moses 5-4-3 session 2

moses 5-4-3 continued

session 2

in session one the goal was 45 minutes from pre-covenant until moses in exodus 3. but there was way too much so i ended with josep.

session 2 josep

14 chapters about josep
i skip the family of esau 36 to focus on josep. josep's dreams 37 show his brothers bow to him. juda has twin sons 38.27 and messiah from perez [=phares]. some extremists say "the whole new testament is a lie" so i ask is isac the son of abraham? is perez the son of juda? they admit some truth.
josep resists temptation- an important lesson in chapter 39, for us! he is imprisoned for the accusation [pending an investigation?] there he explains dreams to ministers 40, who advise paro to call josep to explain egypt-king dreams. josep explains the king's dreams 41 and egyptians prepare to store food.
jacob sent sons to buy food 42, and josep imprisons one brother until they bring benjamin. they return with benjamin 43, and hide a silver cup 44, in benjamin's bag. juda begs "i will be slave" 44.33 only free benjamin SHOW demonstrate a "turn" to repent for pushing josep in the pit and paining jacob. we are taught that after the one who hurt us turns, we should forgive luke 17.3 because that is how god forgives us.
some people say "you must forgive all" and it is obnoxious to rely on that to hurt people, and also not the way of god. it is cruel to say "well you must forgive me anyway" the way of god is a person must turn. no matter which issue.
it is insensitive to tell a person who was hurt "stop complaining and forgive them" that is cruel. listen patiently and show compassion. the fact is: a person is not forgiven by god nor by man until they repent which means "turn" their ways: gods plan luke 17.3 what shall we say about parents who circumcise their child with cruel pain and do not turn? insisting the grandchildren should be cut also! cut them young before they can say "no" and it is accomplished- called "fait accompli" then it is too late and say "too late! nothing to do about it now" this is cruel. and devilishly adding "you must forgive all" and we will say the same thing when he understands that a piece is missing.
seeing the change in his brothers josep reveals himself! and invites father 45-46 famine in egypt 47 but they had prepared. later jacob blessed sons of josep 48.15 but before blessing jacobs own sons.
the book of genesis ends with the deaths of jacob and josep. the children of israel=jacob are slaves [exodus 1] and moses was born 2. moses is the prophet who heard god speak from the burning bush [exodus 3 and acts 7.30] moses had two sons, did he circumcise them? assuming based on his abrahamic geneaology- i say confidently YES, he circumcised both of his sons when they were born just like isac, despite the absence in the text.
from the burning bush an interesting scene, god said "save israel and lead them to land of canaan 3.8
on the way back to egypt, the lord wanted to kill him. him? who?? the text is not clear however from the words near it, and the act of moses' wife to her son- we know the lord afflicted her son. luckily for me niv footnote adds the word "son" to clarify.
when i was a kid i was taught god tried to kill moses and that does not match context of god sending moses a few lines before! if god's plan is to send moses then certainly the lord is not killing moses, so him is her son. the word "vayihi" is a problem- who was in the hotel? many not singular! it does not mean moses like the inaccurate claim but the event was in the hotel.
what did zipora do? she cut her son. here there is the word "cut" so my claim, above, that moses cut his sons has been refuted. the fact that zipora cut her son shows that moses did not cut his sons and even zipora only cut one. we should be like moses and not cut our sons.
note the planned end of session one five minutes behind schedule.

moses 5-4-3 jacob

moses 5-4-3 continued

session 1 continued 8 minutes until goal

until now: abram has faith in promise of son and binds isac to kill relying on god to revive isac 22, sara died so abraam BUY=bought land to bury her 23, abraam sent slave to bring relative for isac to wed 24. after they marry, abram died and JACOB born 25. 

SESSION 1 PART 3 JACOB
abram died and JACOB born 25. again a famine and again the jews claim ishmael is excluded and christians say this is not jew-greed but the plan of god and KJV includes genesis because it is god's plan. kjv says: "there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine in the days of Abraham. Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2 the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down to Egypt dwell in the land which I shall tell thee=you 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware=swore unto Abraham thy father." to you isac and your seed.
God's promise is irrevocable according to new testament. 

isac said wife is "my sister" 26, to save life. sounds familiar? it occurred again- the third time "sister" isac blesses jacob 27, and jacob goes away. jacob dreams about a ladder and is promised- can you guess? "land" 28.14 BUT ONLY IF- nothing. no condition=no ifs and even new testament emphasises this in galation 3.16-19 please read but later. land is god's gift.
jacob comes to relatives and marries. 13 kids born [29]. sheep increase 30 and jacob returns 31 and sends a gift to brother 32. jacob meets and bows to brother 33 jacob bought=BUY land for "qsita" money 33.19. this helps us date JOB-the-sufferer who also used this currency job 42.11. job in the time of jacob.
dina jacob's daughter is abducted- this is evil so brothers rescue her 34. jacob named israel 35.
JOSEP five minutes remain. so i move josep to session 2. i rely on the repitition in exodus of 7 chapters repeated twice.

dating the kings of david's dynasty

those hoping and waitng for summary of the bible i apologize for the delay- i wrote until end of genesis but i need time to type and this article deserves priority.

the fact that nebucadnezer is mentioned in the book of kings in the bible, can assist us in dating the kings of judaea. 2 kings 24.1 "During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land" since we know about babylon's history and that neb was king in 604 bc we know that j' was near -604 around 2600 years ago. after j his son joicin was king but-

WE CAN COUNT we can count back according to the numbers in the book of kings and then we can know what the book meant-

and then challenge it from "mesha stele" identified as moabite stone

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161989/Dibon

the span between omri mentioned in this artifact and mesha mentioned in 2 kings 3.1-6=7+4+18=29 years: 31 of asa until jhspt +18 the "eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah... Mesha king of Moab raised sheep, and he had to pay the king of Israel a tribute of a hundred thousand lambs and the wool of a hundred thousand rams. 5 But after Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6 So at that time King Joram set out from Samaria and mobilized all Israel.

mesha rebelled in the time of omri and again at the time of ahab's son joram 2 kings 3.1-6 [the division interrupts so i want to dall it kings 25.1-6] mesha lost verse 26 but maybe he won against omri 30 years before and then paid tribute?

the span from the rebel in 18 jhspt 7+8+1+6+40 until amazia if mesha 850 then amazia 60 years LATER in -790 and not enuf time between amazia and neb! AS DEMONSTRATED BELOW BY THE NUMBERS IN THE BOOK OF KINGS. according to the book of kings amazia died and azarya began -820 so the numbers in the book of kings create problems.

problem one is the span between mesha and amazya and problem 2 is span between amazia and nebucadnezer so we compare.

between mesha in 2 kings 3, 7 years of jhspt kings 22.42+8 years [2k8.17]+7 years [2k11.21] +40 years [2k12.1 i like to call it kings 34.1]=62 if mesha -850 then 62 years later is near -800 and not enuf time for the span from amazia to neb. because 15 of amazia totals over 830 as will be demonstrated.

also the calculation from omri contains a flaw that from 31 of asa until 38 of asa 12 years passed so some detail is wrong

***the spirit of god did not prevent errors in the book of kings and we know that either the number 12 is false or the number 38 is false and without the spirit of god much more can be mistaken. or we can say do not take numbers literaly and it is still a false number.

i will also attempt to blend the list of kings with the known prophets in the other books of the hebrew bible.

so I start with jonah- the famous prophet known for being swallowed by a whale

the jonah couplet:

ts

:

Jonah was swallowed by a big whale

that is a very unique detail!

i start with jona because he is famous. not first- it is possible "obadia of the dozen" preceded at the time of elija and ahab kings 18.

In the fifteenth year of Amaziah jona is mentioned 2 kings 14.23-25 he said a prophecy that was fulfilled in that era.

***list of what the BOOK meant not what religious taught

-835 jonah with king amazya- king until -820 for 29 years

-820 king azarya also called uziya hence co-prophets hosea and amos -780

-770 king jotam with prophet mica [j and a] -760 [taught as amos with king uzia]

-755 king ahaz

-740 king hezekia with prophet isaiah

-710 king menasse until josia, 90 years since isaia probably NHJM of dozen.

-650 king josia with Zpnia 1.1

-620 king joahaz

-605 king jehoiakim with nebucadnezer

-520 darius and co-prophets hagai and zacaria

if mesha 850 then amazia not ten years later because kings said 60 years. but adjusting results in the span from amaziya to nebucadnezer does not match the book either.

***conclusion: the length of the years was an intentional lie to make the davidic line seem longer than it truly was, but we know mesha and we know neb so it IS VERIFIED BUT NOT AS LONG.

i estimate hosea not 750/760 but -780 according to book, as below but they are likely closer to our time.

footnote: Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. 16+52=68 can this be?

i believe the claim in psalms that people lived 70-80 years in the era from david to nebucadnezer and most kings died younger except two. 80 years is reasonable and supported by psalms. later as virusses evolved they weakened people and by roman times people were weakened by disease and dying 45. now we have vaccines and medicine that help us fight these powerful diseases- the weak viruses became extinct and "the fittest" attack us constantly with every breath of air we inhale. every sip of water- if not for chloride that weakens the germs in the water we drink. but even today in countries without these medical helpers many children die before reaching age ten.

hosea and amos were prophets both at the time of uziya and jotam hence bible college is late because by 760 bc and 750 bc uziya had been long dead according to the numbers in kings so i early-fy to 780 for this reason.

however the mesha stelle which verifies some events challenges the date becuase if we add the years of the kings there is not enough years between david and amazya- also stelle mesha tells about omri and omri was at the time of assa! "FIRST kings 16.23" In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years and compare  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mesha_Stele

so the years in the bible must be exagerated despite the fact that they are possible we have evidence that mesha was -850 hence amazya MUCH later with jona-

and we can conclude that each king reigned much shorter than the book of kings claimed.

satire is legal

in the previous post [i removed] i spoke about the "response"

i must clarify that the actual satire [making joke of muhamed] was not the doubt

we each need to be able to say what we feel without fear-

and so we must allow satires even if we do not like them

satire is part of comedy and is legitimite entertainment and we need to protect their right to say what we may not like -

to keep the freedom to say our opinion that others do not like

the culture clash is that in our culture "inciting violence is forbidden" but in islam they would say i only spoke or showed a picture-

the difference is that satire of muhamed does not cause danger but a picture of violence can encourage and lead to danger

if we forget the difference we are doomed-

to fear and worse.

pray- the essence of prayer in genesis

there was no time to detail the prayer demonstrated in the story of grar
however it is an important lesson
!!
and very different from any prayer i ever heard
so outside of the 45 minute session [not completed yet] i focus on it
in genesis 20 god said something unexpected to the king of grar
background
abraham traveled to grar why? according to josepus abram was a teacher and wanted to teach his faith in many places see footnote later
the bible does not say why he traveled to grar perhaps his neighbors were mean to him for not worshipping their idols
??

in grar abram said his wife is "is my sister" a lie to save his life. later see footnote

so the king took her but not to his harem
!!
harem is defined "(In former times) the separate part of a Muslim household reserved for wives, concubines, and female servants:"showever muslim began with muhamed and ramadan and before that there was no ramadan nor "the islam"m in its form
he took her for her beauty
god warned this king! and said something very inappropriate
"r"20.7 restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live; "e
this is totally inappropriate
!!
if gods plan is IF you return her you live and if not die then prayer is not a factor
unless THIS IS THE DEFINING ISSUE OF PRAYER
god has a plan and we should pray for his plan
we should not pray forwhat we want because we will not get it
gods plan is you will live and part of the plan is he wants abram to pray for this plan AFTER it is planned
PRAYER IS NOT TO CHANGE GODS PLAN
the way many religious pray whether the jew-prayer book or christian "miracles of prayindg and god answering" is in conflict with this plan of god in cwhich god said his plan and already planned he will live and added abraham will pray FOR WHAT IS PLANNED not to change the plan and not to advise god what to do and not to inform god what he needs
this is prayer after the plan is formulated
if you have time or later  i added footnotes for periphery issues in the story
footnote: according to josepus abraham taught monotheism which is appropriate in canaan culture where they had many idols in contrast to egypt where each city had one god adn when egypt was united all cities had the god of the king even more one god so before unity each egyptian had one god the god of his city tho different from an outside city and after unity all had not only one god but same one ghod and so the story that josepus wrote about egypt conflits and does not match what we know about egypt at that era but can be applied to canan instead if any change of opinions happened in egypt the monotheists changed abram and not the reverse
footnote lie was for fear to save life as in chapter 12 and here 20.11
And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's also calling it lie would be unjust. it was misleading- to save his life, but not a lie as explained in 20.12
she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife
 rabbi nahmanidies and jewish commentaries criticize abram's lie and that is very inconsiderate and judgemental to blame abram for what he said in fear- for the ancients could not take a married woman and killed the man to solve the "problem"m

moses 5-4-3 abram2

moses 5-4-3
abraham continued
until now: abraam heard the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. meanwhile abram traveled to "Grar" and abraam said his wife was "my sister" to save his life. a similar story is in egypt but that story has less details. the Grar-king took sara and then-
that night he dreamt that she was married. he returned her saying "you said she was your sister so i did not know". god did not punish him for his mistake. if so the story with paro seems unjust! why was paro and his house afflicted? for some other sin? or the way the righteous suffer? no-and-no! genesis says it was because of her! a just god should not punish one who was misled! in the way god did not punish the grar-king; showing god is justly just.
if we see in this story that god does not punish mistakes then it is unjust to afflict the egypt-king and a corruption of justice to punish house?
shall we defend god by saying it was justice to punish the paro-mistake? then it is not equal to exempt grar-king and not equal is also not justice!
do not say god is not justly just- not just yet! do not jump to conclusions that the two stories are the same story that happened once and the storytellers adjusted the story because of this question. the differnce is simply not written! in the tale of egypt sara did not lie, the story lacks the detail "she was asked" because she was taken with no question!
the takers of paro-house were punished- afflicting house- for they did not ask! the story lacks that paro asked because paro did not ask her! so he was punished.
when he was in pain he realized that it was a message- for his act of that day- not an illness that happens to anyone but a message. in contrast to grar, abraam said "she is my sister" so they were misled!
they acted in error and the only way grar-king would know was if god said so. to protect sara god said so. what happened before he slept and dreamt? king dozed off early and dreamt the dream before touching her, the people thought they did touch but god testified that the king was innocent.
another possibility is that he was undressing her when he saw her stomach near and realized she had a growing baby inside her, and so without touching said "let's just talk". this is supported by the context of isac born 21.
ishmael is sent away-
reminding the reader that through isac the promise will be fulfilled about SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" as in genesis and romans 9.7 "Neither=not because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." excluding ishmael who was not from sara according to romans NT, because "not all" of abraams children get the promise.
the next verse in this context refers to ishmael excluded. we should not ignore ishmael in this exclusion nor ignore what is near the verse called "context" and verse 8 also refers to ishmael: "That is, They which are the children of the flesh[=ishmael], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." which is revealed in the next verse- promise=SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son". only by ignoring what is near it would someone think "not the israelites who are flesh- these physical descendants are explicitly called "not children" ignoring ishmael and ignoring the words near it, but ishmael was a child of flesh and he is excluded since not sara in verse 9.9 see footnote.
abraam tied isac 22.9 as an offering and is praised for fear of god. BUT THIS SEEMS IMMORAL TO HARM his son. he should decide "god would never command this" and it is not from God!or tell god "over my dead body" to pass the test and show I must protect my son- that would be the proper answer on this test! and morally abraam failed, and did evil, because he did not respond "i do not kill unless i rescue lot".
without knowing hebrews 11it seems this way- NT adds faith in promise of son in genesis 15 god would revive him from dead THIS was the faith- not the binding but faith in the promise of a son that when i kill him he will die and revive- [reminds me of the movie mummy of 1930's] revive isac from dead to keep the promise.
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS was a disputed book- not to include in the holy list- but this detail is good and we are blessed to have this detail [preserved in the bible] to understand abraam's faith. sara reached old age and died 23 and sleeps until the revival of the dead. it is sleeping both in hebrew and in theology [matthew 22.30+ 24.31] abraam BUY=bought land to bury her 23, abraam sent slave to bring relative for isac to wed 24. after they marry, abram died and JACOB born 25
**it took me 8 minutes to read this seven remain
***footnote: the listeners who did not see what is near and close to these words in romans 9.7-9 would be fooled- and say "the promise" means if you believe in the correct version of christianity- yet that ignores ishmael who was a physical child. and the context of the verses before and after help us understand gods message through paul that ishmael is out and isac from SARA=the promise: "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" the promise is defined as the promise of SARA.
besides context interpreting in a way that jacob is excluded=rejected would conflict romans 11.1-2 ""I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" so we should not doubt if it refers to jacob or ishmael.
also romans 11.28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes" those who ARE called enemies are still beloved due to fathers despite themselves being unworthy. these crafty jews got their defense into the new testament too! just joking.
paul was assited by the spirit of god to write that his promises are irrevocable=god does not turn=kjv-repent as the next verse continues. however the listeners would be fooled- especialy if it was an idea which they want to hear eagerly.

moses 5-4-3 abram

moses 5-4-3

session 1 continued

part 2 abram

until now: summarized the era before abraham-covenant in chapter 15.18 land. despite rescuing Lot only faith was called righteous indicating faith is more powerful and even more pure than any good act. after coming to Haran the bible says the lord appeared, did he appear in haran? appeared is past form and the word moledet [leave place of birth] indicates that he left haran because of a command given long before becuase god appeaerd to abraham, before he lived in haran, meaning in the place of abrams birth. matching stephen in acts 7.

we begin part 2 of session one with 28 minutes remaining for the goal, and focus on the bulk of genesis the stories of abram jacob and josef. this part begins with the covenant to give abraham's offspring land. according to acts 7.4-12 and romans 8.7-13 and galations 3.16 [later check these sources for yourself] this covenant is about the land that stephen and the pharisee judges lived in: "here live in"  granted by god to abram's offspring isac and jacob- IF... nothing. the covenant with abraham was by  grace there is no condition/no if. simply god's promise and as the holy writings point out [galations 3.18-19 please check! but later!] gods word is permanent and moses covenant adds to this abrahamic covenant UNTIL something, but does not cancel the promise of god already given. for clarity i add not only is it a gift and no condition in this covenant, but also it is before abraham circumcised.

because there are political issues truth compelled me to emphasize the idea of god's word being permanent- even the new testament explains that broken-off-branches means "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. " in king james english, god does not "repent"=turn, nor regret his gifts.  some christians think the jews are rejected but even denying the old testament does not deny romans "kjv romans 11.28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." despite being called enemies which makes some people happy, those same enemies continue to be loved. so if you believe the new testament, even those who are enemies are loved for their fore-fathers - fathers because it does not depend on the jews, only for the fathers regardless of what the jews do, 

according to the holy writings even the broken-off branches are loved not for themselves but because of the patriarchs and to deny this- denying the old teastament such as leviticus 26.34 does not acheive because even the new testament said gods gift to abraham is irrevocable.

this covenant will be relied upon when he binds isac with faith see below.

after the pledge of a son and land, sarai presents hagar to abram 16.3 and a son is born named ishmael 16.15. abram's name is updated [neo would say "upgrade" in our culture!] to abraham 17.5 [note: the hebrew letter h was silent as we see in the name abel and juda. so his name was abram and is now abra-am]

CIRCUMCISION 17.10

although traditionaly this hebrew word "mal" is translated as "cision" like cut incision- that is only accurate/correct in other contexts, because the word itself "mila" does mean "word" and alone cannot mean cut as we see from the usage in deuteronomy "mal et lbbka circumcise your heart" which does not mean CUT and if you think it does, why does no-one cut their heart? because it hurts- only cut someone else- and when they are helpless to stop me- an infant. they cut the infants reproductive organ with no basis that this is the location- no basis besides mimicing ancient african culture not yet abandoned which became "rabbinic oral tradition" which is easily refuted as incompatible with judaism as well as with "moral" because it harms and has pain. one rabbi said "we do it with minimum possible pain" sounds "better" yet still has the word pain=pain is immoral and the minimum truly is no pain zero by not cutting.
the word is used when "cut" cannot be the meaning. this term means "word" and here "pray with words" about the male's heart called flesh, same as in deuteronomy the same quote and psalms "en mila blsoni" no WORD on my tongue, it is used for word in the context of tongue. the section not only lacks the word cut, but also lacks context of cut in this section and lacks even the idea to cut hence it would be wrong to accept this inaccurate translation in this context.
the covenant is for abraham to pray for his heart called flesh and for the males hearts and the "covenant in your heart" also again called "flesh" as common. 

because some people are stubborn, insisting they have the right to inflict cruel pain on infants, despite the absence of god ever saying "cut the babies reproductive organ" I will respond by adding that the foreskin is called just that "skin" did you see? fore-skin is skin and "not flesh". flesh is the heart and this distinction is even more clear in leviticus. simply pray and there is no basis for the cruel claim that god said cut a babies genitals.
it is so base less that when someone says "god said so" i ask show me that it is genitals- they can only point to the word "flesh" [or claim oral tradition] yet flesh is not skin nor genitals but does refer to the heart. it is so baseless that the only need for me to write this is only in response to cruel traditions but from the hebrew text there never was a basis to claim "cut" at all and even more distant "cut skin" (nor cut benis) but flesh which is used for heart, hence matching deuteronmy "circumcise heart" which does not mean cut. again there is no context of cut in this section of abraham.
it is against the values of morality to harm and to pain, and all this discussion is superflous because there is no basis to cut! not genitals, not skin, not cut.
no need to cut any cut and no need for abraham to cut. the word "mal" alone means "word" to pray unless there is a context to change the meaning. for an issue of pain it better be a clear context or it is evil and cruel.
abrahams gifts go through isac. some people do not like this and say they only believe the new testament-
to avoid these types of verses-
however the new testament in romans 9.7 and acts 7 say the same isac and jacob so denying the old testament does not acheive how disappointing that pauls "racist" letters are part of the christian book that is so inconveneint for some political opinions.
why do i add this? for truth. it IS in romans so do not be ignorant-
 and a dry outline is also provided and i have nothing to lose because even before pointing this out i am hated until death by some.
three men visited abraam one man is jehova 18.10=18.13-14 abraam hears the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. to be continued...
this i read in 13 minutes6+11+13=30, 15 remain
enjoy your weekend, i will!

moses 5-4-3 session one continued

session one continued

pre-covenant continued

until now: summarized the creator made all and rested on the seventh day [1 (means: chapter 1)]. next, an elaboration of god's plan for human life as shown in genesis 2. adam sinned 3, cain killed his brother 4 an act we must recognize as harmful and evil [1 john 3.12].
continue: enoch 7th from adam (5) was a prophet [jude 1.14] he had faith and did not die as an exception; however death did reign from adam until moses and without the "law" there was no hope [eph 2.12-16, later please read] and not only did cain deserve specific punishment for murder but also "even those who did not act against a command=not do a forbidden act" died completely [romans 5.14; perhaps they did not have eternal souls until the "law", see 1 cor 15.45 later].
Jesus related to these stories as events that occurred in Matthew 19 and 24, if so when we read about long lives, what evidence exists that they did not live long? none of us saw when they died in the past! we can only guess about the past, unless god reveals it.
according to Genesis, Adam, who conversed with god, lived hundreds of years. he knew god so he taught people for nine hundred years. monotheism began long before abraham- my apologies to josepus and public opinion. according to genesis around 1050 years passed between adam and noah's birth:130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182=1056. [please do not chech the numbers now because it will take time in the 45 minute-session] 

however Septuagint translation and josepus preserve the original version, which totals 600 more years- hence nine generations is 1656 until noah's BIRTH [as mentioned, jesus relied on septuagint] and 600 more years until ark in 2256=2256 years without troubles.
Jesus specified in mt 24.37-39 that the flood occurred. can anyone support the claim that genesis is a lie? we can only GUESS about the past unless we believe prophecy.

noah entered the ark and the flood of water came [6-9] when none besides noah knew and without a covenant those people had no hope as above. also the water flooded the thieves who even abducted ladies, and washed away the evil. not ONLY  murder is evil and harmful.

according to genesis, from flood until abraham's birth totals 292 years- however septuagint and josepus preserve original which totals around 1000 years, a millennium with no story worth mentioning besides the great tower [10-11].

abrahams stories fill 14 chapters and will be the bulk of this summary.

terah led abram and abram's wife  from"Ur" to go to canaan 11. some date abram 2095 bc. the israeli ministry of education wrote [to me, the same idea in the text book] that biblical history "possibly cannot be dated" and teachers should not emphasize how long ago in the past.

god had appeared to abram before he dwelled in city-haran [mentioned in gen. 11.31] and as a result traveled with father. 

   note: this interpretation by stephen acts 7, is not only supported by the hebrew word moledet [like laledet birth+place], but also this word refutes a section in a book by a professor in the hebrew university-jerusalem using this section to demonstrate genesis must be a lie.

i note the unique "process" of beginning with the claim "everyone knows the bible is not reliable" allowing to invent an imaginary story and then quote specific verses as "support" from this book that was called "unreliable" as "support"- this is a flaw in logic ONLY for the reason that after claiming it is not reliable, for that reason it does not support.

a similar flaw: In the end it is claimed that certain verses are "reliable" enough that they CAN support, hence it is silly to play games which ones you like and it is as real as sci-fi to write a differing imaginary theory with a "story" unless describing and interpreting specific archeological artifacts. besides, the hebrew word "moledet" refutes the whole claim in that section of the book by supporting stephen and the book of acts.

stephen had the holy spirit to help him.

abraham obeyed the directive, which had been given years before [acts 7 supported by hebrew word moledet] and left city-haran. he traveled to skem [nablus=shchem] and built altars 12. later abraham and Lot separated 13 but when the war of the kings involved city-sodom, abram rescued lot and defeated the king with a few hundred servants 14, by attacking at night from both sides and chased them far to damascus 14. god said I will give you a son 15.4 and abram believed.
this FAITH  was righteousness 15 and only faith is called righteous- in contrast to the rescue- not even the virteous act of rescuing lot was called righteous! these stories demonstrate the biblical message that no act is as powerful as faith, and specifically righteous IS by faith. also in psalms the righteous does not live by the righteousness but "by faith".

in addition to pledging a son, god also pledged LAND [as defined by stephen in acts 7: "the land you dwell in here" not a symbol of heaven or anything else but rather here where you judges live] but abraham questioned this. in the same section we read he had faith, if so why is land different?

??

why not faith for land? i suggest that abram feared that what he had heard about land might be his own imaginary greed-

a greed to take land from canaanites, to have a place for his offspring to live, a greed which caused him to imagine that "god told me so". this is not an issue of faith in god but rather abram did not trust himself- his experience and doubted god realy added this message.
he worried that what he thought was from god, possibly, was his own desire, so he asked for a sign. if he would not get a sign he would know it was his temptation fooling him to claim the land of the cannaanites. despite his faith in god, he doubted self.
when abram's dream included things he did NOT want, then he was certain that his own temptation was not producing the experience: your descendants will suffer. god also gave a sign: the fire pass between the meat and this is called a covenant 15.15-19

the land was promised to abraham and his descendants isac and jacob as specified in acts 7 and romans 8.7-13

as i conclude part one of session one [which summarized until the end of the pre-covenant era, with this covenant in genesis 15.18]-

i end with a story, told by an american evangelist who met an arab in the 1970's and soon after meeting him, this specific arab complained that the israeli government is jews taking arab land. the evangelist christian attempted to avoid politics by saying let us see what god said to abraham and showed genesis. 

that specific arab read and replied "i only believe in the new part". 

i ask: "what is the difference between the books? acts 7 and romans 8 have the same idea."

knowing acts 7 and romans 8 as mentioned, i fear that had the new testament been quoted as a source for what stephen said and the context exposed, then that specific arab would prefer to deny the entire christian bible, rather than abandon his political view [which perhaps was the key part of his arab identity.]

people deny the word of god despite the prophetic evidence that these books are from the god who knows the future before it occurs, and has told us many times what will happen, before it occurred- numerous times.

we now conclude part one of session one sumarizing the pre-covenant era.
note I read this in 11 minutes 6+11=17. 25 minutes to go. dry outline:

chapters 1-15 we review: creation 1-2, gods idea of marriage 2, adam sinned 3 and cain killed abel 4 2200 years passed [in septuagint 5], and noah entered the ark. a thousand years passed until abraham 10-11 in septuagint, during which there was no hope eph. 2.12-16 until the law=gods gift through moses to israel - death ruled until moses=romans 5.14

abraham traveled 11-12 built altars 12 separated from lot 13 fought the kings to rescue lot 14 the covenant of land 15 concluding the pre- covenant era

***

footnote how did people live long until abraham?
also IF they did, then why don't we? evolution can explain: today we get sick by evolved strong viruses-

they weaken us and shorten our lives. before they evolved over the last thousands of years they did not weaken the people, until they evolved into strong "fittest" microbes and the weak ones became extinct.

moses 5-4-3

moses is famous! almost everyone has heard of him-

the prophet who brought israel a covenant- a covenant by blood as described in exodus 24 following the covenant of abraham in genesis 15.18 which is described in detail in acts 7.3-9 quoted below but first-
1 the NEED FOR A SUMMARY

the problem is that the "five books of moses" are so vast that almost no-one reads ALL of them!

a solution is a summary! called moses 5-4-3 and described here.
2 the  p r o b l e m s  of summaries

i do not mean saying "the key verse of genesis is that in marriage "2 become one" genesis 2.24, so now we move to exodus" nor saying "the key verse in Deuteronomy is "love god" and now we have concluded the seven minute summary of deuteronomy" because that is not a summary of the book!

on the other hand mentioning every detail is not a summary- either!

 so I will present a summary of this enormous mass of stories as a summary so that people can know- in a limited time what is in those books.

3 my goal is to present the FIVE books of moses in FOUR sessions which total THREE hours.

THREE HOURS IS MUCH- SO IT WILL BE IN FOUR SESSIONS- 45 minutes each=3.

to comprehend just how vast- are- these five books grouped into the "penta-tuech= penta means 5 like the shape penta-gon" i want you to consider that a minute is divided into sixty seconds and that in ten hours [600 minutes] there are 60*600=36,000 seconds- that is a lot of seconds! YET that is not even HALF of the number of words in the pentatuech written on the Jew-scroll.

it seems hopeless to summarize something so vast in only 3 hours however-
relying on the numerous repetitions and on a summary of the contents-
not only is it possible, but also it will allow the reader to read an outline of the big P and know what is in it instead of reading every word and every detail- which most people would abandon=give-up long before reaching the 2015th word!

***session one

because the 5 books of moses=the penta-tuech have approximately 92,000 words, the goal will be to summarize around 20,000 words in each session. Genesis has around 9*42*60=22,500 words by my estimate. it has been divided into fifty 50 chapters - some chapters are VERY very long. the number of seconds in six HOURS [6*60*60] is ONLY 21,600!

most of genesis tells the stories of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph [stories of abraham fill fourteen chapters, the stories of jacob fill ten more and the stories of joseph fill fourteen 14 more] and those will be MOST of this summary.
OUTLINE: pre-covenant, abraham, jacob, josef.

part one of this 45-minute-session will summarize until the covenant of abraham described in acts chapter 7.4-8  giving the "land you live in here to abraham and his descendants isac jacob" [later please read acts 7.4-8:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-Chapter-7/

First as PRIORITY what is the most IMPORTANT practical message of genesis?

a message so controversial that many would rather be atheists than to accept- despite prophetic evidence.

the message is: "A MAN marries a woman and they become one". if that interferes with several political opinions, keep in mind that it is the wisdom of God the provider of prophecy.

   gods wisdom teaches: man marries a woman and be one. being one means loyalty and when disagreeing, not arguing or worse- god's wisdom is "they are one" not arguing but rather that the woman submit to her husband in order to unite as one. 

when disagree, the woman's role is to submit to her husband and they should not argue nor live separate [except for bodily safety from hit or bite etc. [do you remember the video named "teachers"?] the kids need protection from the violent one by removing the hitter from the family]
nor divorce, but rather together because they ARE ONE.
we have seen that as Feminism grew bolder MORE AND MORE families are RIPPED and torn in PAINFUL DISASTERS. 

all this is avoidable if families would perform god's wisdom in the holy books: being one. practicaly: the role of the man is submit to Jesus=God@john 10.30, not to his wife, and the woman's role is submit to her husband instead of arguing etc. because that is the wisdom of god [not because of value].

admittedly many women in our society would rather deny god and the prophecy of god, than to submit to their husband or prefer being a lesbian- however we should consider the wisdom of god.

some men may protest about same-gender marriage and even claim "imagine if a man would be expected to submit to a woman! chuckle-chuckle."  however we should consider the wisdom of god. some people claim "submit to god by obey your wife" however that is not the wisdom of god. no surprise that someone who points this out - in our society has been single many years. [just joking]

now brief summary of the PRE-COVENANT ERA until the covenant of abraham called a covenant in genesis 15.18.

the creator- who knows precisely what He did, better than any scientist GUESSING about the past- tells the prophets [isaiah, others and genesis] that He made everything and rested on the seventh day. [did a scientist see? they all GUESS about the distant past, therefore only modern science has value]
part of creation is the plan of god: a man marries a woman-
and the two become one as explained-
   literary note: "two become one" note jesus [matthew 19] is quoting from the greek translation called "septuagint"=LXX which has the word "two" in contrast to the hebrew bible which lacks the word two but has a plural verb becoming one. also note the usage of the hebrew word "ehad" which is used for a unity-of-plural, the same as in the declaration "hear israel your god is one=ehad" with this same word "ehad" used for plural becoming one.
adam sinned and eve was tricked [chapter 3="3"]. they lost the spiritual body that they had [called "our form" in genesis later see 1 cor.15.45].
cain killed his brother- 4, cain did this evil act [1 john 3.12] that we must recognize as harmful and evil and adam had children and grandchildren 5, to be continued!
note: it took me six=6 minutes to read from the title 'session one' until this point summarizing chapters 1-5. forty minutes to go!

Islamic moderates

do I have a phobia? call my carefulness about fires pyro-phobia. 

using this term "phobia" in the context of Islam is not only a distraction but an accusation that someone has a problem.

we must be aware of the true danger- the same we must be aware of fire's danger

where are the protesters of "moderate islam" to protest the killings and violence?

does such a group exist? people say we must deal with "extreme-Islam" implying some are not extreme [moderate] and do not agree- where are these thousands of "moderates" IF there are any? however i do see many protestors saying

"Translated, the sign means 'I am Muslim, and I love my Prophet'. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914532/Anti-Charlie-Hedbo-protests-Somalia-Pakistan.html#ixzz3PBm4Nk00 

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

FOR THIS many gather to protest-

yet there is no such protest   A G A I N S  T  the violence done by the "defenders of Muhamed" 

for honor people will kill.

where is the protest AGAINST  the violence at the newspaper office?

where is the protest against what is happening in niger?

"Violence erupted throughout Niger Saturday during the second day of protests against a cartoon that caricatured the Muslim prophet Muhammad — resulting in church arson and the deaths of several people.       Reuters reports that “stone-throwing Muslim youths” clashed with police, torched churches and looted stores during riots in the capital city of Niamey. It is unclear how many churches were attacked in Niamey. Two churches were burned in the city of Maradi and one was burned in Goure." source- because the public has been granted the "right to know" and to be aware of danger-

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/17/one-cartoon-drives-muslim-protesters-to-burn-churches-all-over-niger/

am I  in danger for pointing this out? I have nothing to lose because they will kill for honor and for me not accepting the truth of islam in their shia or suni version

as the suni and shia kill each other or worse

    when there IS  a protest, it is NOT about protesting violence-

that is not worth time- of the "moderate" IF there are any.

while people protest to limit freedom of speech [bad enough] at the time of violence and

they announce we love islam's prophet when it is a time when they should protest violence but say only something else instead of protesting violence- 

we must be aware who they are those who protest do not hold signs " i am muslim do not kill" 

is there any group of muslims that will gather to protest this way?

prove me wrong-

before we are all killed in the defense of muhamed or worse than death-

as jafar said "there are things worse than dying"  [return of jafar]

a fat man

silly: a fat man and his skinny [skin+ny] wife sat pressed together on a bus and they did not fit! the man felt guilty and said "you are so thin that people think there is a hunger!" his wife said "people see you and understand why!"

:D

gilly: want to here a good joke?

lilly: tell me!

gilly: two jokes lived in a house and one helped the other.

lilly: oh! that one WAS a good joke!

children's right does protect from parent's rights!

the Israeli supreme court applied a fascinating precedent

in a case regarding "privacy" the parents claimed certain rights-

and the court ruled that "the right of the child PROTECTS from the right of the parent"

this may seem surprising yet kids NEED protection 

and specifically the PREVENTION of the CRUEL PAIN of circumcision which  some parents claim it is the parents' right to inflict-

yet the child's right which protects a child's privacy-

should also protect from cruel PAIN

how shocking that this application is not being used to protect babies from the CRUEL PAIN of circumcision 

when a parent ignores their own child's pain?? 

unspeakably cruel

i have no words for such parents

i can say that according to jewish tradition a sign if someone is a jew is if they are merciful-

therefore the opposite of circumcision being a sign of a jew-

the opposite-

one who protects the child from circumcision is the merciful jew  but the religious who perform this painful procedure are not the real jews

cowboys

cowboys!

by ts

:

My partners and I

have always been fair!

but now they cheat me

they dare! Oh! they dare!

I wish I could kil

I don't even care

that they saved my life

when we fought a bear.

I reached my limit

no-one will I fear!

I will have revenge

and kill them like deer!

but first I must drink

some whiskey I'll sip

Jim brings me my share

and my feelings flip!

the race- a poem

I love the art of grace

of running in a race

my competition

I will abase!

I have set my eyes

on that trophy prize

that giant cup!

of enormous size!

note: aaba, aaba with eye rhyme and sound rhyme

solution to arab-jew

i found the solution

!!

to the ethnic conflict of arab-jew in the middle east based on the solution already acheived in jordan israel egypt

!!

but first a short song

:

when I think about the conflict

I consider the way

what compromise

and what conditions to weigh

:

obviously PART of the solution is compromise
COMPROMISE
in which both sides get a bit because both sides surrender a bit
in arab culture a "sulha" is when each side relinquishes the claims against the other
arabs in egypt and jordan have shown their ability to compromise
the jew in israel has shown the same ability-
in offering a good compromise which jordan and egypt accepted and agreed
***similarly in the past year livni was the negotiator sent by jew led by ntanyahu to offer several compromises- but mahmoud abas refused to compromise-
and the opposite-
attempted to GET by turning to outsiders instead of by compromise
this is like the egyptian phase when many wars were fought between egypt and israel- in 1956 and 1967 and 1973
which points clearly to the solution
do you see it
?
simply for elections in the palestinian authority
just as US leaders have changed in the last decades: bush clinton bush obama-
how long has mahmoud abas been the leader?
surely there will be elections soon-
and the new leader will be like the new leader in egypt who made a treaty with israel
now the question is: WHEN
 when is the palestinian authority elections?
is mahmoud abas a dictator?
who will prevent elections like bashar assad of syria?

Israeli government officials- strike again!

yet again- an Israeli government official went up to the politically-sensitive site called the temple mount.

i and others are accustomed to reading in the media papers and websites about such "incidents" as problems and BAD-provocation.

newspapers need not limit themselves to dry facts "the parliament member went up. period" but add commentary- that is what news agencies do-

WHAT I FEEL WAS WRITTEN IN MANY NEWS SOURCES about past incidences is something like:the jewish parliament member PROVOKED the muslims by going to the temple mount. He CLAIMED he went to pray but an anonymous muslim said that he was OFFENDED.

***and those who decide that if someone is offended, hence that proves the offender is guilty say "these horrid israelis did it again"

and sometimes an act of violence is "explained" or VINDICATED by this provocation.

noone tells the offended one "stop whining" and also does not say "stop being trivial"

on this background the claim "he did not wave a flag" is no defense and no vindication because someone was offended and "we should all be sensitive"

sadly this time the Israeli parliament member added the waving of a flag

GASP

didn't we agree a few lines ago that we should ALL BE SENSITIVE- that seems bad to add waving a flag to the BAD-provocation! the flag is extra for prayer and seems to be added to add-provocation?

a flag seems extra if he went "to pray" that seems to be a greater provocation

***but THIS time is different-

because I was offended-

the muslims were not offended by the Israeli this time-

 because this time the Israeli parliament member was waving the flag that muslims like/love-

 it is like the jordanian flag without the star.

and his name is Ahmed!

is someone named ahmed in the israeli government?

??

someone who believes it is APARTHEID may be surprised-

despite what we read on the internet about "apartheid"- arabs and muslims are part of the Israeli parliament-

representing the relatively-few arabs who do not call them "boged=traitor" for being part of the zionist government.

besides the arab-political-party-groups there are many "mixed"

LIKUD led by netanyahu includes an arab representative who is welcome and the jew and arab ethnicities work together

similarly AVODA [labor which will have a new name in the coming elections] and "Israel our home" led by leiberman includes people of the arab ethnicity and the jew and arab work together

they are all ISRAELI and all part of the government and many of the arab ethnicity vote for these mixed political-party-groups because -

in the arab's words [one i personally interviewed]- "although the arab is selfish and does not help us, we vote for the jews who work together with an arab"

GASP

i only wish people would realize how many jews have shown-

 not only in words but in actions-

 that they are not exclusive

NOT EXCLUDE

 in contrast to the inaccurate ideas on the internet!

so when this israeli with citizenship like a jew, and in the full meaning israeli-

 went up the temple mount-

an israeli went up-

yet the reaction was so different-

!!

 from when a jew went up and I=ME was the one offended by his flag

not by the arab going up- but by adding the flag

waving a foreign flag in disputed territory is not only offensive but seems rebellious and challenges the autonomy of Israel-

but who cares

??

if an arab provokes that is not BAD 

I am the one "bad" for being "offended" over a trivial "sign of revolution"stop whining

yet perhaps we should be EQUAL

and tell the muslims who have been "offended" to stop whining-

 and START showing that they know how to SHARE.