So I live in a society. I have rights, especially since the rights have been extended and I have grown up in these rights. These rights were given to me upon birth. To live under these 'rights' of Safety - to live freely yet not endanger. These are the 'given rights'. In a non regulated society, dangers would not be 'lawed' against. So I live in this society of rights under the Freedom of Safety, while not causing another's safety to be infringed upon. To infringe upon another's safety is/would be to violate their 'rights'. But a problem is not in this granted freedom to live and be free; of course while not infringing upon the safety of another. 'Safety' can become a philosophical discussion just as morals have been. What is a good moral? What is a good ethic? Is it good for you or is it good for me; even while I'm given that liberty to live freely - while not endangering another life. So, safety... .what is a good safety? What constitutes safety? Is it safe for you? Is it safe for me? And so the basic understanding of human etiquette. The courtesies, the common respect, the common courtesies. The common 'law' of the land usually defines what is polite, what is respectful, what is courteous and to try to not infringe upon the common law of the land, the unspoken 'law' of respect, courtesy, of etiquette, it should become to a point where the 'peace' of the balanced 'law' is not displaced, one way or another. But all the while this should occur, the continued weighing to one side; the placing of weights after weights on one side causes the other side to need to try again. To try to be peaceful, to try to not offend, to try to not 'infringe'. And the heavier one side becomes, the less defining the boundaries becomes to questions towards such as 'morals and safety'. Now it may become, 'how am I being immoral to you'? 'how am I being a danger/non safe to you'. Rather than that unspoken 'common law' of the land, now it becomes a verbal discussion, commonly on the land, by and to the passerbys that can turn into an ugly argument... And such possibilities of verbal unwanted arguments, towards personal 'safety'; not freedom, can be a discussion not wanting to be partaken of. Other discussions, not on safety issues but 'freedom' issues, should not be so angst against, even towards or from the passerbys. These discussions are discussions which 'unite' persons.. not divide. To have a 'civil' discussion on 'freedom' while in safety should not be seen as an infringement of 'rights' Thanksgiving Day is about giving thanks. Not so much for 'freedom'.. I could have had just, if not more, free, in any other land I choose to place my residence in, to become a citizen of. Being of age and having the means to do so would allow me to 'freely choose' to remain; in any land, under any citizenship; under and to any Safety Rights' granted. So Thanksgiving Day is not about these 'freedoms'.. freedom to eat a slaughtered Turkey. Freedom to drink in excess. Freedom to lounge around with belt loosed or even naked. Thanksgiving Day is not about giving of thanks towards these 'opportunities'. Thanksgiving is given because all is 'safe and well'; especially in the neighborhood or society residing in. Dangers and hell fire could be breaking out in the next zip code or in the next county. But as long as 'this' neighborhood, this family, this society, is 'safe', Thanksgiving can usually be thanked for on thanksgiving day.
Yes, you have 'rights' to walk up and down a street you have no residence upon. Yes, you do have that right. But the residents of that street also have 'rights' to not have their 'safety' infringed upon. When the persons on the streets, regardless of reason for them being on the street(s), infringe upon the 'safety' of a resident, even towards passerbys, this can turn into ugly arguments over philosophical matters such as 'morals and ethics and safety'. 'Is it good, moral, ethical, safe for you or for me'??? Yet in the guise of discussions pertaining to 'freedom'. Justin Bieber has a song, my mamma don't like you and she likes everyone. Happy Thanksgiving or happy liking everyone? Mothers, after 9 months of pregnancy, usually for some reason, develop senses towards 'safety' and violations they never possessed prior. Postpartum depression might arise from this very development. They are unable to 'deal', on a personal level, to and with their newly developed sense of 'safety and violations'. These usually never get broadened, but rather, narrower. Postpartum is not the same as postmortem. partus (feminine parta, neuter partum); first/second-declension participle born, given birth to, having been born gained, acquired, having been acquired mortem accusative singular of mors Noun mors f (genitive mortis); third declension death corpse annihilation Assumingly, in Latin, Mors, or death/corpse/annihilation... is female gendered.
What is democracy? Democracy means the rule of the people (in Greek). That is where each individual person has a vote about what to do. Whatever the most people vote for wins. There is no king or tyrant, and anybody can propose a new law. https://quatr.us/greeks/who-invented-democracy.htm Think of it this way.. You live with your parents.. It's your parents, you and your other brother and sister and your neighborhood friends... age appropriate, of course. Well you all have a sleep over in your parents' house. And while tucked in bed and in sleeping bags and under blankets, you, as a group agreement, come up with an idea. Hey, let's all choose what we want to talk about. we can all give a suggestion and we can all 'vote' to see which 'wins'. And the 'winner', topic, will be talked about... But in the other room is mom and dad. Your mom and dad, of course, not the friends' mom(s) or dad(s). The earliest democracy in the world began with the work of a man named Cleisthenes, in Athens, in 510 BC. Now in 510 BC, in Athens, what could the human population really have been? Millions? At least, right, to have a Government of Democracy and 'voters', en masse, right? We're not talking small patches of 'villages' and 'kinsfolk'. We're talking streets, sidewalks, tall buildings, elevators, busses, grocery stores on each corner, public libraries, ... like today,,, Democracy like today, all around, even then, right? Let's use a current analogy. Today's (I)srael, the Free State of (I)srael, and the human population upon/within it, today, is around 8.38 million (2015). Well.. now.. take a look back, 2 thousand years plus some decades, give and/or take. We are in/within the same land in the year 0. B.C and A.D.. converge. The population on that land must have been around what it is today, right? 8.38 million or more... the 8.38 million number is for year 2015, 5 years ago. Democracy.. the vote of the persons and majority of 'votes' 'wins'. What do you get when at first it's yes and then next it's no? You have the persons that cried wolf... A real concern is a real concern. A real concern, unless it is resolved, should not be 'cried wolf' over, right?
When Cain slayed Abel, Cain did not 'kill' Abel. Genesis 4:9-10 "And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." Cain did not kill Abel although it seems as though this is what it reads as. But Cain did not kill Abel. Genesis 4:4 "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." slew, here, does not mean to 'kill'. It means to give a severe 'beating'. 2026. harag Strong's Concordance harag: to kill, slay Original Word: הָרַג Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: harag Phonetic Spelling: (haw-rag') Definition: to kill, slay NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin a prim. root Definition to kill, slay NASB Translation destroyed (1), kill (44), kill me as you killed (1), kill me at once (1), killed (58 ), killing (3), kills (2), murdered (2), murderer (1), murderers (1), occurs (1), slain (16), slaughter (1), slay (14), slayer (2), slays (2), slew (11), smitten (1), surely kill (1). English 'definitions'... The Biblical 'definition' 1. a. kill, slay, implying ruthless violence, especially private violence How would one know? Well, the Hebrew word Original Word: הָרַג would be the answer. Ask a fluent Hebrew speaker who understands the differences between having the letter J and I in a language that does not have it and see what he/she says about the meaning/definition of the Hebrew word; הָרַג .
NASB. New American Standard Bible. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is an English translation of the Bible by the Lockman Foundation.[1] The New Testament was first published in 1963, and the complete Bible in 1971.[2] The most recent edition of the NASB text was published in 1995. YHWH (rendered as "Jehovah" in the original A.S.V.) is rendered LORD or GOD in capital letters in the NASB.[8] The committee stated the reason as: "This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore it has been consistently translated LORD. The only exception is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion. It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh, however no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation."[12] This is in direct contrast to the preface of ASV of 70 years earlier, where the committee explained that "the American Revisers...were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible What the publishers/translators to the NASB has not kept in mind; however, is that the term (J)ew was not really what they referred to themselves as until the Free State of Israel was formed, in 1948 (?)... The English written Bibles used that term, (J)ew in place of Iew since the changes of the letters I to J, for proper names, occurred post King James Bible, not King James Version or King James Edition, such as Cambridge Edition, but as far as 'they', the Iews are concerned, they did not refer to themselves as (J)ews. Why? There is no letter J in their alphabet with that phonetic sound. “As yee haue therefore receiued Christ Iesus the Lord, so walke yee in him:” Colossians 2:6
Genesis 1 1In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. 2And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. 5And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day. 6¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day. 9¶ And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so. 10And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good. 13And the euening and the morning were the third day. 14¶ And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the starres also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: 18And to rule ouer the day, and ouer the night, and to diuide the light from the darkenesse: and God saw that it was good.
(J)oshua 10:1 "Now it came to passe when Adoni-zedek King of Ierusalem, had heard how Ioshua had taken Ai, and had vtterly destroyed it, ( as he had done to Iericho, and her King, so hee had done to Ai, and her King) and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them," Israel, had it become Jsrael, as Ierusalem and Ioshua and Iericho became Jerusalem, Joshua and Jericho, would not have made 'sense'. 2 Kings 16:6 "At that time Rezin king of Syria, recouered Elath to Syria, & draue the Iewes from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there vnto this day."
Iewes, not Iews, sorry typo And if it was not until 1948 that 'they' might have referred to themselves as (J)ews, how could there have been (J)ews during WWII, in the years, 1939-1945? Why are all the islanders of Hawaii known as Hawaiians if Hawaiians were only those that resided on the island of Hawaii? There are six major islands to visit in Hawaii: Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii! Each has its own distinct personality, adventures, activities and sights. We invite you to explore the Islands of Aloha to find your own heavenly Hawaii experiences. https://www.gohawaii.com/islands
The Évian Conference was convened 6–15 July 1938 at Évian-les-Bains, France, to address the problem of German and Austrian Jewish refugees wishing to flee persecution by Nazi Germany. It was the initiative of United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt who perhaps hoped to obtain commitments from some of the invited nations to accept more refugees, although he took pains to avoid stating that objective expressly. Historians have suggested that Roosevelt desired to deflect attention and criticism from American policy that severely limited the quota of Jewish refugees admitted to the United States.[1] The conference was attended by representatives from 32 countries, and 24 voluntary organizations also attended as observers, presenting plans either orally or in writing.[2] Golda Meir, the attendee from British Mandate Palestine, was not permitted to speak or to participate in the proceedings except as an observer. Some 200 international journalists gathered at Évian to observe and report on the meeting. Adolf Hitler responded to the news of the conference by saying essentially that if the other nations would agree to take the Jews, he would help them leave: I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.[3] The conference was ultimately doomed, as aside from the Dominican Republic, delegations from the 32 participating nations failed to come to any agreement about accepting the Jewish refugees fleeing the Third Reich. The conference thus inadvertently proved to be a useful propaganda tool for the Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference During the Holocaust, the Nazis murdered an estimated six million Jews. https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-jews-killed-during-holocaust-by-country-4081781 that's 2 million less than the total population of (I)srael, today. And to think that these were 'migrants/immigrants' into other 'land countries' seems that the (J)ews Christ Messiah was talking with on a daily basis multiplied exponentially from that time onward... (?) Who were these native (J)ewish speaking persons? (J)erusalem was where The King of Salem, Melchizedek, was 'king' within. However, this 'land', although within (I)srael was not really part of (I)srael even after King Da(vi)d put it under his 'rule'. But are (J)ews those that came from the land of (J)erusalem? Or are (J)ews only for those that came from the line of (J)udah, which would make all the other 'children/grandchildren' of (J)acob exempt from receiving this 'name'. 2 Kings 16:6 "At that time Rezin king of Syria, recouered Elath to Syria, & draue the Iewes from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there vnto this day." where is Elath?
2 Kings 14 "And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. 14:18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 14:19 Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there. 14:20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David." Amaz(i)ah was slew in Lachish after a conspiracy was made against him from within (J)erusalem, took him on horses from Lachish to (J)erusalem, where he was buried with his 'fathers', in (J)erusalem, the city of Da(vi)d.
