Make $$$ Selling Ads

Category Archives: study

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:

wormwood

appreciation attitude book conscientious-ness education fake "holy" days God insights Joan Winifred knowledge mind food spiritual food study things i learned True v. False Religion trust Truth Unity wisdom

definition/description read:

Various woody plants having an intensely bitter taste and a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood is used figuratively in the Bible to describe the bitter effects of immorality, enslavement, injustice, and apostasy. At Revelation 8:11, “wormwood” denotes a bitter and poisonous substance, also called absinthe.​—De 29:18; Pr 5:4; Jer 9:15; Am 5:7. (New World Translation Revised Edition 2013–Glossary)

Wormwood v. What the Bible Truly Teaches or “really says”…

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

God’s personal name is unimportant:  “The use of any proper name for the one and only God is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.”  (Preface to the Revised Standard Version)

What the Bible Says:

 Jesus prayed that God’s name be sanctified. Peter said: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32Matthew 6:9; Exodus 6:3Revelation 4:11; 15:3; 19:6)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

God is a Trinity: “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.”  (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 edition)

What the Bible Truly Teaches:

The Bible says that Jehovah is greater than Jesus and is the God and head of Christ. (John 14:28; 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3The holy spirit is God’s active force. (Matthew 3:11Luke 1:41; Acts 2:4)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

The human soul is immortal: When man dies his soul and body are disunited. His body . . .decays . . .The human soul, however, does not die.” (What Happens After Death, a Roman Catholic publication)

What the Bible Really Says:

Man is a soul. At death the soul ceases to think or feel and returns to the dust from which it was made.  (Genesis 2:7; 3:19;Psalm 146:3, 4Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20; 9:5, 10Ezekiel 18:4, 20)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

The wicked are punished after death in hell: “According to traditional Christian belief, hell is a place of unending anguish and pain.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, edition 1987)

What the Bible Truly Teaches:

The wages of sin is death, not life in torment. (Romans 6:23The dead rest unconscious in

*hell (Hades, Sheol), awaiting a resurrection. (Psalm 89:48; John 5:28, 29; 11:24, 25Revelation 20:13, 14) (*hell is the common grave of mankind)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

“The title Mediatrix [female mediator] is applied to Our Lady.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 edition)

What the Bible Says:

The only mediator between God and men is Jesus. (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15Heb 12:24)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

Infants should be baptized: “From the very beginning the Church has administered Sacrament of Baptism to infants. Baptism to infants: Not only was this practice considered lawful, but it was also taught to be absolutely necessary for salvation.”  (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 edition)

What the Bible Truly Teaches:

Baptism is for those who have been made disciples and taught to obey Jesus’ commandments. To qualify for baptism, a person must understand God’s Word and exercise faith. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Luke 3:21-23; Acts 8:35, 36)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

Most churches are divided into a laity class and a clergy class, The clergy are usually given a salary in exchange for their ministry and are exalted over the laity by titles such as “Reverend,” “Father,” or “His Eminence.”

What the Bible says:

All first-century Christians were ministers and shared in preaching the good news. (Acts 2:17, 18Romans 10:10-13; 16:1) A Christian should “give free,” not for a salary. (Matthew 10:7, 8 ) Jesus strictly forbade the use of religious titles.(Matthew 6:2; 23:2-12;1 Peter 5:1-3)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

Images, icons, and crosses are used in worship: “The images . . . of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be . . . kept in churches and due reverence and honor be paid to them.” (Declaration of the Council of Trent [1545-63])

What the Bible Truly Teaches:

Christians must flee from every sort of idolatry, including so-called relative worship. (Exodus 20:4, 51 Corinthians 10:141 John 5:21) They worship God not by sight but with spirit and truth. (John 4:23, 242 Corinthians 5:7)

Beliefs and Attitudes of Christendom:

Church members are taught that God’s purposes will be accomplished through politics. The late Cardinal Spellman stated: “There is only one road  . . . , the highroad of democracy. News items report religion’s involvement in the world’s politics (even in insurrections) and her support of the UN as “the last hope of concord and peace.”

What the Bible Says:

Jesus preached God’s Kingdom, not some political system, as the hope for mankind. (Matthew 4:23; 6:9, 10He refused to get involved in politics. (John 6:14 15) His Kingdom was no part of this world; hence, his followers were to be no part of the world. (John 18:36; 17:16) Jesus warned against friendship with the world. (James 4:4)

[reference reading excerpted: (from the aforementioned book in another post: T-h-e Red Book): Revelation–It’s Grand Climax at Hand!)

Question(s) for Reflection(s):
am i choosing bitter (wormwood)?
am i choosing sweet (Truth)?
am i distinguishing between bitter fruit? and sweet fruit?
am i living wormwood?
am i living Truth?
are my daily decisions indicative of my making clear distinctions between wormwood & Truth?
9/23/18 @ 12:27 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

peakaboo-eye-see-you

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:

(Spineless??) (Mind) Contortionist(s)?! hmmmm

courage dance faith insights Joan Winifred mind food spiritual food study trust Truth

PLEASE READ & THINK AT YOUR OWN RISK…of g~e~n~t~l~y stretching/(exercising within reason) Your Own Mind—Your Own Power(s) of Reason:)

Thinking about: flexibility, hypermobility, and contortion–differing phenomena…and any long-term damage to spine….may be? (mind) front benders and back benders…are spineless? or have damaged consciences? or a damaged consciousness? or are dangerously/fatally indecisive?? or too wishy-washy??  Or just exercising their particular mind-range-of-motion…also, thinking about (mind) performing arts…(i.e. enterology—squeezing one’s body into a small box).

(Mind) boxes various minds stuff themselves in; crowded.

Bodies have healthy/reasonable limits of movement/actions and so? should minds, eh?…to remain healthy & safe, etc. FIT!

Some bodies are more flexible than others…minds…move, moving…

Being a healthy, flexible/open-minded s–t–r–e–t–c–h–y thinker is one thing…however, too much over-stretching can be damaging & dangerous in my P.O.V.

Just doing some “surface” thinking…seems like IF …too overly-rigid or too overly-stretched-out brain..lol…mind …

elastic waist bands serve a purpose!…suppose to hold up your pants/skirt!…yet, when the waist band doesn’t snap back…is over-stretched…it’s not working properly, right?  Yeah, thinking/reading (briefly tonight) about neural plasticity…strengthening and weakening…and shaping, structure, function..(a fascinating subject/topic for me, however, secondary to spiritual topics which i prioritize)…

tests of faith arise, (tests of elasticity? snapping, breaking, stretching abilities/growth) etc. Anyway…these above-mentioned thoughts bring me to this:

Backbone of FAITH and COURAGE based on (sufficient “accurate” knowledge (doesn’t always include every minute detail)) needed for “stability” and spiritually-active-life-saving-decisiveness, eh?

Abraham certainly had backbone!! Not a coward… and not disagreeable!… actually, his test was more of an agreeable test of… “willingly” performing the seemingly “disagreeable” act/sacrifice. Why would he willingly do such an act?

Whose gonna have the last laugh?? (The faith FULL?)…(beware of mind poison, huh?;)

Abraham had already built up his immunity (his FAITH) in God/”true” salvation and the resurrection…(HOPE)

He foreshadowed what God himself was willing and would do in offering up (his beloved son Isaac on altar) for all of humanity…Jesus Christ–God’s Son.

Interesting reading on subject: Abraham, Faith, Sacrifice, Resurrection:

According to a recent estimate, one of the worst pandemics in human history was the Spanish influenza of 1918, which killed tens of millions of people. Other diseases are more lethal in a sense. While they may infect fewer people, they kill a higher percentage of the people they do infect.* However, what if we were to compare sin to such a pandemic? Recall the words of Romans 5:12: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” The infection rate of sin is 100 percent, since all imperfect humans sin. (Read Romans 3:23.) And what is the mortality rate? Paul wrote that sin brings death “to all men.”

Many today do not see sin and death in such dire terms. They worry about what they call premature death, but they dismiss as “natural” the death that creeps up on humans through the aging process. It is all too easy for humans to forget the Creator’s perspective. Our lifespan is infinitely shorter than he meant it to be. Actually, no human has lived for even “one day” from Jehovah’s point of view. (2 Pet. 3:8) God’s Word thus says that our lives are as transitory as a season’s growth of grass or as an exhaled breath. (Ps. 39:5; 1 Pet. 1:24) We need to keep that perspective in mind. Why? If we see the severity of the “disease” that afflicts us, we can better appreciate the value of the “cure”​—our deliverance.

Jehovah asked the faithful man Abraham to do something supremely difficult​—to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Now, Abraham was a loving father. Jehovah spoke to him of Isaac as “your only son whom you so love.” (Gen. 22:2) Still, Abraham saw that doing Jehovah’s will was even more important than his love for IsaacAbraham went ahead and obeyed. However, Jehovah did not allow Abrahamto do what He himself would do one day. God sent an angel to stop Abraham just before sacrificing his son. Abraham had been so determined to obey his God in this difficult test that he felt sure that his only hope of seeing the young man alive again would be by means of a resurrection. But he had complete faith that God would perform such a resurrection. Indeed, Paul said that Abraham did receive Isaac back by resurrection “in an illustrative way.”​—Heb. 11:19.

14 Can you begin to imagine Abraham’s pain as he prepared to offer up his son? In a sense, Abraham’s experience helps to illustrate that of Jehovah in sacrificing the one he called “my Son, the beloved.” (Matt. 3:17) Remember, though, that Jehovah’s pain was likely more intense. He and his Son had enjoyed associating together for countless millions, perhaps even billions, of years. The Son worked joyously with the Father as his beloved “master worker” and as his Spokesman, “the Word.” (Prov. 8:22,30, 31; John 1:1) What Jehovah endured as his Son was tormented, ridiculed, and then executed as a criminal is far more than we can know. Our deliverance cost Jehovah dearly!

How might we illustrate why we should appreciate the deliverance that Jehovah has made possible for us?

16 Let us return to the illustration given at the outset. Suppose the doctor who finds the cure to the disease were to approach the patients in your ward with this offer: Any patient who accepts treatment and follows the prescribed regimen will without fail be cured. What if most of your fellow patients refused to follow the doctor’s direction, arguing that it would be too much trouble to take the medicine or adhere to the prescribed regimen? Would you go along with them, even though you had convincing evidence that the cure really worked? Of course not! No doubt you would express thanks for the cure and then follow the doctor’s instructions carefully, perhaps even telling others of your choice. In a far greater sense, each of us should be eager to show Jehovah just how much we appreciate the deliverance that he has made possible through the ransom sacrifice of his Son.​—Read Romans 6:17, 18. [excerpts Do You Value What Jehovah Has Done to Deliver You? w ’09]

It’s not that big of a mind stretch to appreciate Abraham’s Act of Faith…the point…Yes, Abraham was a man of Great, Sturdy Faith…faith based on “convincing” evidence…what evidence?! check it out (my purple highlights):

12, 13. What powerful basis for faith in the resurrection did Abraham have?

12 Abraham, who was described as “Jehovah’s friend,” was a man of outstanding faith. (James 2:23) Paul referred to Abraham’s faith three times in his listing of faithful men and women recorded in the 11th chapter of Hebrews. (Hebrews 11:8, 9, 17) His third reference focuses on the faith Abraham displayed when he obediently prepared to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham was convinced that the promise of a seed through Isaac was guaranteed by Jehovah. Even if Isaac were to die as a sacrifice, Abraham “reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead.

13 As events turned out, when Jehovah saw the strength of Abraham’s faith, he arranged for an animal to substitute as a sacrifice. Still, Isaac’s experience served as an illustration of the resurrection, as Paul explained: “From there he [Abraham] did receive him [Isaac] also in an illustrative way.” (Hebrews 11:19) More than that,Abraham already had a powerful basis for his belief in the resurrection. Had not Jehovah brought back to life Abraham’s reproductive powers when he and his wife, Sarah, came together in their old age and produced their son, Isaac?​Genesis 18:10-14; 21:1-3; Romans 4:19-21. [Excerpts The Resurrection a Bible Teaching That Affects You w ’05]

Faith Immunity…Inconceivable??…NAH!😉

7/7/18 @ 9:45 p.m.

Published by:
Make $$$ Selling Ads