A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi said Israel would be attacked with 150,000 missiles if it launches any military action against the Islamic Republic, the Iran Independent News Service reported Sunday.
Speaking before 50,000 army volunteers in Bushehr, the minister said “Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, if the Americans make the mistake and attack Iran, we will show them how to fight,” adding “Israel has to be punished for what it has done to the Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon.”
However, according to Iranian news outlets Vahidi did not specify if the missiles would be fired from Iran or other locations.
On Saturday a senior commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard said the country would target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey if the US or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic.
Iran doesn’t have 150,000 missiles that can hit Israel. And together with Hezb’allah and Hamas, they still don’t have anywhere near that number. It makes for dramatic speechifying but comes up a little short in the truth department.
This is not to say that Iran won’t fire the couple of dozen medium range missiles it has at Israel, or give the green light to Hezb’allah and Hamas to fire their shorter range missiles from Lebanon and the West Bank. But bombast like this is an indication that the Iranians fear an Israeli strike and what it could do to their nuclear and other weapons facilities.
The man who has done more to destroy the British monarchy than anyone since Oliver Cromwell has a new playground and a new eco-fantasy. Prince Charles now wants to build a thousand-home housing development on the Galapagos Islands, effectively doubling the size of Puerto Ayora, the largest town in the Archipelago. Rebecca English of the Daily Mail writes:
Prince Charles is to help build a controversial 1,000-strong housing development on the Galapagos Islands.
He has been called in by conservationists alarmed that plans to create a ‘mini-city’ could seriously harm one of the world’s most precious eco-systems, which inspired Darwin’s theory of evolution.
As a result his Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment will next month set up an office on one of the remote islands 600 miles off Ecuador in the Pacific.
This isn’t the bad kind of housing development, you see — the kind that is built to satisfy market demand in the hope of profit. No, this one is reliant on donations, and is being built in the holy land of Darwin worshippers.
The Prince’s Foundation held a series of community workshops this summer and will now formally advise local officials on how to create more housing and tourism accommodation while retaining the islands’ delicate eco-system.
The foundation’s design for the houses includes solar panels; large porches to cool air and dispense with the need for air-conditioning; cisterns to collect rain for re-use; and green sewage systems.
Hank Dittmar, the foundation’s chief executive, said: ‘Given the decision of the Galapagos government to approve development, the Prince’s Foundation is looking forward to showing that people and nature can co-exist in a harmonious balance.
But wait a minute! Isn’t tourism bad? All those airplanes bringing in wealthy Europeans, Asians, and Americans will have a big carbon footprint. And what about the impact on precious native culture?
On the other hand, if the Prince and his consort (see the hilarious top picture of them in the Galapagos here) agree to stay in the Galapagos, sort of like Napoleon in Elba, only for keeps, sign me up for a donation.
“For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth.” 3 John 3
The truth was in Gaius, and Gaius walked in the truth. If the first had not been the case, the second could never have occurred; and if the second could not be said of him the first would have been a mere pretence. Truth must enter into the soul, penetrate and saturate it, or else it is of no value. Doctrines held as a matter of creed are like bread in the hand, which ministers no nourishment to the frame; but doctrine accepted by the heart, is as food digested, which, by assimilation, sustains and builds up the body. In us truth must be a living force, an active energy, an indwelling reality, a part of the woof and warp of our being. If it be in us, we cannot henceforth part with it. A man may lose his garments or his limbs, but his inward parts are vital, and cannot be torn away without absolute loss of life. A Christian can die, but he cannot deny the truth. Now it is a rule of nature that the inward affects the outward, as light shines from the centre of the lantern through the glass: when, therefore, the truth is kindled within, its brightness soon beams forth in the outward life and conversation. It is said that the food of certain worms colours the cocoons of silk which they spin: and just so the nutriment upon which a man’s inward nature lives gives a tinge to every word and deed proceeding from him. To walk in the truth, imports a life of integrity, holiness, faithfulness, and simplicity–the natural product of those principles of truth which the gospel teaches, and which the Spirit of God enables us to receive. We may judge of the secrets of the soul by their manifestation in the man’s conversation. Be it ours today, O gracious Spirit, to be ruled and governed by thy divine authority, so that nothing false or sinful may reign in our hearts, lest it extend its malignant influence to our daily walk among men.
Mordecai was a true patriot, and therefore, being exalted to the highest position under Ahasuerus, he used his eminence to promote the prosperity of Israel. In this he was a type of Jesus, who, upon his throne of glory, seeks not his own, but spends his power for his people. It were well if every Christian would be a Mordecai to the church, striving according to his ability for its prosperity. Some are placed in stations of affluence and influence, let them honour their Lord in the high places of the earth, and testify for Jesus before great men. Others have what is far better, namely, close fellowship with the King of kings, let them be sure to plead daily for the weak of the Lord’s people, the doubting, the tempted, and the comfortless. It will redound to their honour if they make much intercession for those who are in darkness and dare not draw nigh unto the mercy seat. Instructed believers may serve their Master greatly if they lay out their talents for the general good, and impart their wealth of heavenly learning to others, by teaching them the things of God. The very least in our Israel may at least seek the welfare of his people; and his desire, if he can give no more, shall be acceptable. It is at once the most Christlike and the most happy course for a believer to cease from living to himself. He who blesses others cannot fail to be blessed himself. On the other hand, to seek our own personal greatness is a wicked and unhappy plan of life, its way will be grievous and its end will be fatal.
Here is the place to ask thee, my friend, whether thou art to the best of thy power seeking the wealth of the church in thy neighbourhood? I trust thou art not doing it mischief by bitterness and scandal, nor weakening it by thy neglect. Friend, unite with the Lord’s poor, bear their cross, do them all the good thou canst, and thou shalt not miss thy reward.
Name Meaning – This name is allied to the previous name, Michaiah, and also to Michael, and mean the same – “Who is like Jehovah?” Michal, along with its cognates, illustrates the comparatively small class of proper names composed of more than two words. It is a name describing an admiring acknowledgment of the transcendant unapproachable majesty of the divine nature.
Family Connections - Michal was the younger daughter of Saul, Israel’s first king. Her mother was Ahinoam. She became David’s first wife, was given to Phalti the son of Laish, of Gallim for a-while, but was recovered by David. As the aunt of her sister Merab’s five sons, Michal cared for them after the somewhat premature death of her sister.
Michal, although a princess, does not appear to have had a very commendable character. Desire for prestige, fervor of infatuation, indifference to holiness, and idolatry mark out this Jewess who knew the covenant God yet persevered in idolatrous practices. Closely associated with David, her career can be broken up thus -
She Loved David
What young woman would not be attracted by such a strong, athletic young man, who was “ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to”? Further, David was the young shepherd who defied and killed the giant Goliath who had terrified Michal’s father and his people. Thus Michal grew passionately fond of David, and made no effort to conceal her love for this much-lauded champion of Israel. While there may not be very much to admire in Michal, we cannot but express sympathy for her experiences in an age when women were treated as chattels, being thrown from one husband to another. But while “Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David,” she did not love the Lord as David did. What a different story might have been written of her if she had been a woman after God’s own heart!
She Married David
Saul had vowed that the man who killed Goliath would become his son-in-law, and Merab, Saul’s first daughter should have been given to David, but Saul, regretting his promise, gave her to another man. David was now a veritable hero among the people, and Saul’s jealousy prompted him to devise means whereby David would be slain by the Philistines. Learning of Michal’s love for David, Saul asked as a dowry, usually paid to a father according to Eastern custom, the foreskins of 100 Philistines. David slew 200 Philistines, and Saul was forced to give his daughter to wife to the man whose death he had planned. As David had been victorious, Saul dared not go back upon his word. How Saul illustrates the adage that “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave”!
She Delivered David
Still bent on destroying David, Saul had David’s house surrounded. In a frenzy of envy Saul had messengers “watch David to slay him in the morning.” But Michal’s love smelled danger and, discovering her father’s intention, “let David down through a window; and he fled and escaped.” Then, as a truehearted wife she tricked her father and his emissaries. With her husband safely out of the way, Michal put a hair-covered image in David’s bed, and when the men burst into the supposedly sickroom, they found that they had been cleverly tricked. When Saul heard he had been outwitted, he accused his daughter of disloyalty to her father, and was most bitter in his reproach. Michal, however, pretended that David had threatened to kill her if she did not help him to escape.
She Forsook David
After this incident, Michal’s love for David waned. Where was the pleasure in being the wife of a man forced to spend his days a fugitive, hunted like a wild animal in the wilderness? Phalti of Gallem was a better catch, she thought, seeing he was on his way to royalty which she was eager to secure and hold. So Michal became the wife of Phalti. This was an illegitimate union seeing David was alive and was in no way lawfully separated from Michal as her husband. That Phalti cared for Michal is proven by the way he followed her, weeping, when she decided to leave him for her former husband.
She Was Restored to David
With Saul’s death, circumstances changed for David whom God had already chosen to be king over His people. Michal and her husband Phalti were living to the east of Jordan during the short rule of Ishbosheth. Abner made an arrangement to assist David to take over the kingship of the nation, and David made the restoration of Michal the one condition of the league. So despite Phalti’s sorrowful protest, Michal was forcibly restored to David as he returned from his wanderings as king. Evidently his ardor for Michal was the same as at the first, and his desire to claim her proves how he wanted her as queen in Hebron.
How pathetic it is to read of Phalti with whom Michal had lived for some considerable time. We see his sorrow as he went with her in tears, only to be rudely sent back by Abner! We do not read of Michal weeping as she left the man who had showered so much affection upon her. It did not require much force to make her leave Phalti. Her pride and love for prestige left little room for weeping and although she knew she could never become David’s ideal love, seeing she had been the possession of another man, yet as his first wife Michal thought of the position that would be hers at court.
She Despised David
The closing scene between Michal and David is most moving, for what love Michal might have had for David turned to scorn and disdain. After making Jerusalem his capital, David brought the sacred Ark of the covenant, the ancient symbol of Jehovah’s presence, to Moriah. On the day of the Ark’s return David was so joyful that, stripping himself of his royal robes, he “danced before the Lord with all his might.” Michal watched from a window and seeing David – the king – leaping and dancing before the Lord, she “despised him in her heart.” Although she had loved him, risked her life for his safety, she now abhors him for his loss of royal dignity. Her haughtiness was shocked by David’s participation in such an excitable demonstration.
Nursing her contempt Michal waited until David returned to his household. When they met, she with a biting sarcasm, revealing “her self-pride, and lack of sensitiveness to her husband’s magnificent simplicity,” sneeringly said, “How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” For her there were no pious and affectionate feelings at the return of the Ark to Zion. Like her father, Saul, she had no regard for the Ark of God ( 1 Chronicles 13:3 ). But David, mortified by Michal’s pride as a king’s daughter, was curt in his reply. Resenting her reproach, he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was not ashamed of what he had done “before the Lord” who had chosen him rather than any of Saul’s family to reign as king. Michal had missed the essential significance of David’s career, that in spite of his failures he was a man after God’s own heart. As Alexander Whyte put it, “What was David’s meat was Michal’s poison. What was sweeter than honey to David was gall and wormwood to Michal…. At the despicable sight [of David dancing] she spat at him, and sank back in her seat with all hell in her heart…. Michal is a divine looking-glass for all angry and outspoken wives.”
She Lost David
After such an outburst of reproach we read that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death,” and such a final flat statement practically means that she lived apart from David, more or less divorced (2 Samuel 6:16 ). The estrangement between them likely became more acute because of the other wives now sharing David’s prosperity. Childless till her death was a punishment appropriate to her transgression. David was given many sons and daughters, and her sister Merab bore five sons, but Michal never achieved the great attainment of being a mother. She ended her days without the love and companionship of a husband, caring for her dead sister’s five children, all of whom were ultimately beheaded.
What can we learn from this story of Michal and David? Misunderstanding arose in their relationship because of a clash of temperament, outlook and purpose. Had Michal shared David’s faith in God how different life would have been for both of them. But Michal made no effort to understand her husband’s Godward desires and so passed a wrong judgment upon him. How certain we should be of a person’s motive for his acts or attitudes before we condemn him. Further, had Michal loved David enough, she should have sought his forgiveness after he had explained his demeanor before the Lord. “She worshipped him when he was poor and unknown and now that he is King ‘she despised him in her heart’ … David realized they could never love the same God. Therefore he cut her from his heart.” But being eaten up with pride there was no tolerance in her heart and so harmony was impossible. Love brings harmony and understanding into every human relationship. A fellow-minister confided in Alexander Whyte that he preached and prayed best when his wife stayed at home. This was something of the gulf between David and Michal. How different it is when husbands truly love their wives and wives sincerely reverence their husbands!
Jonah, Jona, Jonas [Jō'nah,Jō'nă, Jō'nas]—a dove. The son of Amittai, and the first Hebrew prophet, or missionary, sent to a heathen nation (2 Kings 14:25; Jonah 1:1).
The Man Who Ran Away
The meaning of the prophet’s name is suggestive. When first chosen, it doubtless meant to Jonah’s mother gentleness and love. This son of Amittai was a citizen of Gath-hepher in Zebulun of Galilee and a subject of the Northern Kingdom. He is thus a proof of the false statement of the Pharisees about no prophet coming out of Galilee (John 7:52).
Jonah lived in the early part of the reign of Jeroboam II, and in a period when the kingdom was in a divided and abject condition. He is without doubt one of the earliest, if not the first, of the prophets whose writings are preserved to us. He is the first of a new order of prophets, appearing that he might declare God’s love claims the whole world. By friend and foe Jonah has been ridiculed and tortured and treated as a myth or parable. Our Lord, however, believed him to be a historic person; so do we! For proof in this direction compare Jonah 1:7 with Matthew 12:39, 40 and Luke 11:29, 30; Jonah 3:5 with Matthew 12:41.
Jonah’s mission was to Nineveh and therefore beyond the bounds of Israel, which is in perfect harmony; for whenever God brought His people into any relation with other peoples, He made Himself known to them as was the case in Egypt through Joseph and Moses; to the Philistines through the capture of the Ark; to the Assyrians by Elisha; to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzer by Daniel.
Within the Book of Jonah we have the most beautiful story ever told in so small a compass. In 1,328 words we are given a wealth of incident and all the dialogue needed to carry on the grand and varied action. Jonah was an isolationist, believing that salvation was for the Jews, and the Jews only. Through affliction he came to know of God’s embracing love (John 3:16). Dealing with Jonah as a servant, Dr. C. I. Scofield gives us these helpful points: disobedient (Jonah 1:1-11 ); afflicted (Jonah 1:12-17); praying (Jonah 2:1-9); delivered (Jonah 2:10); recommissioned (Jonah 3:1-3); powerful ( Jonah 3:4-10 ); perplexed, fainting but not forsaken (Jonah 4:1-11).
Another serviceable outline for the worker can be developed around these thoughts:
Chapter one: A disobedient prophet running from God and punished.
Chapter two: A praying prophet running back to God and delivered.
Chapter three: A faithful prophet running with God and rewarded.
Chapter four: An angry prophet running ahead of God and rebuked.
Here are other aspects to deal with: Jonah was sent to a foreign field ( Jonah 1:2); sought to flee from his unwelcome task (Jonah 1:3); was overtaken in his flight (Jonah 1:4-17); found God in the depth of the sea ( Ps. 139:10; Jonah 2); became a revivalist (Jonah 3); was disappointed with his own work ( Jonah 3:5-10; 4:1); reveals bigotry (Jonah 4:1-3); was taught the breadth of divine mercy (Jonah 4:4-11). See below JONAS, JONA.
Welcome to Toldot (Generations), this week’s Parsha (Torah Portion).
Please read this portion of Torah along with us. This is the portion that will
be read in synagogues around the world during the Shabbat (Saturday)
service. Enjoy!
“And these are the generations (toldot) of Yitzchak (Isaac), Avraham’s
(Abraham) son: Avraham begat Yitzchak…” (Genesis 25:19)
This portion of scripture begins with a description of the generations (toldot)
of Isaac, Abraham’s son.
This young man is reading the Torah using a yad (Torah pointer) to keep
his place in the passage of Scripture.
It’s interesting that Isaac wasn’t born until his father’s name was changed
from Abram (Avram) to Abraham (Avraham). This change in his name was
accomplished with the addition of the Hebrew letter hey, which is often used
as an abbreviated form of the name of God.
And so, with the inclusion of the supernatural power and presence of God
in his life, Abraham finally saw the fulfillment of God’s promise of a son.
We’re no different than Abraham. By ourselves, we can do nothing (John 15:5). But when God gets involved, nothing is impossible!!
When Isaac (Yitzchak) took Rebecca (Rivkah) as his wife, he was 40
years old.
(Forty is a significant number in the Bible—Moses led the people for 40
years in the wilderness; it rained for 40 days and nights… the list goes on.)
But Rebecca was barren.
Is it coincidental that both Abraham’s wife and Isaac’s wife had difficulty
conceiving? No. This reveals that their children were conceived through
God’s supernatural intervention and set apart to fulfill a special destiny.
Esau and Jacob Presented to Isaac, by Benjamin West
The Power of a Husband’s Prayer
“Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren.
The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebecca became pregnant.” (Genesis 25:21)
For Rebecca to finally conceive, her husband had to come to God in prayer.
Considering the Middle Eastern cultural emphasis on the blessing of children
and the terrible shame attached to barrenness, we can be quite certain that
Rebecca would have been on her knees regularly praying fervently for God’s
intervention when month after month after month went by with no pregnancy.
And yet God chose not to act until her husband, Isaac, got on board and
entreated God on his wife’s behalf.
Of course, this is not to say that God won’t answer our petitions if we have
no husband, or if our husbands fail to pray for us. Not at all!
But this definitely encourages husbands to be faithful in their role as their
wife’s spiritual and prayer covering.
Oftentimes a wife is praying and praying for changes in her family, her
marriage, her children, or even herself – but nothing seems to be happening.
Could it be that God is waiting for the husband, as the cohen (priest) of the
home to petition the heavens for an answer?
“And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat of his venison: but Rebecca loved
Jacob.” (Genesis 25:28)
When Rebecca experienced a violent struggle in her womb, she asked the
Lord what was going on in there. God told her that two nations (goyim) and
two peoples (amim) were in her womb.
God prophesied that even from the womb, there would be separation and
mutual antagonism between brothers. Talk about sibling rivalry!
God also said that the elder one would serve the younger. Esau was born
first. He was red (adom in Hebrew) and hairy all over, which seems to be a
foreshadowing of his future love for hunting and the shedding of blood.
“Now the first came forth, red all over like a hairy garment; and they named
him Esau.” (Genesis 25:25)
The name Esau in Hebrew means “hairy” and is a word play on Seir, the
region he and his descendants settled.
Father and children walking at the Western
(Wailing) Wall in Jerusalem
Jacob (Ya’akov) was born grasping Esau’s heel (ekev), a foreshadowing,
perhaps, of his desire to grasp his brother’s birthright. The Hebrew word ekev means the heel of the foot but also means to follow. This word also
can have the connotation of deception.
Notice that the boy’s destinies were sealed in the womb even before birth!
Rebecca knew that second-born Jacob was God’s choice to inherit the
birthright, even though that blessing usually goes to the firstborn.
Knowing his destiny, Jacob became Rebecca’s favorite. He was a bit of
a mama’s boy – quiet, and a bit of a homebody – a boy so easy for a mother
to love.
Esau, however, was his father’s favorite. He seemed to be the typical man’s
man and naturally, his dad enjoyed the venison Esau brought home after the hunt.
This favoritism caused problems in the family, and we should take heed not
to play the game of favorites in our own families.
Later, we see that Jacob, who should have known better, perpetuated this
parental dysfunction in favoring Joseph, son of his beloved wife, Rachel,
over the sons of Leah. How often we see the sins of the fathers visited upon
the children.
A view at the southern part of the Dead Sea with the Edom mountains
in the distance.
Despising the Birthright
“And these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites in the
hill-country of Seir.” (Genesis 36:9)
One day, when Esau came in from the field, he found Jacob cooking a red
(adom) lentil stew.
Esau was so famished that when Jacob offered to trade some stew for Esau’s
birthright, he agreed. This is also why Esau is nicknamed Adom (red) in Scripture.
Esau, like some people today, thought only of his immediate desire (he was
hungry), rather than considering the future consequences of giving in to his appetite.
Jacob used no manipulation, trickery or deceit in obtaining this birthright.
His request did, however, reveal Esau’s fickle and immature character, which
rendered him unqualified and undeserving.
We learn from this that we can’t allow our feelings and appetites to rule us;
our emotions must not become our masters. Otherwise, just like Esau,
carnal Christians who fail to control their appetites can lead to an unfulfilled destiny.
Lentil Stew: When Esau came home hungry, he agreed to trade
his birthright for a earty bowl of lentil stew that his twin brother
Jacob had made.
Famine: No Match for the Blessing of God
“And there was a famine in the land…” (Genesis 26:1)
In Genesis 26, Isaac finds himself in the midst of a famine. The Lord appears
to him and warns him not to go down to Egypt, but to stay put and keep
trusting in His provision for him and his family.
How often are we tempted to give up and move on when we experience a
‘famine’ in our circumstances? But we should move only if God says to
move and stay if He commands us to stay.
God is well able to provide in a famine or drought when we continue to trust
in Him:
“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and whose hope is in the Lord.
For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, which spreads out its roots
by the river, and will not fear when heat comes; but its leaf will be green,
and will not be anxious in the year of drought, nor will cease from yielding
fruit.” (Jeremiah 17:7,
Green oasis in Israel
Sometimes we need to stay, by God’s grace, in a difficult place and
trust God.
In the book of Ruth, Naomi’s husband rode off with his family to Moab
during a famine. He and his sons died in Moab.
Contrast this with Boaz, who rode out the famine in the Promised Land.
When Naomi returned to Israel, destitute and bitter, she and her Moabite
daughter-in-law found their kinsman redeemer, Boaz, blessed and prospering!
In all decisions–whether to move ahead or to stay put–we need to hear
God’s voice. Do we believe that the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) is
leading and guiding us as we seek Him?
Crop Production: This farming machine is irrigating a field in Israel.
“Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold,
because the Lord blessed him.” (Genesis 26:12)
Isaac sowed in faith in the Land in the year of famine, and the Lord blessed
him a hundred fold. He became a man of great wealth and possessions, so
much so that the Philistines envied him.
Then, like now, anti-Semitism is in large measure, fueled by envy over the
prosperity that many Jewish people enjoy because God has blessed them.
The Philistines strove with Isaac over the first well, saying ‘The water is ours.’
Isaac called the name of the first well Esek, which means strife or
quarreling. The related word, osek (same root word, different vowel)
means oppression, exploitation, extortion; to oppress, subjugate, extort,
exploit or mistreat.
There is nothing quite so effective at putting a damper on our peace, joy,
and the free flow of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) in our life as strife.
The Ruach dwells with peace (shalom).
When the Philistines stopped up all the wells that Isaac’s father Abraham had
dug, Isaac’s servants found another well.
The Philistines also fought for the second well, which was therefore, named
‘Sitnah’ (hatred). This word is also related to ‘satan’, the name for the
enemy, adversary, and accuser.
Hatred is a polluting influence that will stop up our wells of living water.
Strife and hatred are two of the most effective agents of Satan that will stop
the well of living water that should flow from our inner being.
Finally, after walking away from the well of ‘Sitnah’ also, another well was
dug and this time, they found a place of shalom, for the Philistines did not
strive with them at this well. And so they called the place R’hovot.
This name, also a city in Israel, comes from the word Rachav, which means
wide or broad space.
“For now the Lord has made a broad space for us, and we shall be fruitful in
the Land.” (Genesis 26:22)
Like Isaac, the Lord will make room for us so that we may be fruitful if we
don’t linger at the wells of Esek (strife) and Sitnah (hatred).
Bearing Fruit: The supernatural blessing and favor of God can cause our
lives to be fruitful, even in the midst of difficult circumstances.
Surprising Turnaround
“We saw clearly that the Lord was with you: so we said, Let there be an oath
between us and you, and let us make an agreement with you.” (Genesis 26:28)
Once Isaac was walking in the supernatural blessing and favor of God in the
midst of a famine, the Philistines came seeking him.
How did they see that the Lord was with Isaac? They saw God’s
supernatural provision and blessing on his life!
Isaac and his former enemies enjoyed a feast together and they departed
from him in peace (shalom). (Genesis 26: 31)
Isaac was faithful to sow in the famine, and to walk away from strife and
hatred. In the end, he came to a place of peace and prosperity.
Likewise, we will reap a harvest of peace and blessing, when we are faithful
to sow in season and out of season, and steer clear of strife and hatred.
Although, today we see that anti-Semitism abounds, and Israel is hard
pressed on all sides, we know that God will turn things around in His own time.
We should be part of that turnaround by keeping Israel in our prayers and
reaching out to the Jewish people with the message of peace and love and Salvation.
May the Lord bless you and give you a wonderful rest this Sabbath day.
Posted: 27 Nov 2011 08:39 AM PST
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” –Edmund Burke (1770)
By Barry Rubin
On the eve of the Egyptian election, I’m really disgusted with the collapse of the moderate forces. While the Muslim Brotherhood is disciplined, united, working hard, and on message, the moderates are running around in circles. There is not the slightest sign of unity among the three main moderate parties (Wafd, Justice, and Free Egyptians) and the dozens of smaller ones.
Consider that instead of putting their energy into organizing, uniting, and getting out the vote, they are engaged in thoroughly useless demonstrations in Tahrir Square. What is the goal of these demonstrations? On one hand, they demand that the turnover of power be moved up; on the other hand, moderate politicians speak of postponing the balloting. Muhammad ElBaradei, once the Americans’ favorite candidate (before the Obama Administration switched to backing the anti-American, antisemitic Muslim Brotherhood) is actually creating his own virtual government! What a putz!
Think about it. How can the moderates demand an immediate turnover of power? Turnover to whom? There is no executive authority. Clearly, no serious thought has gone into this campaign. If anything they should be demanding that the military stays in power longer since it is the only thing standing between them and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And yet while the moderates are doing their Three Stooges routine over the turnover of power, the issue has already been resolved! The Brotherhood made a deal with the army junta and moved up the presidential elections by a full year. Instead of June 2013, presidential elections will be held around June 2012. That’s only seven months from now. And unless the moderate leaders drop their own candidacy and get behind Amr Moussa, the Brotherhood will win that one, too.
If it weren’t such a horrible tragedy it would all be a farce.
The Muslim Brotherhood held a rally at Cairo’s most important mosque. Demonstrators chanted, “One day we shall kill all Jews.”
Question 1: How can you tell they are “moderate Islamists?”
Answer: They said “one day,” in other words, they aren’t going to do it this week.
Question 2: At the rally someone said:
“In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything. The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews.” Who was it?
Answer: Ahmed al-Tayeb, the “moderate” president of al-Azhar University and arguably the most important Muslim cleric in Egypt. Note: al-Aqsa Mosque is not under attack by Jews.
Question 3: Why did al-Tayeb talk this way in the context of calling for a Jihad against Israel?
Answer: Maybe he isn’t so moderate. But more importantly it is part of the general radicalization of Islam that is going to happen in Egypt now that the Brotherhood will be running the place and thus his desire to survive rather than be branded a lackey of the Zionist-imperialist crusade to destroy Islam and have his head cut off. (See Question 1.)
Question 4: Can someone be a “moderate Muslim” or “moderate Islamist” and call for a Jihad to wipe Israel off the map?
Things don’t look promising for the perennial climate confab which convenes in Durban, South Africa today. There is little chance of extending the expiring 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto has turned into a giant international scam that has already wasted hundreds of billions, with little to show for it; in fact, the increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases has been accelerating.
What brings nearly 200 delegations together is a dream — the forlorn hope that developed nations who have ratified the Protocol will come up with a $100-billion-per-year aid program. This is supposed to allow developing nations to adapt to the putative climate disasters that the IPCC, the U.N.’s climate-science panel, has been predicting for more than 20 years. The U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, is expected to supply the lion’s share of this subsidy. Fat chance; just look at the polls and listen to the statements from leading Republican presidential candidates who denounce these disaster predictions as “hoax” and “poppycock.”
But the 10,000 or so Durban attendees — official delegates, U.N. and government officials, journalists, NGO types, and other hangers-on — will have a grand old time: two weeks of feasting, partying, living it up in luxury hotels, and greeting old friends at this 17th reunion — all at someone else’s expense. Statesmen will arrive on the last day to sign important-sounding communiqués and quickly depart before having to explain just how they will “save the climate” and humanity.
Developed nations are on a guilt trip, convinced that their industrial development has resulted in most of the past rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But is this necessarily bad? Have extreme climate events really increased? Can we even trace and prove a measurable anthropogenic effect on climate? Or, more likely perhaps, have higher CO2 levels improved crop yields and averted mass starvation of a growing world population? What does science have to say about this?
That’s where the U.N.-IPCC should come into play. But its credibility has been irreparably damaged — especially in the past two years. Personally, I tend to discount the recent revelations of the e-mails of “Climategate” bearing on IPCC incompetence and lack of trustworthiness. These e-mails are not telling me anything new. The “usual suspects” are seen to be plotting and scheming to support “the cause” — even as some of them are beginning to have doubts. Yet they continue to hide information, manipulate data, and subvert the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific integrity. The damage they cause to the general scientific enterprise is hard to overestimate.
But quite aside from the non-ethical behavior of the IPCC principals, what about the science itself? Perhaps the science isn’t so certain after all — even though the IPCC report of 2007 claims to be 90 to 99 percent sure that most of the claimed warming between 1978 and 2000 is anthropogenic, caused by carbon dioxide from the burning of fuels to generate energy.
As an atmospheric scientist, I am intrigued by the results of the BEST project, said to “confirm” the findings of the temperature analyses of the IPCC. Indeed, they all seem to show a rapid warming of the land surface between 1978 and 2000. So, it is claimed, this proves that “global warming is real.”
But I wonder about the logic of this assertion. After all, BEST and IPCC are not really independent; they all rely on readings from land-surface thermometers at weather stations. Even though BEST used about five times as many stations, these covered the same land area — less than 30% of the Earth’s surface — with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe.
The warmistas apparently have not listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the well-documented and transparent BEST study. He states that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.
But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land-surface data. Climate models, run on supercomputers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface — and so does theory.
How, then, does one explain the absence of any warming of the atmosphere? I have real doubts about reported warming of the oceans during the same time period. And there is little question that proxy (non-thermometer) data show mostly no post-1978 warming trend. I note that the multi-proxy analysis published by Michael Mann et al (Nature, 1998) suddenly stops in 1978. I would place a small bet that this analysis shows no post-1978 warming — which may be why it was withheld.
None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly. Muller is careful to make no claim whatsoever that the warming he finds is due to human causes. He tells us that one third of the 39,000 stations used by BEST show cooling, not warming trends — and admits that “the uncertainty [involved in these stations] is large compared to the analyses of global warming.” Muller nevertheless insists that if he uses a large enough set of bad numbers, he could get a good average. I am not so sure.
It might be a good idea if BEST would carry out some prudent internal checks to eliminate possible sources of error. Of course, the most important checks must come from records — atmosphere, ocean, and proxies — that are independent of weather station thermometers. Even then, it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact causes of climate change.
I conclude, therefore, that the balance of evidence favors little if any global warming during 1978-2000; it contradicts the main conclusion of the IPCC — i.e., that recent warming is “very likely” (90%-99% certain) caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO2. There is no evidence at all for significant future warming. BEST is a valuable effort, but it does not settle the climate debate.
So we are left with a puzzle: why do land-surface data differ from all other independent climate results? Is there really substantial global warming to support the IPCC’s conclusion of AGW? These are the fundamental questions to focus on in Durban — not extension of the moribund Kyoto Protocol.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered (2009 and 2011) and of Unstoppable Global Warming (2007).
I’m one of those crazed Americans who can’t walk into Home Depot, Target or my local grocery store right now without wanting to grab one of those king-sized shopping carts and stuff it to the gunwales with 100-watt incandescent light bulbs.
PJ Media kicks off a weekly series on nanotechnology written by Howard Lovy, founder of the original NanoBot blog. Howard will also be blogging on nanotech at the PJ Lifestyle blog.
“This will come back at us, and at a time and a place of their [the ISI's] choosing.” “Nato braces for reprisals after deadly air strike on Pakistan border post,” by Julian Borger and Saeed Shah for the Guardian, November 27: Nato forces in Afghanistan were braced on Sunday for…
This account supports a senior Western official’s statement that the airstrikes were a defensive measure, and suggests another case of curiously close proximity between jihadists and Pakistani military posts. U.S. officers reportedly also believed the Pakistani military was providing cover for jihadists in a firefight in late October, along with…
These attacks appear to be a continuation of an earlier rampage by Boko Haram in Nigeria’s Yobe state. An update on this story. “4 dead, churches burned in north Nigeria attack,” from the Associated Press, November 27: MAIDUGURI, Nigeria (AP) — Witnesses and authorities say at least four people died…
Here is the problem: even at face value, the statement is vague and non-committal, but while those words would mean one thing in the American legal system, they mean quite another in Afghanistan. Officials surely believed they were properly applying the law and upholding Gulnaz’ “rights.” The question becomes: whose…
Pakistani authorities turn a blind eye to the plight of religious minorities now, but the same people who torment minorities in the name of Islamic piety will knock on the door in Islamabad when they are strong enough. Then it will be a crisis. “Scarred and scared, these Pakistani Hindus…
Longtime readers of Jihad Watch will be familiar with Malaysia’s lengthy and ignominious history of demolishing non Muslim houses of worship (see here and here) under a whole gamut of spurious pretexts. In this latest incident, note the highly personal manner in which this particular temple was destroyed — Malaysian…
To land a gig like that, are they sure he has been miraculously cured of his “misunderstanding” of Islam? He does not sound terribly remorseful below in spite of hitting a few talking points. In fact, it sounds like he is bragging. More on this story. “Insurgent commander who planned…
“It comes amid growing concern among some Christians that their faith is being marginalised.” “She said that she was the subject of a complaint by an Islamic colleague which was specious and that when she raised her own concerns as a Christian, she was the one who was dismissed.”…
In a word, no. Various naïve parties, abetted by a dhimmified and (at best) ignorant media apparatus, are nearly certain to happily go along with the idea that Malaysia has somehow conjured up a ‘moderate, modern’ Islam by allowing a handful of women into the ‘male dominated’ bastion of Islamic…
The Great Libyan Jihadist Garage Sale ships long-distance. “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels,” by Ruth Shurlock for the Telegraph, November 25: Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The…
“A more troubling explanation would be that insurgents in the area were operating under the nose of Pakistani security forces.” It could be a tragic accident, but unfortunately, there is also ample precedent for such allegations. An update on this story. “Nato air attack on Pakistani troops was self-defence, says…
We tried to tell you. Parliamentary elections start tomorrow; fasten your seatbelts. There are also more details below on the Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo, where participants vowed to “kill all the Jews.” “Muslim Brotherhood sure of election victory as Tahrir unrest lingers,” by Anshel Pfeffer for Haaretz, November 26:…
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
