volgadon

CARBON FOOTPRINT. Can't stand that term.

The Russian dubbing for Witness, the film where Mel Gibson is a cop protecting an Amish family, has Amish translated as Mormons. Several people on the mission asked my companion where his hat and beard were...

Actually, I see no evidence that it was applied all that often. Those rare occasions are noteworthy.

The death penalty was applied very rarely, even in the OT. I don't see any reason not to take this story at face value. They transgressed a law of God, robbed him, and lied about it.

What I find interesting about the German jet fighters is that Hitler was invited to a test-run, but the landing-gear malfunctioned mysteriously, which did not please Hitler, to put it mildly. He nearly scratched the project. I do see the Lord's hand in WWI, especially in the eastern theatres. The hold of the russian Orthodox Church on the people was broken, Israel was put on the path to independance and the massacre of the Armenians was shortened.

In part.

I'm LDS. Good questions. I think it is that their posterity was blessed, the Lord knew their potential. Perhaps Judah, despite his sins, had regal qualities.

Umm, reading the OT in Hebrew WITHOUT knowing Hebrew does not make things much clearer.

Jacob weaved the past, present and near and distant futures together.... He expresses disappointment in Reuben, his first born for bedding Jacob's wife. The tribe of Reuben were probably worst off of all the tribes when it came to the lands of their inheritance, as they were on the desert frontier and were the first to suffer from nomads as well as from the terrain itself. Jacob intensely dislikes the company of his sons Levi and Simeon, who, it seems, were always engaged in some secret combination or another. He curses them for their castration of the nobles of Shechem, which caused their death. They are quite treacherous. As a result, their descendants will have no land of their own. Levi was spread among the various tribes and Simeon was swallowed up in Judah. Judah's greatness stands out against the background of those three brothers. He is made the chief of the tribes, and the mightiest. The lion is a symbol of royal might. Most of these blessings have to do with Christ, but Judah is promised that they will always have a king, until the Savior (Shiloh) comes. Herod's son Archelaus was the last semi-independent ruler of Judah. He reigned when Joseph brought his family out of Egypt. Judah's land will be fertile and the amount of grapes will be so great that they could afford to wash their clothes in wine. A poetic exaggeration, naturaly, but Judah was pretty fertile until the devastation caused by the failed Bar Kochba revolt in 138 AD. The wine made there was very rich, shown by its deep, dark colour, which is what Jacob means by verse 11. Zebulon's territory bordered on the coastal plain of Akko (Acre). Jacob doesn't have much to say to him. The tribe of Issachar will be as complacent as the donkeys bred for carrying heavy loads, who are satisfied with being kept in a pen, as long as they are fed. Issachar as a tribe was very servile and not inclined to fight for their freedom from the Canaanites. Though not stated here, this is contrast to the onager (a wild ass) which was a symbol of fierce stubborness. Dan will judge the whole people, as if they were members of his own tribe. To judge in the oldest sense of the word was to save someone from injustice, be it legal or military. Samson was from Dan. Dan would be a very dangerous tribe, like a snake lying in wait by the roadside, attacking targets much larger than him. The caravans of the kingdom of Jerusalem (in the days before David) were regularly ambushed by Dan. The adder is the shfifon, a snake known for its swift attack. In fact, in Akkadian records, it is a synonym for swift military action. Asher's food and produce would be rich (oil was a synonym for that). They would also produce remarkeably fine oil, of the kind that kings would use at their table. Naphthali's blessing is hard to interpret, because the language in Hebrew isn't very clear. The most likely meaning is that the tribe is like a swift deer, when bringing fine offerings to the temple. The offerings were lambs, of course. Naphtali's territory is very good for herding. I live there. Joseph is like a fertile branch (it is interesting that son originally meant a branch) of a tree planted by a fountain of water. This is especially interesting when we consider what part his tribes play in the gospel. Christ is the fountain of living waters. Compare this to the allegory of the vine during the last supper. His branches run over the wall hides a wordplay in Hebrew, which refers to Joseph's running Egypt. Joseph's enemies will attack him and make his life miserable, but the Lord will strengthen him. I'm sure that this has a lot to do with Joseph Smith, but also with the exodus of the priesthood to Utah. It is interesting that the word translated as mighty meant an ox. The shepherd and the stone are both terms refering to Christ. We know that the everlasting hills and the eternal mountains mean the rockies, but there is also a meaning of endless boundaries, which is interesting considering the growth of the priesthood and the church. They are compared to a crown which shall be on the head of Joseph. Benjamin is the most warlike of the tribes. He is like a wolf who kills enough prey to have much of it left over from breakfast. The tribe of Benjamin were famed as warriors and archers in the ancient world. The Assyrians even had battalions of Benjamites. I hope this helps.

Polygamy went against the cultural upbringing of all involved, including Joseph Smith. There isn't evidence that he consumated most of his other marriages and I think quite a few of his wives were quite a bit older than he was.

Look at the context in which Paul mentions it. At any rate, it was practiced by the early Christians, until the council of Carthage, in the 4th century AD.

Here is a bit on Arbel from the Book of Zerubabel, the only English source I could find.

From Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, book XVIII, chp I, 6. Wars of the Jews, book II, chp VIII, 1. Wars of the Jews, book II, chp XVII, 8.

The point is that he does. You refuse to even consider that, because it seriously dents your position. Which ones? As I have pointed out, there is indication that he was going to the Galilee and not Judaea. If we read the passage in sequence, Joseph remembered his dream and thus overcame his fears. Nice dodge. Anyway, Isaiah isn't mentioned that frequently in rabbinic circles, and most of the citations are from chapter 30 and on. No, it just shows that you won't play at your own games. How does Fredriksen know what the original context of Isaiah was? She can only guess. Academics are constantly reevaluating opinions. I'll post those Josephus quotes in a separate post, but you are exceptionally obtuse. It really shows you have no desire to learn, but only to lecture. The Lord, probably. Nephi, OTOH, was not told a thing, so how did he know? Baby names? Are you kidding? Arbel has nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14, I don't know why you keep mixing the two. Matthew was Jewish, so you have supplied your own evidence. As for it being an absurd idea for an ancient Israelite, why? 2 Nephi 25:1, 4-5. You realise you can stop speaking on behalf of everyone, because you don't. Nephi tells us that the things of Isaiah are difficult to understand at face value. Interpreting the scriptures is outside the area of expertise for the president of the church? I never claimed it did, Alma is the one I turn to for Bethlehem. That is where you are wrong. At can mean in the area of, and what is more, Alma says the land of our forefathers. They were from the Jerusalem area. The land of Jerusalem means the environs of Jerusalem. There is a letter written to Amenhotep IV using the term. You are ignoring Alma when you read Nephi, and ignorig Nephi when reading Alma. Haggling refers to business transactions, anything else is a very improper use. Which you have failed to show.

I don't have time to post anything lengthy, I'm off to church, but I hope you realised what higher criticism is, Enlil-An. Higher criticism is an attempt to interpret the Bible by leaving out God.

Youonly consulted English translations. I consulted as many as I could. As I said, I'm waiting for anyone knowledgeable in Koine Greek to correct me, if I am wrong. Out of curiosity, have you ready any who disagree? If there was only the one dream, then he was already instructed to go to the Galilee when he was in Egypt. You keep using that as your fall back position. The majority of the Jerusalem Talmud was collected no later than the mid 3rd century AD. Most of the traditions (which are part of the aggadic material) can be traced back to the 2nd temple era. These were not written down until many, many years later, being part of the oral torah. The tradition itself firmly places itself within a 2nd temple context. You haven't been willing to put any work into anything. You prefer to regurgitate the arguments of others. They are hardly wild. They are as straight forward and common-sensical as possible, without resorting to imbecility. You are the one insisting that 'we' refers to Abraham's seed in general, rather than to the specific group speaking. YOU are the one presuming that they lack in arrogance, which is a major theme running through John's gospel. YOU are the one being disingenious and overly-simplistic. I've hardly read any written by paid evangelists. Let us play at your game, I want to see hard and fast evidence that she understood the original context Isaiah intended. She is a higher critic, isn't she? What is important is what colours the opinions. HOW did he know she was a virgin, you can't tell just by looking. You are assuming that Isaiah wanted to use a precise word. Nice dodge. What is the meaning of Imanuel? God is with us. Imanuel was not a common Hebrew name, in fact, I'm not sure I've seen an earlier occurance than Imanuel the Roman. He was a 13th century Italian Jew. Where it does appear, apart from Luke, is in the next chapter of Isaiah, chapter 8. Try verses 8-10. If you want to play the eaxct wording game, it isn't sun child. Well, the only Jewish evidence available would be thrown out by you for the same reasons you throw out the Arbel thing. That chapter tells you nothing of how Isaiah prophecied? 2nd Nephi 11 doesn't either? I suspected as much. What the issue really is, is your lack of faith in God, prefering to put your trust in the opinion of man. You do understand what higher criticism is all about, don't you? You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's? HAHAHAHA Nazareth isn't? 1 Nephi 11:13. Alma does not name Bethlehem, but uses the phrase 'at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers'. That obviously is not Nazareth. It does not say that clearly. In fact, no miracles occur in the chapter. Verse 40 says "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, of a truth this is the Prophet." I did. Take another look. You obviously don't. Where did I haggle?

Bro Rudick, the problem is that Enlil-An doesn't seem to believe any of the prophets.

And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in. The Message is a very mediocre work. The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit. The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one. There are times when I think you almost get it. So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel? Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself. It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him. The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious. Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin. What is the significance of the name Immanuel? You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert. Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one? Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem. So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that. You are very tiresome with those silly little accusations. I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post. Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus. Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference. I could c&p the definition, because I know how fond you are of wild goose chases.

I never made the claim that they didn't have to go through Archelaus's territory. The whole point is that despite his natural fears, Joseph remembered that God commanded this and he went through the land. So what are the odds of none of the non-English translations I consulted saying warned, but rather commanded or instructed? I checked Hebrew, Aramaic, Old Slavonic and Russian (several different ones too). Alright then, ammend work to worked. Which one of my statements is wrong? Why do you assume that my source is online? Which is part of why I didn't provide them. As I said before, your loss. If you want to make sweeping pronouncements on the veracity of the Gospels and how that impacts our LDS faith WITHOUT immersing yourself in all aspects of the topic, then that is your problem. I would ask you how does the author know that they had nothing to do with a messiah. First of all, my point was that if Nephi says she was a virgin, why do you have such a hard time believing Matthew's interpretation? The world aalmah does not exclude virginity. Secondly, read 2 Nephi 11. And yes, I do mean the whole chapter. Thirdly, f I can find but three latter-day prophets and apostles who support Matthew's interpretation, will that satisfy you? Not just in the same text. What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10? What evidence? The evidence staring you in the face. Common sense. You seem to need to have everything spelled out. Some said. If there were no other traditions, then why would there be a division, it could be settled by simple appeal to the scriptures. Spare me the sarcasm. That is not a war you want to start. All you need to do is track down the source. It isn't diffcult at all to do. I believe the whole of Josephus is online. Your argument is based on outside sources.

Ah yesm you've fallen into the higher criticism trap. A more pertinent question is where does that leave your faith. The key word here is seem. No, but is our understanding of science God's understanding? What do you have in mind.

Not impossible, of course, but highly improbable. Especially for a small family. In the wintertime it was nearly impassable. That area gets ferocious flash floods. In the summertime you have no food, feed and water. Until you've been there, it is hard to appreciate. You still have to cross Archelaus's realm and then there are Nabataean tolls to paym and Antipas'sm and then Archelaus's again.

Bro Rudick, I really enjoy reading your posts, You have a way of making your points simple yet clear. They've given me a lot to think about. This was the condition of the area, and it was also the wilderness which John and Jesus later frequented. I'll see what I've got, what sort of thing did you have in mind?

Johnny, that kind of route doesn't make any sense. They would have had to travel due east through some very rough and barren territory, then travel up through some even rougher in order to cross back west, all the time with a very young child. Brutal, barren hills with little water or shelter along the way, through an area infested by highwaymen and marauding nomads, exorbitant Nabataean tolls, murderous sun for half the year and devastating flash floods the other half, and so on. The coastal road was farily safe and had settlements and roadside facilities at convenient intervals. The only trouble in Joseph's mind was Archelaus.

Right, except that the small part of the coastal road given to Salome came under Archelaus's control. Samaria suffered just as much as the heart of Judaea. Josephus Wars, book II, chp 6-7. Those towns given Salome were considered as Judah by Jewish writers, not as Idumaea. I have yet to see a reference in the Mishna and Talmud to Jamniah being Idumaea. You are basing your arguments on the KJV. I'm still waiting for someone who knows Koine Greek to tell me that it doesn't say going in or through where the English has thither and that the word is warned, as you claim and not commanded or instructed. As you can't be bothered to look those up, you expect me to take the time to translate them into English? I'm sorry, but you haven't. As for the scholarly works, I've read many over many years, and quite a bit of that isn't in English. I'll try and post a short bibliography. As for context, that is easy. Read the chapter. If that doesn't help, where was the Aramean and Assyrian invasion route? Through the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, the area described by Isaiah, and this is backed up by archaeology (such as at Bethsaida, which my brother dug at and found Assyrian arrowheads and bits of scale). I would tell you to take a look at Yair Hoffman's comments in the Isaiah volume of Olam HaTanakh (which he edited), but you couldn't read it. Yair Hoffman is one of the eminent Israeli biblical scholars. Here are your words. "Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus." (where is the exact reference BTW). "For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show that the virgin birth was predicted in scripture. The problem is that the scripture he quotes is the Greek translation which uses the word parthenos (an ambiguous Greek word meaning either "young girl" or "virgin"). The original Hebrew reading uses the word aalmah which simply means "young girl" (the Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah) and would not be construed by anyone reading Hebrew to mean that a baby would be born from a virgin." Corruption accounts for most of the errors and contradictory statements in ancient texts. I was going off of what you said. Assuming that your reading is correct, it still doesn't support your conclusion. Their statement is the height of arrogance and wilful ignorance and contrasts with the Saviour's teachings. It does not mean that whoever wrote John was ignorant of the captivity. No, it is chauvinism in its fullest sense. Or you could use the table of contents or index to find those sections which fit the time-frame. Search engines make that even easier. Try Antiquities, book XVIII, chp I, 6. Wars, book II, chp VIII, section 1, chp XVII, 8. And yes, it would help if you would read all of Josephus, to get an idea of the political and social backdrop to the Gospels. Before making such pronouncements on the authenticity of the Gospels I would hope you would at least acquaint yourself with other contemporary or near-contemporary materials. [quote}How long are you going to play these games, volgadon? Everytime I've used a source to back up one of my arguements, I've quoted the source and precisely where it's located so that everyone can see it in the context of my arguement and can prove it for themselves by finding it quickly. The more you neglect to do this also, the more shakey your arguements look. Why don't you provide us with the exact quotes for your claims? Are you hoping that by not doing so, we'll just take your word for it and be too discouraged or lazy to check it out ourselves - kind of like Matthew does when using the vague assertion "spoken by the prophets" in reference to Jesus being a Nazarene? Where have you quoted an exact source and precisely where it is located?

Noted and preeminent biblical scholar Frank Moore Cross has written on covenants.