Keith&Co.

Unlikely. I really doubt that you could show that >80% of the population is required to be actively involved in producing the next generation of kids.

Actually, i'd be real interested to find out just what % of the population is producing kidlets.

Plenty don't have kids for moral, ethical, religious reasons, health reasons, or the fact that they're just not attracting partners.

Those that are having kids include more than a few that are having absolutely as many kids as they can support, far more than is necessary to simply replace the parents. Some are having more kids than they can support and the adoptees are being raised by the non-productive part of humanity, whatever % that is.
So even if 20% of a generation withholds itself from reproduction, the birth RATE may drop, but i'd be willing to bet shares in Pampers that the total numbers of babies produced wouldn't go down in anything like a comparable amount.

spamandham

It's not a miracle, it was the cooperative work of Zionists and Christian dispensationalists who had been trying to achieve it since the late 1800s. Do you think they named it 'Israel' by coincidence?

Exactly? The modern state of Israel is a small modern secular republic, not a theocracy ruling the world.

Watching you state something honestly and correctly in regards to Israel would be a refreshing change.

JaronK

The word "covenant" is a translation from the original. The original word did indeed mean "marriage agreement."

Plus, the rest of the context makes it pretty obvious what's going on if you go over all the passages about their relationship.

JaronK

IamJoseph

It means contract, and can apply any place, as in the promised land and circumsizion covenant. There's no association with marrage except when attached to it.

IamJoseph

'Stripped' is a bad translation here; better, removed his war attire.

There is issue of gay here - it is forbidden in the hebrew bibe, and a Hebrew king is not immune to the law - he is subserviant to it as any other citizen, in fact more so. David was indicted for adultry, remember?


That's greek to me.

IamJoseph

The texts says Moses did wrote the entire five books - and there is no reason to say so as a motive; the last sentence being an epitaph by Joshua. There is no 'those who wrote the book' - your proof? We know that throughout the first temple period, the Mosaic laws applied. The psalms of david, over 3000 years old and a mere 250 years from Moses, mentions Moses numerously and alligns with the entire Mosaic books; in the babylonian exile, the fove books existed - the Talmud, based on the five books, was written there.

I see it as alligning to a regional flood [the texts] - which makes the 40 feasable. I know that 'many' days are a focused term, denoting a long time - as with the Hebrews being many days in the desert - which turned out to be 40 years. But where is says a specific term, it means 40 only.

IamJoseph

It does not apply. They were commanded to take the land because they had a right to - they were 'returning' to their own land. A war which ensued was for different reasonings, and occured after a peace offer [mandated before incurring a war] was rejected.

dog-on

What, exactly, where Paul and co. doing when they got their "freedom in Christ" spied upon?

I wonder...

Amaleq13

Of course he can't because the number has no basis in reality. Besides, he can't possibly even believe it, himself, since he believes the human race started with only two individuals and restarted later with only eight.

I'll bet there's magic involved in the resolution of this contradiction.

IamJoseph

Why not say something relevent for a change. Is your universe finite or infinite?

That way, we can easily determine if its possible to have an action with only one indivsable entity. Genesis boldly gives its version in its opening preamble - it is talking about a universe with a BEGINNING. How about your universe? :wave: