It is rather deceptive for certain canned drinks
and fruits to be labeled: "No Sugar Added" when
instead the large-lettered front label should
read: "Splenda Added."
Splenda (sucralose) was downgraded from
"safe" to "caution" in 2013 after an Italian animal
study linked sucralose to a higher risk of
developing leukemia.
Avoid purchasing drinks with weird-tasting
Sucralose with the strange after-taste
and instead drink sweet beverages with sufficient
plain sugar. Read the fine-print ingredients-content
labels required by the FDA. Limit intake of such
sweet drinks as to not cause potential or overt
diabetes and obesity problems, and dilutive spring
water can be ingested to compensate.
Black Holes are not actually holes of emptiness, but
instead compactions of star matter so condensed
that gravitational attraction of such is so intense that
electromagnetic radiation such as photons of light
are trapped and cannot escape, and none can be
seen through such so-called black "holes" to
observers on Earth.
As fast-spinning electrons in orbits around nuclei,
which change orbital proximity to those nuclei in
response to incoming or outgoing forms of
electromagnetic energy, absorb or emit other types
of electromagnetic energy such as visible light, so
changes of particles within nuclei themselves result
in the production and alteration of gravity-wave
radiation.
There is no such thing as "space-time." Space
involves only three dimensions of length, width, and
depth....whereas time merely involves duration.
Of course, both space and time can and do describe
positionings and interactions of actual physical
objects and interrelated forces.
Light from objects apparently millions or billions of
light-years distant from Earth and observers on
Earth did not travel the duration of millions or
billions of years to reach Earth, but instead light
related to such actual and however-distant stellar
objects was created enroute along with those
however-distant stellar objects during Creation
Week described in the first chapter of Genesis
in the Holy Bible.
All items in creation were created by the Creator
in already-fully-functioning and ongoing form
which obviously did not slowly assemble, with
an alleged "mind of their own," in
non-functioning-by-themselves/
non-interdependent-with-other-parts pieces or
segments.
The following two Bible verses are useful for testing whether or not a considered "Bible" translation is - in fact - a bonafide, legitimate, fairly-faithful, and at-least mostly-accurate translation of the Sacred-66-books Judeo-Christian Old-and-New-Testaments Holy Bible:
WHAT is the best way to fight
back against injust wrongdoers? Whether
personally in a neighborhood or city setting, in
politics and government, and whatever else?
Should their property be vandalized? His or her
money be embezzled or stolen? His or her reputation
or credibility defamed? They themselves injured or
murdered?
The very words: "vandalized, embezzled, stolen,
defamed," "injured," and "murdered" obviously imply
non-authorized acts.
Seemingly-identical applied fulfillment of the words
above might appear similar, but are instead to be
described with fitting semantic definitions of what
instead is legitimate, understandable, and justified
as a necessary and expedient means to a righteous
end.
We must first understand that vengeance belongs
to God - whether the Lord does it directly through
some coincidental-happenstance Act of God . . . or
whether He decides, in some way, to call and
mandate one of his human agents to apply forceful
justice of whatever type on His behalf.
IF HE chooses to commission one of his chosen
and non-hypocritically-qualified human agents to
sensibly inflict selective havoc on a particular
adversary, the Spirit of Jesus Christ (and concordant
with His sacred-66-books Old-and-New-Testaments
Holy Bible) determines who specifically (and only
who) the punishment is to be applied to, what exactly
the particular retribution will be, the severity, and
duration, plus appropriate time and place for such
to occur.
Even though angry emotion might be involved on
the part of God's human executioner of whatever sort,
that executioner must - in all rational and controlled
sanity and caution - realize at all times that he is
effecting justice on the Lord's behalf, and not
merely his own.
There are ADVANTAGES for Herr Ratzinger
(a.k.a. Pope Benedict) to resign as Pope:
(1) Health and Safety Concerns
(2) He does not have to continue to be
harassed by sexist females and their irritating
feminist voices, imposing themselves as Scripture
or liturgy readers during masses
(3) He does not have to continue to be
besieged by demands from homoperverts for
same-gender union blessings and/or employment in
the church
(4) He does not have to officially represent
the Vatican by need to encounter the
Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born,
"I-have-done-no-evil/he-has-done-no-evil,"
pro-abortion-choice Barack Hussein Obama as
questionably related to the United States
(5) He can pursue his piano performances
and practices
(6) He can concentrate on composing and
publishing Douay-version-assisted theological
dissertations instead of being bogged down with
tediously-repetitive mass mantras plus slow-moving
and boring up-front choreography, along with tacit
espousal of the heresies of self-sacrificial atonement
by eucharistic ingestion, relics worship, pilfering
indulgences as purported payment out of
never-never-land "purgatory," non-canonical
Apocrypha, idolatrous maryolatry, etc.
(7) He is free to take the following three
verses of Scripture literally and seriously:
Leviticus 21:14
A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been
defiled, or a harlot, these [the high priest] shall not marry;
but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people.
First Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife,
as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and
Cephas?
First Timothy 3:2
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband
of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable,
an apt teacher.
Some fine young German or Italian Catholic virgin
awaits him.
My current guess is that the Marriage
Amendment on the 2012 Minnesota Ballot reads:
'Marriage will consist of the union of one man and
one woman' - with no specifically-stated nor inferred
nor insinuated prohibition against homosexual
[pseudo]-"marriage" contained therein.
An added clause of something like: " . . . and
same-gender marriages shall not be allowed but instead
prohibited as criminal misbehavior punishable by prompt
execution without appeal. would, of course, be
something homogays and homosodomites
would be aroused and agitated by.
But such is nowhere in the present clause - and again,
it is not even faintly suggested, inferred, insinuated or
whatever else.
The MN Marriage Amendment wording is so vague that
it is not only benign but almost worthless.
Marriage shall be the union [is THAT a
business, military, or ecclesiastical union?] . . . of
one man with one woman
[Once, twice, a few times? Temporary or permanently?
For what purpose(s)? Sometimes or always with the
same or different partners?]
It would have been MUCH preferable if the proposed
Marriage Amendment phraseology had instead read
that Marriage shall be the union of husband
and wife.
The present and exact MN Marriage Amendment
wording on the ballots SPECIFICALLY states that
marriage shall be the union of one man with one woman.
It does NOT read that Common-Law-Concubinal
Cohabitation shall ONLY be the temporary or permanent
sexual OR business union of one man with ONLY ONE
compatible-enough woman or women.
IF the latter was the wording, IRS Form 1040 would have
to be adjusted so that the 'Married" option would have
to instead read: "PRIMARY Wife."
Voting NO on the lamentably-misworded
[anti-harem-polygamy] Marriage Amendment ballot
question essentially and simply disallows even marriage
of one man to one woman.
Hello extinction against humankind!
In other words, voting NO on the ballot amendment
proposal (or leaving it blank as a default NO) is
saying that marriage must NOT be the union of man
and woman, and in effect illegalized, without the
freedom to so marry nor continue to be married in a
one-man-with-one-women union.
That, obviously, is exactly, and the very opposite
result-in-fact of the hideously-despicable orange
lawn signs reading: "Vote NO. Don't Limit the
Freedom to Marry."
Limiting (in fact, DISALLOWING) the freedom of a
man to marry a woman is EXACTLY what the lawn
signs hypocritically claim to not limit.
Yours truly cannot fully express in mere semantics
the intense and fervent admiration and appreciation
for the most-admirable very-modest decent exposure
of burka/hijab-attired muslim women, plus
patriarchal/non-matriarchal social structure of
islamic-fundamentalist men . . . diametrically-against,
understandably-contrary and righteously-opposed to
diabolical and noxious, sexually-harassing,
general-public-view mopheaded and/or
sleeveslessly-naked-armed, slackslessly-nude-legged,
soxlessly barefooted in noisily-flipflopping sandals
annually-and-incessantly characteristic of many
hellbent-for-imposing-porn-incitement "american"
females . . . along with their despicable and deplorable,
dangerously-irrational, confusion-causing, and
irritating feminist sexism.
The other evening when I saw and heard
homosexual-advocate foreign-Brit Piers Morgan on
CNN tell Ahmadinejad of Iran that Morgan believes
homosexuals are born homosexual, Ahmadinejad
responded with a "Why do want to impose something
so ugly on other countries?"
Reminded me of the Bible verse:
Ezekiel 16:27 Hey, therefore, I stretched
out my hand against you, and diminished your
allotted portion, and delivered you to the greed of
your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who
were ashamed of your lewd behavior.
This author had previously read about a
discrepancy involving two supposedly different
Old-Testament Hebrew texts of the Bible:
I thus typed in both of them (one at a time) into major internet search engines to investigate.
One KJV-only diehard wrote on the subject,
failing to declare that there was once a need for the
creation of the at-that-time new King James
Version itself, and that "the KJV" has
undergone many revision and edition changes.
He spoke of "THE Masoretic Text"
without defining if THAT meant the ben Chayyim or
the ben Asher text (purportedly discrepant against
each other). He condemned Rudolf Kittel and his
editor Kahle for putting footnotes in the text of their
Stuttgart-edition Hebrew Bible based on a Leningrad
Manuscript - with the presumption that Kittel wanted
to confuse readers by insinuating that they randomly
replace the main text with footnote alterations or
substitutions. He went on to state that the American
Bible Society offers an 1866-incepted Letteris
(ben Chayyim) Hebrew Old-Testament text for
sale, but this author has never seen any such
advertisement from ABS at any time ever. Mr. KJV-only
also failed to state WHY the ben Asher
Hebrew Text was THE (recognized) Received Text
in authority until the 1500s, but somehow lost that
authenticity until Kittel's 1937 edition of ben Asher's
Text - which Text the RSV and NASV are thankfully
based upon. Seventh, KJV-only gave credence to a
certain "Daniel Bomberg" (whoever HE was)
and who (according to the preface of the NKJV Bible)
concocted and printed a so-called "first rabbinic
bible" in 1516 (whatever THAT was)......followed
by [oh oh!]: a SECOND edition (the FIRST was
NOT GOOD ENOUGH)? One internet source
stated that Jacob ben Chayyim was apparently
"some jewish refugee" who the source
alleged to have become a Christian (sounds suspicious)!
So WHO WAS ben Chayyim, and what were his
motives for trashing the traditional ben Asher Text?
With all this in mind, I synthesized two internet pieces
from one Jewish author giving further info about ben
Asher:
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher lived in Tiberius during
the first half of the 10th century. His family had been
involved in creating and maintaining the MASORAH for
either five or six generations. Ben Asher rapidly gained
fame as the most authoritative of the Tiberian
masoretes, and even after his death, his name
continued to hold respect. His vocalization of the Bible
is still - for all intents and purposes - THE
Text Jews continue to use.
Moreover, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was the first
to take Hebrew grammar seriously. His SEFER
DIKDUKEI HA-TE'AMIM (Grammar of the
Vocalizations) was an original collection of
grammatical rules and masoretic information.
Grammatical principles were not at that time
considered worthy of independent study.
Ben Asher had a tremendous influence on the
world of Biblical grammar and scholarship. From
documents found in the CAIRO GENIZA
, it appears that this most famous masorete
(and possibly his family for generations) were also -
incidently - KARAITES.
As early as the eighth century, Talmudic rabbis
encountered a major challenge. A group of Jews led
by Anan ben David declared that they did not accept
the authority of the rabbis to interpret Torah. This
group, originally called the Ananites,
developed their own understanding of Jewish
law based only on the written Torah. The Ananites
were stricter and more rigid than the rabbis in their
understanding of Torah law. They simply did not
accept the rabbis as legitimate authorities of Jewish
law. They denied the authority of the
Mishnah and the Gemarra
.
It is difficult to determine Ananite doctrines because
the Ananites relied on the Torah Text. Anan's famous
adage was: "Search thoroughly the Torah and
don't rely on my opinions."
In the ninth century, the major group of Ananites
combined with other anti-rabbinic groups and became
known as the Karaites (followers of the
Kra, or Torah Text) in their Masoretic tradition of
including VOWELS in the Torah Text. They
believed that the Torah had originally
been written with vowels, and they viewed such Text as
the ONLY legitimate one.
It should not be surprising to discover that many
masoretes, so involved in the Masorah, held
Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the Karaites who
placed such absolute reliance on the Torah Text.
It would be natural that they would devote their
lives to studying every aspect of it. The surprising
element was that being a Karaite did not disqualify
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of
Rabbinic Jews.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and God was the Word. That One
was in the beginning with God, all things were
made through Him, and without Him was not
anything made that was made (John 1:1-3).
If the Ten Commandments etched in stone
did not exist before God carved them out for Moses
on the mountain, certainly the KJV did not exist
before then either. After Noah and his kin
descended down off the ark on a world
devoid of any lifeforms and
whatever hieroglyphics previously around (if
any, whether Phoenician, Egyptian, Chinese,
whatever), God laid down the Hebrew
ALPHABET for Moses and the nations
on Mount Sinai (amidst all the then-existing
Babel languages and their written symbols
occurring after The Flood).
The spoken (or oral) Bible started out rather
simply with God verbally, audibly or however
(without printed mass media) telling humanity to
reproduce and eat green stuff (Genesis
chapter 1), and telling Adam in particular to
not eat of "the forbidden tree."
Apparently, that divine tidbit of as-yet-nonwritten
Scripture was conveyed (by whoever) to the
inferior gender, who soon became the first
nude preacheress on record to discourse with
a snake. Her sermonette to Satan had a few
omissions and additions pertaining to the
intended Original Text (e.g. the word
"freely" was left out, along with
"midst of the garden," and a
brand-new addition of hers "neither
shall you touch it" was added. Thus,
that first weaker-sex woman (ancestral
grandmother of us all) competed against
the Devil on her own, without Adam,
in power-hungry feminist-"equality"
arrogance and female naiivity (precursor of
maryolatrous catholics who presume a female
and God alone can create kiddies without
any guy around).....and so corrupted the
earliest and simplest Scripture. Her
usually-clothed-thereafter progenie have
continued to screw things up ever since, as
more and more sacred sayings were mangled
by myriads mouthing mindless blatterings
masquerading as gospel truth.
Again, the LORD Himself intervened to
(thankfully) a male human, again.
On the two tablets of stone in rock, He Himself
(wrote down The Text, instructing
Rabbi Moses in details enabling him to
compose the Pentateuch (Torah) Old
Testament according to creationist
info supernaturally supplied.
God also talked to others verbally, like from
between two cherubim above the mercy seat
of the ark of the covenant after talking out of a
burning bush which didn't really burn (i.e.
DID burn but was constantly
rejuvenated for more to burn -
sort of like the future bodies of those who
will forever continue to burn to the ages of the
ages in the hellish Lake of Fire). He also spoke
audibly out of a cloud, using the mouth of
Jesus, out of a blinding light on some road
to Damascus, and to a Peter, Paul, and John
(original 12 apostles) and others in dreams
and visions. Outside of what is recorded
in the Bible, any dreams or visions having
occurred or allegedly occurred, occurring or
allegedly occurring, to occur or allegedly
occur, can be questioned as to
authenticity of whether or not being
GOD'S actual revelation on a
more or less take it or leave it basis.
Which brings us to what is
TRULY canonical bona-fide Bible, and
what is FAKE [pseudo]-"biblical"
utterances. Jesus Himself read from a copy
of the book of Isaiah handed to Him in
a temple. Whatever Old-Testament books
and writings He and his New-Testament
gospel and epistle authors referred to can
obviously be considered
canonical.
Such historically happened, causing eyewitnesses to
relate perfectly to next-generation faithful and
honest copyists who non-carelessly read, recorded,
and related ALL PERTINENT words written in
common public alpha-to-omega Greek letters
EVERYONE in their right mind could understand --
inerrant to the last iota jot and tittle.
Dedicated printing of such on papyrus was inspired
and infallible.
The Divine Copyright Enforcer had, has, and will
have His ways to insure that
Word is clearly and obviously canonical......
First, He is the Jealous Executioner. To name
a few examples of the disfavored in the Old Testament
who bit the dust: the assaultive perverts of Sodom
and Gomorrah, Er and Onan (Judah's son's of Genesis
38), pollutive harassing belligerent canaanites who
Joshua and the Jews exterminated under orders
from God, Haman the diabolical antisemite
(Book of Esther), 100 state-trooper sheriff-deputy-type
soldiers ganging up on Elijah (II Kings 1), 186,000
Assyrian commandos (Isaiah 37:36), Hananiah the
false prophet (Jeremiah 28), lying Ananias and
Sapphira (Acts 5), child-murderer saint-beheader
Roman governor Herod (Acts 12), at least sixteen
9112001 megavandal genocidal Saudi-terrorist
kamikazes who admirably murdered themselves with
suicide, etc.
Second, the LORD preserved (and
preserves!) the lives of his elect, providentially
provides for and fills them with boundless
phenomenal faith, joy, and confidence. Remember
The Bomb which annihilated Shinto Jap terrorists
who had brutally demolished Pearl Harbor.
Remember ethereally-uplifting
Billy-Graham-crusade-choir singing.
Getting back to the Dark Ages, saints within and
outside the Catholic Church faithfully copied
The ONE Text which they had
received from previous saints and
preserved by a Power not of this Earth.
Autograph-accurateText in papyrus,
headquartered in Antioch, was diversely scattered
and read, becoming more ancient and worn as
time went on, but CAREFULLY-copied
duplicates were PAINSTAKINGLY produced,
and such already-canonical Text was
disseminiated in greater and greater numbers
worldwide.
Inevitably, counterfeits (like weeds) began
to appear from heretics such as Marcion
and others who concocted corrupt Alexandrian
and Sinaiticus type Greek-lettered replacements -
blasphemously miscalled "
manuscripts"- ultimately synthesized by the
occultic-spiritualist demonic duo Hort and Westcott
in England in the late 1800s, peddled and promoted
thereafter by Metzger, Aland, and Nestle.
The ORIGINAL Text survived in entirety,
however, true to God's promise and power of
indestructibility and eternal longevity. Erasmus
(respected by Martin Luther) tried to sort out the
genuine from the garbage, and at that time did his
best with consecutive improving editions. Beza and
Stephanus continued the refinement, and Scrivener
of England finally put it all together in 1894 into what
is now know as the Scrivener Trinitarian Greek
Text of the New Testament for these momentous
last days before Christ's visible bodily return to Earth
at Armageddon.
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) has, for its Isaiah 7:14, the following phrase: "a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" whereas the King James Version (KJV) has the phrase: "the virgin shall conceive..." instead of young woman for the exact same passage.
Well, which is it: "young woman" or "virgin?"
All young-women virgins are young women, but obviously not all young women are young-women virgins.
Allow no one to "get away with" being an accursed fool and blatter that: "it doesn't matter" or: "whatever" pertaining to precise word choice. It certainly does matter!
The Isaiah 7:14 passage in practically all translations (except the RSV, for example) state that a virgin "shall conceive" whereas most all translations of Matthew 1:23 state that a virgin "shall be with child" instead of the phrase: "shall conceive." There is a notable difference between the two different phrases.
All virgins can eventually conceive as stated in Isaiah 7:14, but it is extraordinary for a virgin to already be "with child" as stated in Matthew 1:23.
Neither the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 [who "conceives" instead of "being with child"] cannot legitimately be replaced with the substitute words: damsel, maid, maiden, nor girl - being that some of such human females could be pre-puberty underaged and thus incapable or either conceiving or already being with child.
The "conceiving" or "already being with child" of necessity specifies female gender and thus excludes the possibility of reference to male virgins.
Also, the word maid is inadequate as a substitute word for Isaiah 7:14 because such term involves the additional connotation of servitude as a slave or employee.
Invariably most commentators have related that Matthew 1:23 "virgin" passage to the Old-Testament reference of Isaiah 7:14.
Specifically, Isaiah 7:14 does not contain Strong's English-lettered Hebrew-text Word# 1330 for "virgin", but instead contains Strong's Word# 5959 for: [an-obviously-female] young woman.
Again, for Strong's Word# 5959 used in Isaiah 7:14 the RSV has it properly translated: "young woman" but which the KJV got incorrect using the term: "virgin".
Concerned theologians (including yours truly) wonder that being Isaiah 7:14 only refers to a "young woman" conceiving" how can that particular passage be the prophesied source of the prediction in Matthew 1:23 referring instead to a virgin: "[already being] with child"?