. But, as expected, he omits mentioning his failure to conquer Jerusalem and the fact that he was forced to return home because 185,000 of his soldiers had been killed in one night.​—2 Kings 18:13–19:36; Isaiah 36:1–37:37.

27. How does the Bible’s account of Sennacherib’s assassination compare with what ancient secular accounts say about it?

27 Consider Sennacherib’s assassination and what a recent discovery reveals. The Bible says that two of his sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, put Sennacherib to death. (2 Kings 19:36, 37) Yet both the account attributed to Babylonian King Nabonidus and that of the Babylonian priest Berossus of the third century B.C.E. mention only one son as involved in the slaying. Which was correct? Commenting on the more recent discovery of a fragmentary prism of Esar-haddon, Sennacherib’s son who succeeded him as king, historian Philip Biberfeld wrote: “Only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esar-haddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”⁠26

28. How has the Bible been vindicated in what it says about Belshazzar?

28 At one time all known ancient sources also differed with the Bible regarding Belshazzar. The Bible presents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon when it fell. (Daniel 5:1-31) However, secular writings did not even mention Belshazzar, saying that Nabonidus was king at the time. So critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed. More recently, however, ancient writings were found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and coruler with his father in Babylon. For this reason, evidently, the Bible says Belshazzar offered to make Daniel “the third ruler in the kingdom,” since Belshazzar himself was the second. (Daniel 5:16, 29) Thus the Yale University professor, R. P. Dougherty, when comparing the Bible book of Daniel with other ancient writings, said: “The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.”⁠27

29. What confirmation has been discovered regarding what the Bible says about Pontius Pilate?

29 Another example of a discovery that confirms the historicalness of a person mentioned in the Bible is given by Michael J. Howard, who worked with the Caesarea expedition in Israel in 1979. “For 1,900 years,” he wrote, “Pilate existed only on the pages of the Gospels and in the vague recollections of Roman and Jewish historians. Next to nothing was known about his life. Some said he never even existed. But in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition was working in the ruins of the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea. A workman overturned a stone that had been used for one of the stairways. On the reverse side was the following, partially-obscured inscription in Latin: ‘Caesariensibus Tiberium Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae.’ (To the people of Caesarea Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.) It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate’s existence. . . . For the first time there was contemporary epigraphic evidence of the life of the man who ordered the crucifixion of Christ.”⁠28​John 19:13-16;Acts 4:27.

30. What has been discovered regarding the use of camels that substantiates the Bible record?

30 Modern discoveries even substantiate minor details of ancient Bible accounts. For instance, contradicting the Bible, Werner Keller wrote in 1964 that camels were not domesticated at an early date, and, therefore, the scene where “we meet Rebecca for the first time in her native city of Nahor must make do with a change of stage props. The ‘camels’ belonging to her future father-in-law, Abraham, which she watered at the well were​—donkeys.”⁠29 (Genesis 24:10) However, in 1978 Israeli military leader and archaeologist Moshe Dayan pointed to evidence that camels “served as a means of transport” in those early times, and hence that the Bible account is accurate. “An eighteenth-century BC relief found at Byblos in Phoenicia depicts a kneeling camel,” Dayan explained. “And camel riders appear on cylinder seals recently discovered in Mesopotamia belonging to the patriarchal period.”⁠30

31. What further evidence is there that the Bible is historically accurate?

31 Evidence that the Bible is historically accurate has mounted irresistibly. While it is true that secular records of Egypt’s Red Sea debacle and other such defeats have not been found, this is not surprising since it was not the practice of rulers to record their defeats. Yet, discovered on the temple walls of Karnak in Egypt is the record of Pharaoh Shishak’s successful invasion of Judah during the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. The Bible tells about this at 1 Kings 14:25, 26. In addition, Moabite King Mesha’s version of his revolt against Israel has been discovered, being recorded on what is called the Moabite Stone. The account can also be read in the Bible at 2 Kings 3:4-27.

32. What can visitors to museums today see that verifies Bible accounts?

32 Visitors to many museums can see wall reliefs, inscriptions and statues that verify Bible accounts. Kings of Judah and Israel such as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Omri, Ahab, Pekah, Menahem and Hoshea appear on cuneiform records of Assyrian rulers. King Jehu or one of his emissaries is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser as paying tribute. The decor of the Persian palace of Shushan, as the Biblical characters Mordecai and Esther knew it, has been re-created for observation today. Statues of the early Roman Caesars, Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, who appear in Bible accounts, can also be viewed by museum visitors. (Luke 2:1; 3:1; Acts 11:28; 18:2) A silver denarius coin, in fact, has been found that bears the image of Tiberius Caesar​—a coin Jesus asked for when discussing the matter of taxes.​—Matthew 22:19-21.

33. How does the land of Israel and its features provide evidence that the Bible is accurate?

33 A modern-day visitor to Israel familiar with the Bible cannot help but be impressed with the fact that the Bible describes the land and its features with great accuracy. Dr. Ze’ev Shremer, leader of a geological expedition in the Sinai Peninsula, once said: “We have our own maps and geodetic survey plans, of course, but where the Bible and the maps are at odds, we opt for The Book.”⁠31 To give an example of how one can personally experience the history presented in the Bible: In Jerusalem today a person can walk through a 1,749-foot-long tunnel that was cut through solid rock over 2,700 years ago. It was cut to protect the city’s water supply by carrying water from the hidden spring of Gihon outside the city walls to the Pool of Siloam within the city. The Bible explains how Hezekiah had this water tunnel constructed to provide water for the city in anticipation of Sennacherib’s coming siege.​—2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30.

34. What have some respected scholars said about the Bible’s accuracy?

34 These are but a few examples that illustrate why it is unwise to underestimate the Bible’s accuracy. There are many, many more. So doubts about the Bible’s reliability are usually based, not on what it says or upon sound evidence, but instead upon misinformation or ignorance. The former director of the British Museum, Frederic Kenyon, wrote: “Archæology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge.”⁠32 And the well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck said: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”⁠33

Honesty and Harmony

35, 36. (a) What personal shortcomings did various Bible writers acknowledge? (b) Why does the honesty of these writers add weight to their claim that the Bible is from God?

35 Something else that identifies the Bible as coming from God is the honesty of its writers. It is contrary to imperfect human nature to admit mistakes or failures, especially in writing. Most ancient writers reported only their successes and virtues. Yet Moses wrote how he had “acted undutifully,” and so was disqualified from leading Israel into the Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 32:50-52; Numbers 20:1-13) Jonah told of his own waywardness. (Jonah 1:1-3; 4:1) Paul acknowledges his former wrongdoings. (Acts 22:19, 20; Titus 3:3) And Matthew, an apostle of Christ, reported that the apostles at times showed little faith, sought prominence and even abandoned Jesus at his arrest.​—Matthew 17:18-20; 18:1-6; 20:20-28;26:56.

36 If Bible writers were going to falsify anything, would it not be unfavorable information about themselves? They would not likely reveal their own shortcomings and then make false claims about other things, would they? So, then, the honesty of the Bible writers adds weight to their claim that God guided them as they wrote.​—2 Timothy 3:16.

37. Why is the internal harmony of the Bible such strong evidence that it is inspired by God?

37 The internal harmony around a central theme also testifies to the Bible’s Divine Authorship. It is easy to state that the Bible’s 66 books were written over a period of 16 centuries by some 40 different writers. But think how remarkable that fact is! Say that the writing of a book began during the time of the Roman Empire, that the writing continued through the period of the monarchies and to modern-day republics, and that the writers were people as different as soldiers, kings, priests, fishermen, and even a herdsman as well as a medical doctor. Would you expect every part of that book to follow the same precise theme? Yet the Bible was written over a similar period of time, under various political regimes, and by men of all those categories. And it is harmonious throughout. Its basic message has the same thrust from beginning to end. Does this not lend weight to the Bible’s claim that these “men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit”?​—2 Peter 1:20, 21.

38. What does it take for a person to trust the Bible?

38 Can you trust the Bible? If you really examine what it says, and do not simply accept what certain ones claim that it says, you will find reason to trust it. Yet, even stronger evidence exists that the Bible was indeed inspired by God, which is the subject of the next chapter.

[Blurb on page 202]

“The astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same”

[Blurb on page 204]

The Bible is remarkably free from superstitious expressions

[Blurb on page 206]

The close connection between mental attitude and physical health was long ago referred to in the Bible

[Blurb on page 215]

It is contrary to human nature to admit mistakes or failures, especially in writing

[Blurb on page 215]

The Bible is harmonious throughout

[Diagram on page 201]

This water cycle, generally unknown in ancient times, is described in the Bible

[Picture on page 200]

This is how some ancients believed that the earth was supported

[Picture on page 203]

Frozen-solid mammoth uncovered in Siberia. After thousands of years, vegetation was still in its mouth and stomach, and its flesh was edible when thawed out

[Picture on page 205]

In the past century, doctors did not always wash after touching the dead, causing other deaths

MORGUE

MATERNITY

[Picture on page 207]

The Bible’s emphasis on love harmonizes with sound medical advice

[Picture on page 209]

A limestone relief of King Sargon, who had long been known only from the Bible account

[Pictures on page 210]

A wall relief from King Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh, showing him receiving booty from the Judean city of Lachish

This clay prism of King Sennacherib describes his military expedition into Israel

[Pictures on page 211]

Victory monument of Esar-haddon, son of Sennacherib, amplifies 2 Kings 19:37: “And Esar-haddon his son began to reign in place of him”

This inscription, found in Caesarea, verifies that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea

[Pictures on page 212]

This wall relief verifies the record found in the Bible of Shishak’s victory over Judah

The Moabite Stone records the revolt of Moab’s King Mesha against Israel, described in the Bible

[Pictures on page 213]

King Jehu, or an emissary, paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III

Marble bust of Augustus, the Caesar when Jesus Christ was born

A silver denarius with Tiberius Caesar’s inscription, like the one Christ asked for

[Picture on page 214]

Interior of tunnel that King Hezekiah had hewed out to provide water for Jerusalem during Assyrian siege

The Footnotes for Ya:)

Chapter 17

Can You Trust the Bible?

1. Free Inquiry, “The Bible as a Political Weapon,” by Gerald Larue, Summer 1983, p. 39.

2. Scientific Monthly, “Geology and Health,” by Harry V. Warren, June 1954, p. 396.

3. Cook’s Commentary, edited by F. C. Cook, 1878, Vol. IV, p. 96.

4. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 9, p. 553.

5. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1984, Vol. 20, p. 136.

6. God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, 1978, pp. 11, 14.

7. Ibid., p. 16.

8. The Saturday Evening Post, “Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” by Ivan T. Sanderson, January 16, 1960, pp. 82, 83.

9. The New Dictionary of Thoughts, 1954, originally compiled by Tryon Edwards. Revised by C. N. Catrevas and Jonathan Edwards, p. 534.

10. The Physician Examines the Bible, by C. Raimer Smith, 1950, p. 354.

11. The Papyrus Ebers, by C. P. Bryan, 1931, pp. 73, 91, 92.

12. None of These Diseases, by S. I. McMillen, 1963, p. 23.

13. Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 18, p. 582b.

14. The Lancet, “Mental Health and Spiritual Values,” by Geoffrey Vickers, March 12, 1955, p. 524.

15. Today’s Health, “How to Avoid Harmful Stress,” by J. D. Ratcliff, July 1970, p. 43.

16. A Few Buttons Missing, by James T. Fisher and Lowell S. Hawley, 1951, p. 273.

17. Abraham, Recent Discoveries and Hebrew Origins, by Leonard Woolley, 1935, p. 22.

18. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, “Exodus,” edited by J. H. Hertz, 1951, p. 106.

19. From the Stone Age to Christianity, by William Foxwell Albright, 1940, pp. 192, 193.

20. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 106.

21. Digging Up the Bible, by Moshe Pearlman, 1980, p. 85.

22. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, 1969, pp. 284, 285.

23. Digging Up the Bible, p. 85.

24. Ibid.

25. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 288.

26. Universal Jewish History, by Philip Biberfeld, 1948, Vol. I, p. 27.

27. Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond Philip Dougherty, 1929, p. 200.

28. The Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, March 24, 1980, “Unearthing Pontius Pilate,” by Michael J. Howard, pp. B1, B2.

29. The Bible as History, by Werner Keller, 1964 edition, p. 161.

30. Living With the Bible, by Moshe Dayan, 1978, p. 39.

31. The Sun, San Bernardino, California, October 19, 1967, p. B-12.

32. The Bible and Archæology, by Frederic Kenyon, 1940, p. 279.

33. Rivers of the Desert, by Nelson Glueck, 1959, p. 31.

(Sorry cannot include images here…only written references to such.)
Peace & Palatable Food to You:)
Published by:

ho lo’gos

conscientious-ness God insights Joan Winifred justice logic sovereignty trust Truth

There is some circulating conjecture (needing clarifying) on “a” scripture: John 1:1.

Please check this excerpted reading out:) (my highlights)

the Word: Or “the Logos.” Greek, ho loʹgos. Here used as a title, it is also used at Joh 1:14 and Re 19:13. John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus. This title was applied to Jesus during his prehuman existence as a spirit creature, during his ministry on earth as a perfect man, and after his exaltation to heaven. Jesus was God’s Word of communication, or Spokesman, for conveying information and instructions to the Creator’s other spirit sons and to humans. So it is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, Jehovah communicated with mankind through the Word, His angelic mouthpiece.—Ge 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Ex 3:2-5; Jg 2:1-4; 6:11, 12; 13:3.

with: Lit., “toward.” In this context, the Greek preposition pros implies close proximity and fellowship. It also indicates separate persons, in this case, the Word and the only true God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1)

More scholarly commentary:

  • the Word was a god: Or “the Word was divine [or, “a godlike one”].” This statement by John describes a quality or characteristic of “the Word” […], that is, Jesus Christ. The Word’s preeminent position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things is a basis for describing him as “a god; a godlike one; divine; a divine being.” Many translators favor the rendering “the Word was God,” equating him with God Almighty. However, there are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that “the Word” was the same as Almighty God. First, the preceding clause and the following clause both clearly state that “the Word” was “with God.” Also, the Greek word the·osʹ occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·osʹ is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article. Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·osʹ refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.” Therefore, a number of Bible translations in English, French, and German render the text in a way similar to the New World Translation, conveying the idea that “the Word” was “a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike.” Supporting this view, ancient translations of John’s Gospel into the Sahidic and the Bohairic dialects of the Coptic language, probably produced in the third and fourth centuries C.E., handle the first occurrence of the·osʹ at Joh 1:1 differently from the second occurrence. These renderings highlight a quality of “the Word,” that his nature was like that of God, but they do not equate him with his Father, the almighty God. In harmony with this verse, Col 2:9 describes Christ as having “all the fullness of the divine quality.” And according to 2Pe 1:4, even Christ’s joint heirs would “become sharers in divine nature.” Additionally, in the Septuagint translation, the Greek word the·osʹ is the usual equivalent of the Hebrew words rendered “God,” ʼel and ʼelo·himʹ, which are thought to convey the basic meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” These Hebrew words are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and humans. (See study note on Joh 10:34.) Calling the Word “a god,” or “a mighty one,” would be in line with the prophecy at Isa 9:6, foretelling that the Messiah would be called “Mighty God” (not “Almighty God”) and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this.—Isa 9:7.

    [excerpted readings: “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Study Edition, Gems]

Further reading for post context:
and me, this little birdie,…is hummming the “missing” tune from afore-mentioned post:

LOL…this sister, me aka “a” woman, 1 individual of many women on Earth (AND no, i am not a trinity!…i am “a” separate person from my mother and my daughter in case You needed, obvious-logical clarification:))…however, with woman-like qualities who ain’t into twisting scripture. 😉

Lies are worthless and weak…when You do Your own investigative-research and find truth…You just don’t take any lies anymore…You Defend Truth With Truth!:)

8/14/18 @ 1:44 p.m.

Published by:

Unmuting Mutations

Breathing-Fragile-Life insects insights Joan Winifred justice science & spirituality things i learned trust Truth

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”⁠15 ~Geneticist Dobzhansky

25. Insects have shown what remarkable stability?

25 For example, insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly and plentifully, without any evolutionary ancestors. Nor have they changed much even down to this day. Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said: “The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.”⁠27 And a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto commented: “In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”⁠28  [excerpted Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Chapter 5, p.65 Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (my highlights)]

2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.⁠1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠3

3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?

3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”⁠4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations​—sudden changes in heredity—​breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”⁠5

4. What difficulty arises with the claim that mutations may be involved in rapid evolutionary changes?

4 It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.”⁠6 But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

5. How do mutations originate?

5 How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”⁠7

Are They Helpful or Harmful?

6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?

6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”⁠8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”⁠9

7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.⁠10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.⁠11

8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?

8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁠12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁠13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

9, 10. Why is it an unwarranted assumption that mutations account for evolution?

9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”⁠14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

11-13. Do mutations ever produce anything new?

11 Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.

12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”⁠16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.

13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

What about…Drosophila melanogaster, common fruit fly??

Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.

15 After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”⁠17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.

16. How does the hereditary code help to preserve organisms?

16 The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”⁠18

17. Why was Goldschmidt disappointed in mutation experiments?

17 Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”⁠19

OH! post needs some pepper?? 😉

18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?

18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”⁠20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?

20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”⁠22

22. Does the fact that some insects prove immune to poisons mean that they are evolving?

22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

23. What Genesis standard has been confirmed also by mutations?

23 The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

24. How have breeding experiments shown that living things reproduce only “according to their kinds”?

24 Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”⁠24 [excerpted Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? Chapter 8, pp. 99-113, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]

Hmmm….:) Flies, moths, tick…ed off?!;)  YEAH, at evolution..ary LIES!…“old” news and (my) old reads…but relevant to now.

Unmuting mutations…and what do they say?!

(flies, moths, ticks…still…flies, moths, ticks = Truth)

the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.””

 

References/footnotes: Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

Chapter 5 footnotes:
27. The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49.
28. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, “That’s Life,” October 5, 1982, p. 6.

Chapter 8 footnotes:
1. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.

2. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.

3. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.

4. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250.

5. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.

6. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 92.

7. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.

8. Cosmos, p. 31.

9. Chromosomes and Genes, p. 127.

10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.

11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.

12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.

13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.

14. The Wellsprings of Life, by Isaac Asimov, 1960, p. 139.

15. Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126.

16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 332.

17. Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

18. Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72.

19. Darwin Retried, by Norman Macbeth, 1971, p. 33.

20. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706.

21. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

22. On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.

23. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.

24. On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.

7/24/18 @ 4:43 p.m.

Published by:
Make $$$ Selling Ads