RSS

Secular Definitions vs Principles of Faith

12 Dec

Better not argue with THAT fence post. [courtesy Google Images]

Better not argue with THAT fence post.
[courtesy Google Images]

Again, I’m pretty much obsessed with the “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) defense that I used in A.D. 2006 to stop a prosecution by the Attorney General of Texas.  I’ve tried to explain the reasoning behind that line of defense in close to thirty articles posted on this blog.

Nevertheless, a few of my readers insist on arguing that the phrase “man or other animals” (as found in the definitions of “drug,” “food” and [medical] “device” found at 21 USC 321) does not indicate that the government has conspired to define us all as animals in order to strip us of our God-given, unalienable Rights.

I’m pretty much amazed that anyone could argue against the “MOOA” insight.  But I know there are people who will argue with a fence post and it appears that a few of that clan have been drawn to this blog.

Fool that I am, I sometimes try to explain or even argue my “MOOA” defense with more detail.  As much as it galls me to quibble with those who seek fence posts, their seemingly obstinate refusal to understand, and my obsessive determination to make them understand—sometimes causes at least one positive result:  I may not convince anyone else, but my own understanding of my own argument, and how to communicate that argument, is increased.

•  For example, in relation to my “man or other animals” argument, one my readers (“Martens”) recently wrote,

“The claim that the government had anything to do with defining man as an animal is refuted with a minimum of research. If you look up the words, you will find the definition of “animal” already encompasses the definition of “man” and has done so for longer than the United States has been in existence.

“A thorough investigation makes it clear that “man or other animals” is entirely compatible with man being made in God’s image. Nearly every dictionary includes one or more definitions of “animal” that fit the bill. This is because “animal” originally came from the Latin word “anima”, meaning breath or life, which obviously applies to man.

“Concerning “person” in US law, let’s have a look at article 2, section 1 of the Constitution:

“‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

“So apparently not every llama or other zoological specimen can be President of the United States, only those who are natural born citizens, at least 35 of age, etc.”

Ohh, so a “minimum of research” is all it takes to prove that the phrase “man or other animals” (found repeatedly in state and federal law) is “entirely compatible with man being made in God’s image”?

Izzat so?  Gee, I wish I’d known that back in A.D. 2006 when I was being sued for $9 million per year by the Attorney General of Texas.  Then, I wouldn’t have wasted my time arguing to the contrary.  Of course, if I hadn’t raised the “easily refuted” MOOA defense, I would probably have been convicted and placed in debt for the balance of my life.

•  If you’ve read this blog in any depth, you’ve already heard me tell my tale of woe and triumph concerning the Texas Attorney General’s case—perhaps several times.  If so, bear with me as I tell it briefly once again to make a point to my detractors.

More, if you’ll stick with this article to the end, I think I can offer a “new and improved” explanation for why the “MOOA” argument is not only extremely powerful, but why I believe (contrary to “Martens’” assertion) that it’s not even possible to refute the argument under our current legal system.

In A.D. 2001, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration instructed the Attorney General of Texas and the Texas Department of State Health Services to initiate a civil suit against one of the nation’s biggest producers of colloidal silver for the unlawful manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance.  The suit was “political” in nature in that it was intended to “gut” a big defendant and scare the hell out of all other colloidal silver manufacturers and distributors.  Once there was a court case where the manufacturer or distributor of colloidal silver was subjected to a massive and ruinous fine, all the FDA would have to do is mention that case to other manufacturers and distributors and they would surrender, close their businesses, and leave the nation free an profitable for bit pharma.

In A.D. 2001, the original defendants (a husband, wife and their corporation producing colloidal silver) hired one of the best law firms in Texas to defend them; paid $160,000 in attorney fees and achieved no positive result other than to drive the husband, wife and corporation into bankruptcy and the husband and wife then into divorce.  They eventually left Texas for parts unknown.  But in A.D. 2005, before they left, the original defendants sold some of their equipment and inventory to another man, his corporation, and his trust.

The Texas AG added the new man, his corporation and trust as three more defendants in A.D. 2005.  Each of the (now) six defendants was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year each).  The new man asked if I’d help in his defense.  I volunteered to be fiduciary for his trust so as to have standing to speak in court.  I was much surprised when the Texas AG therefore added me as the 7th and last defendant in A.D. 2006.  Now I was threatened with fines of $25,000/day = $9 million/year.

I read the relevant drug laws, spotted the repeated use of the phrase “man or other animals,” realized that the drug laws only applied to animals, and knew enough about the Bible to know that a man made in God’s image can’t be an “animal”.  I also had a passing understanding of the concept of Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution of The State of Texas.  Putting those various puzzle pieces together, I drafted a “freedom of religion” defense that argued that because I was a Christian, the government couldn’t subject me to laws that presumed me to be an animal without violating Genesis 1:26-28 and my freedom of religion.

In A.D. 2007, the Attorney General of Texas–after investing six years and nearly one-half million dollars in pre-trial investigations and pre-trial hearings–simply dropped the case.  No notice, no thanks, no “screw you very much”.  They just stopped coming.

If what Martens claims (that my man or other animals defense is easily “refuted with a minimum of research”) is true, why do you suppose that the Attorney General of Texas simply dropped a case in which he’d invested six years and $500,000 without trying to collect even $50 from all seven of the defendants?  The Attorney General’s non-suit of the case makes no sense unless it turns out that “man or other animals” defense was as powerful as I’ve alleged.

Further, Martens’ assertion that, “The claim that the government had anything to do with defining man as an animal is refuted with a minimum of research. If you look up the words, you will find the definition of “animal” already encompasses the definition of “man” and has done so for longer than the United States has been in existence,” is stupid.

Here’s why:  my claim (that a man who is a Christian or a Jew and is therefore made in God’s image can’t be treated as an animal without violating his freedom of religion) can’t be refuted in our legal system.

No amount of “minimum” or “maximum” research will refute my claim because my claim in based on what is probably the 2nd most important principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths as found at Genesis 1:26-28:

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Those three verses make clear that man is defined by Genesis 1:26-28 as distinctly different from all other living creatures (animals) because:

1) Of all of God’s living creations, man, and man alone is made in God’s image; and,

2) Man is given “dominion” over all the other living creatures (animals) that are not made in God’s image.

God did not give man dominion over other men. He only gave man dominion over those living creatures (animals) that were not made in God’s image.  Therefore man made in God’s image cannot be an “animal” under Genesis 1:26-28.  Under those verses, man and animals are two, mutually-exclusive creatures.  If you’re a man, you can’t be an animal.  If you’re an animal, you can’t be a man.

However, in the midst of Martens’ “minimum research,” perhaps he could find to a definition of man that’s even older than the one found at Genesis 1:26-28.  Maybe that older definition would allow the meaning of “animals” to include “man”.  But it wouldn’t make any difference if he could find such older definition.

Why?  Because the definition at Genesis 1:26-28 is part of the Christian and Jewish religions.  We have a First Amendment that guarantees the government can’t interfere with our “freedom of religion”.  That means that there’s no legal way to “refute” my claim that a man made in God’s image can’t be deemed to be an “animal”.

Get it?  So long as there’s a First Amendment, neither Martens, Congress, the federal Courts nor even the almighty Obama can legally refute any fundamental principle of my religion.

The description of man in Genesis as “made in God’s image” is not a simple definition—it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

The description of man in Genesis as “given dominion” over all other living creatures which are not made in God’s image (animals) is not a simple definition—it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

•  Martens wants to rely on dictionary definitions to refute my MOOA claim of faith.

Good luck with that.

Martens may not have noticed, but Black’s Law Dictionary published their first edition about A.D. 1890 and published their ninth edition about A.D. 2009. That means they’ve published nine editions in 119 years.  That’s about one new dictionary every 13 years.

They publish new dictionaries because: 1) new words are being added; and 2) the definitions existing words are changing at a rapid rate.

My point is that the meanings of most words you can find in dictionaries are in a constant state of flux.  What may have seemed true in one dictionary at one time, may no longer be deemed true today.  What was “gay” 50 years ago, is “queer,” today.

Dictionaries and their definitions are not reliable.  The meanings of words change.  The meaning of “person” in the Constitution ratified in A.D. 1788 is not the same meaning attributed to “person” in the Wisconsin statutes referred to by Martens in his comment.  It’s foolish and naïve to suppose the words mean the same thing in each of two documents separated by over two centuries.

If you read almost any title in the United States Code, you’ll see a section on definitions that apply only to that particular Title, or chapter or even section.  Look up the same word in another section of the USC and you may find that government has defined that word in a manner that’s significantly different from the first definition.  (I wouldn’t be surprised that the word “state” has at least four and possibly eight different definitions depending on which whichever Title your look under.  All these defintions are true today, but only in some titles and not in others.)

However, Genesis 1:26-28 has established unchanging and reliable principles that’ve been deemed true for over 3,400 years.  Marten’s secular dictionaries are like leaves blowing in the autumn breeze as compared to the timeless “rock” we can find in Genesis 1:26-28.

More, although a few terms like “treason” are defined in the federal Constitution, there’s not a single dictionary, secular definition or even wad of “minimum research” whose meaning is expressly and directly protected by the federal Constitution.

However, the principles found at Genesis 1:26-28 are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. That means that critics can stomp their feet, hold their breath and read every dictionary on the face of the earth, and they still be unable to legally refute the fundamental principles of religion found at Genesis 1:26-28.

So long as that’s true, no amount of “minimum” (or maximum) research can refute my fundamental argument concerning MOOA (that “man or other animal” laws apply only to animals but never to men made in God’s image).

Martens’ claim to the contrary is not only mistaken but evidence that he’s leaped to his conclusion without having done his “minimum research”.

So, I’m hoping that Martens and others begin to understand that the “man or other animals” clam can’t be refuted because it’s not a dictionary definition but is, instead, a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths protected by the First Amendment.

That’s why that claim is so powerful.  I believe that’s why the Attorney General of Texas (and the FDA) non-suited the case where I was a defendant and wrote off six years of work and nearly $500,000.  They didn’t say so, but I believe they knew that they couldn’t refute my defense–not with “minimum research”; not with “maximum” research.

•  Again, that defense can’t be refuted because it’s based on a fundamental principle of Christianity: the major religion in the USA.

Imagine some poor prosecutor called to argue against MOOA to a jury (that will probably include at least half a dozen Christians) that government laws that presume the people to be “animals” don’t violate a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths found at Genesis 1:26-28. That’s going to be a very tough sell.

I won’t say that everyone can use the MOOA defense effectively.  It takes knowledge, intelligence, courage and spirituality to wield that sword successfully.  But I believe that if I were the defendant in such a case, I could make the jurors fear for their eternal salvation if they consented to “turn their backs on God” and agree that the people could be treated as “animals” rather than as men and women made in God’s image.  There’s no telling what any jury will do, but I would be much surprised if a jury with even one strong Christian could find me guilty of violating a law that expressly applied to “man or other animals”

Under Genesis 1:26-28, you are either a man made in God’s image, or you’re an animal. There’s no wiggle room, no law dictionaries, no middle ground.  The two terms are mutually exclusive.

So long as the principles in Genesis 1:26-28 remain unchanged and we still have a First Amendment to protect our freedom of religion, the MOOA defense cannot be legally refuted.

 
136 Comments

Posted by on December 12, 2013 in "Man or Other Animals"

 

Tags:

136 responses to “Secular Definitions vs Principles of Faith

  1. Eblanaeric

    December 12, 2013 at 3:09 AM

    The defense rests! And it’s bloody brilliant !

     
  2. owlmon

    December 12, 2013 at 3:29 AM

    your getting warmer Alfred…..Deuteronomy 4:2 12:32, states do not add to his law…Exodus 20:3-5 says do not bow to or serve false gods…Leviticus 18:3-4 says to not walk in other ordinances Deuteromomy 1:17,10:17, 2nd Samuel 14:14, Matthew 22:16 Acts 10:34,Romans 2:11 James 2:9 says no respect to persons…masks worn by actors, corporations,,,we are men and women of Genesis 1:29 not persons…No one can intimidate you to violate the commands of God by bowing to theirs..The fact I got 7 judges disqualified last year in Stoney Plain Alberta proves it…

     
    • EarlfromOregon

      December 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM

      Please tell us the story about
      how using Law,
      you were able to Disqualify Judges.

       
      • J.M.

        December 31, 2013 at 5:58 PM

        @ > Please tell us the story about how using Law, you were able to Disqualify Judges.

        It’s a secret. We are not to make known our secrets.

         
      • owlmon

        July 11, 2014 at 8:52 AM

        Yes Earl God’s law in Exodus 20:3-5 states we are not to bow to false gods nor serve them…I sent them a notice of lawful excuse for failure to appear.. http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/2011/01/notice-of-lawful-excuse-for-failure-to.html…Then when they ignored that and arrested me I asked them if it was their intent to intimidate me as all of them did…all 7 of the judges of the Stony Plain district over a 2 year space in time did intimidate me to violate my faith in Christ by pushing with threats for me to offer them my name…I asked questions instead which infuriated that black hearted cabal of thugs. Upon the 7th infraction by one of them I place a complaint thru to the head judge who I thought was on the bench.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ASo9Oa1I , http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/2013/05/leletter-to-man-donald-norheim-acting.html and one of her associates. That letter accompanied with 5 witnesses confirming that the 7 judges did indeed intimidate me got them punted. Strange thing tho as the woman Gail Vicary had resigned 2 weeks prior to my letter. The man who disqualified the 7 judges was a QC lawyer I had met in 2005 at a farm house in southern Alberta….He got the whole enchilada as he kept on asking questions…He ended up being appointed head judge so he was with awareness and full knowledge of my faith when he read the complaint….he had to disqualify them or I could come after him…I had a witness to confirm I was there and that he knew the implications regarding his judges actions….I am now as of that incidential event red flagged on CPIC, the police info service, to not apprehend or detain…They know the high price of liability for having me invited to their courts….I have the letter I sent to Gail if you want to see it …just post your email or contact me at 780.616-6647

         
  3. Martens

    December 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM

    Adask said: “man is defined by Genesis 1:26-28 as distinctly different from all other living creatures (animals)”

    As already explained, there is no mention of “animals” in Genesis 1:26-28. That’s your word, giving the false impression that these verses create a categorical distinction between man and animal. Also absent is any mention of man being something other than an animal himself. I advise caution here, recalling what God’s word has to say about attributing content to the scriptures that is in fact not there:

    Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

    Now that you have restarted this discussion, perhaps you can finally respond to my earlier citation of Leviticus 24:18, which was left unanswered when you quit a previous thread:

    Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    “soul” = nephesh (H5315). After God breathed life into him, man became a “nephesh”, as the original text puts it.

    Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

    “beast” = nephesh (H5315)

    The word used to describe what man became after God breathed life into him – i.e. “nephesh” – is also used in the sense of “beast”, which is how the KJV translates it. Thus, in agreement with Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 (which I see you count for naught in the “Wisconsin statutes” thread), man is a “beast”.

    So not only is the categorical distinction between man and animal you ascribe to Genesis 1:26-28 in reality absent from that passage, but the scriptures in at least two places actually affirm that man is a “beast”.

    You have already rejected one these affirmations (Ecclesiastes). What about Leviticus 24:18? Do you reject that also?

     
    • bobby90247

      December 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      According to “your” argument, Martens, God is also a “beast”…right!

       
    • Jethro!

      December 12, 2013 at 11:55 AM

      Martens makes the error of presuming that use of the same word “nephesh” when used in different contexts must therefore have the same meaning in both; and he ignores other words of importance. From the Net Bible on Gen. 2:7 regarding the term:

      ***

      The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings.

      The Hebrew word נְשָׁמָה (nÿshamah, “breath”) is used for God and for the life imparted to humans, not animals (see T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of Nÿshama,” VT 11 [1961]: 177-87). Its usage in the Bible conveys more than a breathing living organism (נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה, nefesh khayyah). Whatever is given this breath of life becomes animated with the life from God, has spiritual understanding (Job 32:8), and has a functioning conscience (Prov 20:27).

      sn Human life is described here as consisting of a body (made from soil from the ground) and breath (given by God). Both animals and humans are called “a living being” (נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה) but humankind became that in a different and more significant way.

      ***

      Sorry, but no — there is most definitely a “categorical distinction” between man and animal in scripture. Nice attempt at muddying the waters, though. And your “caution” against scriptural misinterpretation by citing scripture reminds me of Matt 4:5-6 where Satan (mis-)used scripture for his purposes.

       
      • Martens

        December 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        Jethro:

        I’m glad you commented, because it gives me a chance to clarify.

        Of course “nephesh” does not have the exact same in-context meaning in both Genesis 1:26-28 and Leviticus 24:18. That much is obvious.

        The point is, there exists a word (a noun) which the original text of the Bible uses to indicate both man and beast, and this word has “animal” as one of its primary English translations.

        Therefore, “animal” signifies a categorical overlap between man and beasts. (Rather, according to Ecclesiastes 3:18-20, man and other beasts, though Prof. Adask rejects the authority of this book of the Bible.)

        Indeed, “nephesh” and the Latin word “anima” (from which “animal” derives) are closely related.

        nephesh
        “…properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality…”

        anima
        “…a current of air, wind, air, breath, the vital principle, life, soul…”

        So we see that the phrase “man and other animals” has Biblical precedent.

        You said: “Sorry, but no — there is most definitely a “categorical distinction” between man and animal in scripture.”

        Where is this it then? Identify the precise language in scripture and explain how it makes the categories of man and animal mutually exclusive.

         
      • Jethro!

        December 12, 2013 at 3:28 PM

        Martens – Are you intentionally attempting to muddle concepts that are crystal clear? Are you running a disinformation assignment? What’s your motivation for doing so?

        The answer to your question regarding the exclusivity of the categories of man and animal is already written above.

         
      • Martens

        December 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM

        Jethro:

        The question has not been answered. No one has identified precise language in scripture and explained how it makes the categories of man and animal mutually exclusive.

        Man not being an animal has merely been assumed, as if man being made in God’s image somehow implies this. This assumption is in dispute.

        I’m looking for specific language in the Bible that makes man and animal mutually exclusive categories.

        Can you identify such language, or can’t you?

         
      • Jethro

        December 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM

        Martens — Since I didn’t answer my questions, let me assist you…

        Are you intentionally attempting to muddle concepts that are crystal clear? YES
        Are you running a disinformation assignment? YES
        What’s your motivation for doing so? Possibilities include: counter-ingelligence, competing religion/cult, government agents really worried about this concept…

        To your question… Can you identify such language, or can’t you? Yes, I can.

         
      • Martens

        December 12, 2013 at 4:48 PM

        Jethro:

        Your questions about why I am commenting here are off topic. The topic of this page is “man or other animals”. If the professor wants to start a thread where your question are on topic, I’ll consider participating.

        You said: “To your question… Can you identify such language, or can’t you? Yes, I can.”

        I doubt it. If you could, you would. Instead, you’re dancing around, playing the ad hominem game, and trying to change the subject: tell-tale signs of someone who’s got nothing.

        We can take this as further confirmation that there is no language in the Bible making man and animal mutually exclusive categories.

         
      • Jethro

        December 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        “I doubt it. If you could, you would. Instead, you’re dancing around, playing the ad hominem game, and trying to change the subject: tell-tale signs of someone who’s got nothing.”

        No. Yours are telltale signs of someone who cannot, or will not, read or comprehend. “Asked and answered” is a valid objection in a legal context. Judge Al, will you sustain my objection?

        Others appear to get the concept with little problem, so the obstinate and obtuse challenge is unique to you (and possibly your apparent cohort).

         
      • Martens

        December 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

        Jethro:

        “Judge Al, will you sustain my objection?”

        Apparently not.

        “Others appear to get the concept with little problem”

        Argument by consensus, like ad hominem, is a logical fallacy.

        Here’s the Adask citation:

        Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

        I read this to mean God made man in God’s image and gave man dominion over the other animals besides man.

        Exactly where does the Bible contradict this interpretation?

        This question remains unanswered. Instead of an answer, we get merely a repeat of the assertion that man being made in God’s image, or man having dominion over animals, somehow imply man is not an animal. This claim is repeated over and over again, but never proved when challenged.

         
      • bobby90247

        December 12, 2013 at 6:10 PM

        Scripture does not say “…other animals besides man…” Please, if you are going to say something about Scripture…get it right!

        IF, you accept that “man” was made in the image of God, then we are NOT animals…sheesh!!!

        Unless, of course, you ARE reducing God to that of an…”ANIMAL!!!”

        Is that what you are saying???

         
      • Martens

        December 12, 2013 at 6:32 PM

        Bobby:

        Thanks for contributing, but please pay attention.

        I did not say scripture says “…other animals besides man…”, I said that is my interpretation of what scripture says.

        You said: “IF, you accept that “man” was made in the image of God, then we are NOT animals…sheesh!!!”

        Didn’t you actually read the comment you responded to?

        The question is WHY, in Biblical terms, you think being made in God’s image excludes man from being an animal. A question of WHY means you respond with logical reasoning, not merely a restatement of your claim.

        Of course God is not an animal. God created all the animals (“nephesh”), including man whom God made in his own image.

         
      • Jethro

        December 12, 2013 at 6:59 PM

        Martens said:

        “’Judge Al, will you sustain my objection?’
        Apparently not.”

        Do you speak for Al, Martens?

        “’Others appear to get the concept with little problem’
        Argument by consensus, like ad hominem, is a logical fallacy.”

        Describing a comprehension problem is not a logical fallacy.

        “I read this to mean God made man in God’s image and gave man dominion over the other animals besides man.”

        Repeating your assertion of what you think it says does not make it so.

        “Exactly where does the Bible contradict this interpretation?”

        See above.

         
      • Jethro

        December 12, 2013 at 7:08 PM

        @bobby90247 – Martens is likely a (paid?) troll whose job is to obfuscate a powerful legal and spiritual concept articulated by Al. Don’t worry, it’s not you – you’ve got it right.

         
      • bobby90247

        December 13, 2013 at 1:59 AM

        Hello Jethro!

        Believe me, I know it’s not me! I’ve been conversing with Thomas McElwain for the past 10 years and am very well-versed with my knowledge of Scripture.

        My last comment to Martens IS…my last!

        Jesus brought the “Good News” that we are all one people in the eyes of God.

        He “fulfilled” Scripture in it’s entirety, not just parts of it, but all of it, including…all prophecy.

        Therefore, the ONLY prophecy unfulfilled is that of which He Spoke of and that is His Return.

        Yeah, I know, no body likes to hear this, even though it is the Truth.

        Everyone wants to know…”When?” Right? Why? Aren’t we supposed to follow His Teachings every day as if He were to Return…TODAY? Of course.

        The Prophecies of the Messiah (Jesus), stand on their own! They originate prior to the first book of Scripture in legends, myths, and stories tens of thousands of years in the past. Jesus told us NOT to follow any “Religions” as they are all “man-made.” He said that when two or more are gathered in His Name, He IS present. He did not come to save “us”…He came to save those that do not believe.

        Therefore, why are we even attempting to convince one another that “our” individual viewpoint is better or more correct than that of another when there are so many that do NOT believe…at all? He taught us how to deliver His Word in three steps. First, “one-on-one”; Second, “bring someone else to deliver the Word”; Third, “get a group to deliver the Word”…If after the third time, the person still does not accept Jesus into their life, then we are supposed to move-on as their are many still lost just waiting to hear “Good News!”

        Jesus IS going to Return…SOON! Very soon! As He said, “…the birds know when to fly south for the Winter. Why is it you do not know when His time is near?…” (paraphrased) Personally, I “know” and have “known” for quite some time now.

        We are out of time, even as I write this, Jesus IS walking up to our door…”That” IS the “feeling” I have at this moment. I have never said this before. AND, don’t believe in the 1,000 years of peace as there Will be none, it Will be but a moment when those that do not believe, realize they made the wrong choice and there Will be a moaning, crying, and terror as “man” has never heard before nor shall ever hear again!

        I follow “…the Teachings of Jesus Christ…” rather than blindly following Scripture which is “bent” in favor of a group of people just as ALL texts…ARE! I differ from other’s for instead of exposing the untruth’s, I prefer to find the Treasures within.

        Take Care and God Bless!

         
      • Jetlag

        December 12, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        @Martens

        Two verses which together demonstrate a Biblical precedent for “persons or other animals”:

        Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

        “creature” = nephesh (H5315), in this case animals.

        Deuteronomy 10:22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.

        “persons” = nephesh (H5315), in this case man.

        Strong’s definition of “nephesh”, in pertinent part: “properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality”.

        Here again we see the Bible expressing the commonality of nature between man and beast with a word translatable into English as “animal”.

         
      • EarlfromOregon

        December 13, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        God created “people” not ” humans”.
        According to the book World History by Professor William Duiker and his brother,
        who are Government employed Professors at Michigan University,
        this textbook used at Rogue Commun-ity College, another Government college,
        starting on page 3 and finishing on page 4,
        tells us that “from Southern Ape-man evolved humans.”

        So that means that Humans Evolved from Apes.
        Apes only reproduce Sexually.
        Humans only reproduce Sexually.

        There is a word for humans Mating with Animals
        Beastiality.

        So Gov is teaching that Humans are the Result of Beastiality.

        Since they tell me their Relatives did Strange things with Monkeys,
        Who am I to Disagree.

        I just tell them,
        “I have never met a Monkey’s Uncle before.”

        Your Relatives did Strange things with Monkeys.

        My Relatives were Created by God.

         
      • J.M.

        January 9, 2014 at 2:11 AM

        Jethro, Hello there,
        I cannot find Martens response to my question re: 1Corinthians 15 verse 39, > “Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
        Would you by chance know where his answer is, what thread? He won’t tell me but he said he did answer it. Thanks, Jethro.

         
      • J.M.

        February 11, 2014 at 1:21 AM

        Jethro!
        December 12, 2013 at 3:28 PM

        @ >Martens – Are you intentionally attempting to muddle concepts that are crystal clear? Are you running a disinformation assignment? What’s your motivation for doing so?

        @ >The answer to your question regarding the exclusivity of the categories of man and animal is already written above.

        In this particular, Martens is here to “prove” that Men & Women are not anything more or less than ANIMALS, AND, when God breathed the breath of life into Adam & Eve, It was ANIMAL BREATH, in other words, God has halitosis, i.e., animal breath.

         
    • Tony

      December 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

      Hi Martens,

      Could you perhaps respond to the following post?

      Judy Kay
      December 11, 2013 at 11:37 PM

      It is in this discussion:
      “PERSONS or other animals” in Wisconsin statutes

      As examples:
      “However, in the language of the law, the word “animal” is used to mean all animal life other than humans and signifies an inferior or irrational sentient being,”

      -and-

      “Animals are generally regarded as personal property.”

      I see the following rational connection. LAW definitions that differentiate man and animal in the same manner Genesis differentiates man from all other living creatures in that man has dominion over the other living creatures.

      I don’t think these writers of statutes could be using the phrase without the above in mind. In other words, incorporate into the statutes man having a inferior place than God gave him.

      Perfectly in line with a blueprint for ultimate enslavement, which if anyone has any eyes to see, that is where we are headed.

      Anyway, would love to see your point by point response to her excellent (in my opinion) post.

      Blessings,

      Tony

       
    • J.M.

      December 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      Martens,
      You ask > Where is this it then? Identify the precise language in scripture and explain how it makes the categories of man and animal mutually exclusive.

      !st Corinthians 15 verse 39.

      I admit men & women & children sometimes act like wild beasts. The ravening wolf type. Sometimes scriptures are written as examples to portray or describe something so we can get a glimpse, at least,of what is being said. You may consider yourself an animal OR a beast if you so desire. I think you have that right. Use the 9th Amendment. I even think the Creator allows us to be wrong if we want to be. NO, I don’t think it, I know it. It’s the kickback I don’t like. I know this too, you are not a dumb beast. Not by a long shot..

       
    • J.M.

      December 31, 2013 at 6:05 PM

      1 Corinthians 15, verse 39

      39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

      Martens, please explain what the above scripture meas from your superior knowledge. I want to be smart too. Help me.

       
      • Martens

        December 31, 2013 at 7:38 PM

        The word translated “animals” in 1 Corinthians 15:39 is “ktenos” (G2934), meaning “property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal”.

        Not every animal is a ketnos. Obviously birds and fishes are not, though they are animals. So man not being a ketnos does not mean man is not an animal.

        1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

        “soul” = psyche (G5590), defined by Strong’s as:

        “breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only…)”

        1 Corinthians 15:47-50 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

        “image”= eikon (G1504)

        Thus, “we”, meaning Christians, bear no less than two images over time. One of these is “earthy”, from Adam, who was made a living “psyche”: i.e. an “animal” sentience, “flesh and blood”, etc.

        The other image is “heavenly”, from Jesus Christ.

        2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

        “image”= eikon (G1504)

        Christ is the image of God.

        Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

         
    • J.M.

      January 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      Martens
      @ I did not say scripture says “…other animals besides man…”, I said that is my interpretation of what scripture says.

      Well I do declare. per interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20 > Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

      This means anything else written in the scriptures IS wide open for private interpretation? Or you can say,my interpretation is not private. I would have to agree with this too because you have made your interpretation public, at least to some degree. It’s not easy, for me, to communicate with animals & never has been easy. I can communicate to some degree with some animals but they only understand very few words,e.g., NO,eat, etc. If I ask, wanna eat, I think they only understand,eat, not wanna.

       
      • J.M.

        January 10, 2014 at 1:11 PM

        Martens,
        The word translated “animals” in 1 Corinthians 15:39 is “ktenos” (G2934), meaning “property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal”.
        Agreed

        @ > Not every animal is a ketnos. Obviously birds and fishes are not, though they are animals

        Disagree. I have a parakeet & two goldfish, & both the parakeet & goldfish are domesticated. Birds are fowl,not animals & fish ?? I once knew what they were called but fish are not animals.

        To be continued & I promise to respond to everything you have written.

         
      • J.M.

        January 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

        Martens
        @ “breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only…)”

        I do know the scripture says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life, Genesis 2:7 but,are you,Martens,saying God has animal breath? As best as I am able to determine, the remainder of your message with Chapter & verses you give,does not to any degree show me that a man &/or an animal are one & the same thing. In other words you are saying, a man is an animal and an animal is a man. Once again, I know a man is exactly like an animal when it comes to at least some body parts,e.g., man has a head, lungs,liver,spleen,nose,ears & two eyes, yes,snakes have two eyes also. You do show me the reason for our different understanding,etc when you use the following. > 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

        We cannot understand ALL of this glorious gospel overnight. Don’t give up on me. Maybe if I am given enough time,I will understand & see the light as you do.

         
  4. Pat Fields

    December 12, 2013 at 3:33 AM

    Excellent retort. Thanks loads!

     
  5. Jetlag

    December 12, 2013 at 6:49 AM

    @Martens

    I agree.

    Genesis 1:26-28 is perfectly consistent with the conclusion that man is given dominion over other animals. So these verses do not refute “man or other animals”.

    If someone disagrees, they can specify where the supposed inconsistency is.

    And then there’s “nephesh” showing up in both Genesis 2:7 and Leviticus 24:18.

    I look forward to the discussion.

     
    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 12:26 AM

      @ > And then there’s “nephesh” showing up in both Genesis 2:7 and Leviticus 24:18.

      Different kindS of “nepheshs” are mentioned by the Apostle Paul, too.

      1 Corinthians 15 the Apostle Paul gives us the first written explanation of … ” For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals……”

       
  6. palani

    December 12, 2013 at 8:21 AM

    You merely have to profess your religion. Nobody has a right to argue with you over what your religion is. My religion is life, liberty, private property and Man is not an animal. Deed done and their king is now checkmated. There is no need for battles between dictionary and affidavits.

     
    • J.M.

      February 3, 2014 at 11:56 AM

      palani
      @There is no need for battles between dictionary and affidavits.

      Makes sense to me but I have read, on this blog, where some disagree & say an affidavit is the worse thing to do to try & explain your/our “position.” I think an affidavit IS THE BEST thing to do but apparently I have not placed same into the right or proper hands.

       
  7. palani

    December 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    servis nostris exaequat quadrupedes … our slaves are on a level with the quadrupeds … from A Contribution to the History of the word person

    http://books.google.com/books?id=qyXXAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=person&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_sqpUv-_D5TOyAGQ3oDIDQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=person&f=false

    http://tinypic.com/r/30as9j8/5

     
  8. Dennis Hammond

    December 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM

    Speaking to the man (not beast or animal) King Nebuchadnezzar:

    Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

    Daniel 4:31-32 and a voice from heaven said,
    And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

    The word beast in this content is not “nephesh”.

     
  9. Mike

    December 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    alfred from the clan adask,
    Your legal experience is all you need to show as proof. Please keep in mind, any commenter that wants to argue the point is probably a counter-intelligence professional trying to get the sheep back in the pen. They are attempting this at a furious pace all across the interwebs. Their game is coming to a close and they know it.
    Just keep telling the truth!

     
  10. bobby90247

    December 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    Hello, Alfred Adask!

    NOW, since you are able to put up an argument that is not only “plausible” as it is based on “TRUTH”, do you think you can make the same argument for reversing “probable cause?”

    After all, LAWS, since the beginning of time, ARE BASED ON “FACT!” That is the premise of “Laws”…to eliminate “probabilities!”

    Therefore, “probable” cause can in no way be “legal” by it’s inherent meaning…PERIOD!

    There is NO LINK between “probability” and “cause” for what is “cause?”

    “Cause” is an effect of some a legal “factual” action!

    NOT THE illegal “non-factual” PROBABILITY!!!

    Just (be)cause the Supreme Court made a BAD DECISION, doesn’t mean “WE, the People…” have to allow it to stand forever!

    In every case, from the beginning of recorded time, there have been case-after-case decided on FACTS and everything else has been “thrown-out!”

    “Probable Cause” is NOT A FACT AND THEREFORE NOT A LEGAL ARGUMENT IN A COURT OF LAW!!!

     
    • Adask

      December 12, 2013 at 1:34 PM

      As I understand it, “probable cause” is a minimum requirement that must be met in criminal law before certain warrants are granted or charges filed. Probable cause does not establish guilt. It only establishes that someone might be guilty. If it weren’t for probable cause requirements, the government could arrest anyone, even everyone, for an alleged crime–even if there wasn’t the least bit of evidence to link all those defendants to the alleged crime. With probably cause requirements, they shouldn’t be able to arrest anyone on suspicion of having committed a crime without some minimum amount of evidence.

      Having said that, I have been very curious about what constitutes probable cause. Discovering its fundamental nature has eluded me for years. That may be simply because I haven’t looked all that hard. I know that “prima facie evidence” is the result of claim or allegation by one man or woman. I suspect that “probable cause” means a requirement that at least two people agree that a particular crime or offense has taken place. If suspicion is roughly correct, the two men or women willing to testify that John Doe committed a particular “crime” could be two witnesses or perhaps one witness and one police investigator. But these are mere suspicions.

      I would very much appreciate any information on the true and fundamental nature of probable cause or a link to an authoritative description.

       
      • bobby90247

        December 12, 2013 at 2:23 PM

        I’m surprised you don’t know this already! “Probable cause” took away our right of “presumed innocence!” This changed it from “presumed innocent” to “probably guilty”…PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

        Do you know, that I “just” searched “Google” and cannot find the Original Wording of the Fourth Amendment! ALL references to the original wording has been “DELETED!!!”

        FIND an OLD TEXTBOOK with the Original Wording and you will discover why “WE, the People…” are no longer represented in the government and “WHY” we now live in a…”POLICE STATE!!!”

        btw…in reference to your “…I would very much appreciate any information on the true and fundamental nature of probable cause or a link to an authoritative description…” question, there ARE NO “authoritative descriptions” as this is all “made-up!”

        LAW IS LAW…NO SUPPOSITIONS, POSSIBILITIES, OR PROBABILITIES…ONLY “FACTS!” That is the “function” of LAW…to remove any doubt!!!

         
      • Secretariat

        December 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        To Bobby90247,

        Just trying to follow your concerns about ‘Original Wording’ of the Fourth Amendment.

        Can you elaborate on your statements or point of view, by pointing out the missing or altered verbiage of the Fourth Article of Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, other than suggesting OLD TEXT BOOKS?

        In our research material, we have OLD TEXT BOOKS (50, 100, 150, & 200 yrs old) and the U.S. Congresses official print thereof (P.L. 91-589, 84 Stat. 1582, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 168). But yet I don’t find any discrepancies betwixt these sources to support clearer perception along the lines you suggest.

        Any extended counsel in this regards would be gratefully helpful to comprehend more clearly your commentary.

        Most graciously….’In Honor We Trust’

        P.S.: Please forgive any syntax or grammatical errors.

         
    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

      bobby90247,
      90247 strikes me as being a zip code. ANYWAY, yes, I can just hear the enemy saying we are placing you under arrest because we are presuming you to be innocent which is the probable cause for this arrest.

       
  11. Crandal

    December 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    It is my opinion that being created in God’s image IS a categorical difference to all other “nephesh” for the simple reason of the distinction made in the context of the scriptures. In other words why bother writing about the distinction if it were of no importance? All purposes for the Scriptures would be void of consequences.
    Stay with context… it’s all about law which begins with the Creator and only men are cognizant of law. This fact, that men are NOT animals in the context of God’s law, is not lost in the modern convoluted courts of men… and Al stopped them, steadfast, as if by chains, by putting that fact right in their face.
    As for you critical thinkers … what is your purpose?… to dissuade others from believing as Al does?
    When my wife and I disagree on our individual approaches to any situation we often agree to disagree with “you have your ‘way’ and I have my ‘way’ ”. So, I offer that to you critical thinkers. Do it your way.
    For me…. Christ said he is the Way the Truth and the Life and that none come to The Father except by him. Guess what?… That’s my Way!!…… And Alfred’s Way and the Way of all Christian’s. He is also The Word of God and The Word makes the distinction by context between man and all other “nephesh”.

     
    • Martens

      December 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      Crandal said: “It is my opinion that being created in God’s image IS a categorical difference to all other “nephesh” for the simple reason of the distinction made in the context of the scriptures.”

      I bolded a word for you.

      You are correct: man is distinct from other animals (other “nephesh”) in terms of his being made in God’s image.

      However, in terms of his being a “nephesh” (a “beast” in the KJV, and an “animal” in Strong’s), man is one among many.

       
      • Jim Madison

        December 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        Hello Martens,
        Tell me what I am not understanding about 1 Corinthials 15, verse 39 Thanks for your reply, if you do. Also, re: another matter, & IF I understand you correctly, you say the surname, family name, patronymic should not be used. I agree if it is in all caps, & I make one exception to the “all name in caps” argument. It won’t affect me in any manner when they put it on my tombstone & it is proper there, e.g., identifying a non living entity. Also, what is your take on, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, Mary Magdalene ? Even if I spelled it wrong, you KNOW who I am writing about, I believe.

         
      • J.M.

        December 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM

        1 Corinthians 15, verse 39

        39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

         
    • Anthony Clifton

      December 13, 2013 at 6:36 AM

      gives that “being of one mind” concept a new meaning…eh ?
      http://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/139.htm
      is the natural order of creation…Holy ?
      http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/SamaritanWoman.htm
      Pastor Peters had a few sermons on that “Jezebel”…spirit, and in so-called
      http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/9.htm
      “Males” {Israelite- “White”} it is especially repugnant to the natural order.
      http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/TREES-1.htm
      perhaps a more complete understanding of where and who Jesus
      was confronting in John 8:44 would help in addressing this so-called
      discovery of the distinction “at law” for inhabitants on the so-called
      North American continent….

      is Jesus the King…

       
  12. Secretariat

    December 12, 2013 at 2:05 PM

    Greetings breathren & good neighbors,

    We’ve followed closely the discussion delimiting each opinion related to various musings concerning morale entities and otherwise.

    Having an interest in any genome of thought professing any singularity and collective rationalization thereto, we have observed many recorded expressions reflecting Mankind’s ability to rationalize their beliefs, acts or otherwise, respecting themselves in their Natural E’State.

    And from whence, each may find themselves so perfectly suitable, to observing from time to time via their first moment embarking upon their i-magi-nation, gloriously and continuously expressing their Grand Unified Theory of Creation, from their first moment of their crowning nativity via Nature’s Law and Nature’s (Creator/Creative) Science of Right Reason.

    Having stated our observations of related commentary, we have learned long ago to put any dog-ma to rest with the dogs of war (the only friend of the Under-Taker), while letting Nature (the Grand Unified Theory of Creation) express unto Men of Good Will, the rational evinces of right reason, which predetermines ongoing evinces of peace and the reasonable maintenance thereof, which justly lays the foundations upon equal E’State, while respecting the rights and duties of all walks of life which Nature reveals as self-evident for the purposes thereof.

    Since being a Man is a State, it behooves each to determine what Nature this State in Nature is.

    Rational thought has led us to proclaim what Nature’s Law and Nature’s (Creator/Creative) Science of Right Reason espouses unto those of us similarly situated to wit:

    1. Concordat Universal Declaration of the Four Freedoms – The Right of All Walks of Life – Everywhere (http://www.seagov.net/official-documents).

    2. Concordat Universal Declaration on the Sovereignty of All Walks of Life – Everywhere (http://www.seagov.net/official-documents).

    Furthermore, we have not observed or found recorded, any other self-governance Created or in Creation, that is, within the observable or recorded Grand Unified Theory of Creation (Nature), that can honorably prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise, than what is created in alliance respectfully.

    Most graciously,….’In Honor We Trust’

     
    • J.M.

      December 31, 2013 at 6:14 PM

      @ > ’In Honor We Trust’
      Tell me more about this, Honor.

       
  13. Yartap

    December 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    PER (prep).
    Latin definition: as in, as like, on account of, by means of, during, through, in relation to, in connection with; (i.e.: Per-son: as like son, by means of son, through son.).

    PERSON (n.).
    By Latin definition of persona “human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,” originally “mask, false face,” such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as “related to” Latin personare “to sound through” (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), “but the long o makes a difficulty ….” Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.

    The sons of man and the sons of God have been replaced by the government’s “persons” (as like government’s sons by way of fictional mask). Person equates into “Man and other animals” or “persons and other animals.” Government controls and claim persons; and God controls and claim men.

    Animal is not found in the Bible, only “beast,” “creature,” and “soul” (Strong’s H:5315: nephesh).

    In Genesis 1: 24 & 25, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature (H:5315) after his kind, cattle (H: 930), and creeping things(H: none), and beast (H: 2411) of the earth after his kind: and it was SO.” (Done, created, finished making creatures of the different kinds, beast, cattle and creeping). In verse 25, “and God saw that it was good.” (Done, created, finished making creatures of the different kinds, beast, cattle and creeping).

    Then…… In Genesis 1: 26 – 28……God made a new category called man (H:120) with a living “soul” (H:5315) as said in Genesis 2:7.

    From Strong’s, in Leviticus. 24:18 the use of both Hebrew definitions #5315 AND #929 to describe the first term “beast” in the sentence. One does not use just one definition, but rather both at the same time to describe the word, beast.

    But the “beast for beast” part in the verse describes the two words “beast” as #*5315 (asterisk 5315 – which “calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word(s) is changed for some other in the Revised Version.”). So, we are at a loss to know the true word used for the two final words, beast, that are used.

     
    • Martens

      December 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM

      Yartap:

      I’m not sure what you mean. Let’s have a look at the actual verse.

      Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast (929) shall make it good; beast (5315) for beast (5315).

      In the original text, the first word translated as “beast” is “bhemah”, meaning “a dumb beast”.

      The second and third words translated as “beast” are both “nephesh”, which word (a noun) is also used for man in Genesis 2:7.

      This first word, “bhemah” (929), is the same word used by the author of Ecclesiastes (though I should note that Prof. Adask rejects the authority of this book of the Bible).

      Ecclesiastes 3

      18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts (929).

      19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts (929); even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast (929): for all is vanity.

      20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

       
      • Yartap

        December 12, 2013 at 8:44 PM

        Hi Martens,

        Nephesh (H: 5315) is a “breathing creature, i.e. animal or (abstract) vitality (ability/capacity to live, grow or develop, force that distinguishes living things from non-living things); used VERY WIDELY to a literal, accommodated or figurative sense.

        This definition includes all living things, i.e. man, them, they, beast, fowl, fish, cattle, beast and animal. Thus, man, beast and etc. are not the same, but rather they share “nephesh” by living.

        In Leviticus 24:17&18, we read,
        17 “And he (H:1931) that killeth any man (H: 120) shall surely be put to death.”
        18 “And he that killeth a beast (H: 929 &5315) shall make it good (replace): beast (H: * 5315) for beast (H: * 5315).”

        Two verses with two different living creatures, man and beast; and with two different actions for both who killeth.

        From Strong’s, in Leviticus. 24:18 the use of both Hebrew definitions #5315 AND #929 to describe the first term “beast” in the sentence. One does not use just one definition, but rather both at the same time to describe the word, beast.

        But the “beast for beast” part in the verse describes the two words “beast” as # * 5315 (asterisk 5315 – which “calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word(s) is changed for some other in the Revised Version.”). So, we are at a loss to know the true word used for the two final words, beast (H: * 5315), that are used. Could this mean breath for breath? Replace living for dead? We do not know.

        But we do find in Strong’s definition of nephesh (H:5315) the following: “(hath X (multiple) jeopardy of) LIFE (X (multiple) in jeopardy),”. Thus, we have many jeopardy OF life; and life has many IN jeopardy. Life and death.

        In Ecclesiastes, we must remember that King Solomon is formulating, theorizing and figuring out loud about things in his mine, before the reader, in front of the reader, and to the reader. This is seen in chapter 3, verse 18 when he says, “I said in mine heart…”

        The question Solomon is pondering in Eccl 3: 18-20 is basically this: Will man recognize that he is “manifest” (H: 1305, chosen, cleanse, pure, polished) by God; or will man see himself no greater than a beast, because life and death come upon both, man and beast. 19 “man hath no preeminence (H:4195, gain, profit) above a beast; for all is vanity.” In verse 20, “All go unto one place; all are of dust, and all turn to dust again.”

        Back to verse 18, Solomon is not saying that man is a beast. He is asking if man will realize that man is not a beast.

        In verse 21, Solomon states the difference between man and beast, when he says, “Who knowth the spirit of man (H: 120 & 1121) that goeth upward (to heaven), and the spirit of the beast (H:929) that goeth downward (dust) to the earth?”

         
      • Adask

        December 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM

        I don’t reject the “authority” of Ecclesiastes. I reject the interpretation that Solomon was all that smart or admirable. I don’t reject the authority of the book; I reject the validity of the commonly presumed lesson of that book: that Solomon was incredibly wise and admirable.

        I think Solomon was a rich man’s son who was fairly bright, good-looking, never really had to fight for anything and was spoiled rotten.

        He complains throughout the book that “all is vanity”. Where do you suppose he picked up on the concept of “vanity” in others if not through his initial recognition of vanity in himself? How many years of his life did he spend gazing into a mirror at his own reflection? If he was alive today, Solomon might’ve inspired Carly Simon’s A.D. 1972 song “You’re So Vain” (you probably think this Bible’s about you).

        His advice to the great unwashed? “Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun.” Why would the wisest of the wise advocate living with just one wife, if he had several score of wives? If one is enough, why did Solomon have scores? If Solomon needed scores of wives, why advise the rest of the fools to settle for only one?

        I think smart-guy Solomon was sick of all his damn wives and all of his endless, loveless fornicating. I think he was so sick of his own unbridled lust and lack of real love that he envied the poor who might have but one wife. I wonder if Solomon was ever loved for himself, or was he merely submitted to as the “king”? Which of his many wives would even look at him if he weren’t the “king”?

        And that’s the meaning of life? Live with one wife and work like a mule?! That’s it? All else is vanity? Don’t try to think, write, speak, invent or aspire to salvation? Just play with your wife and work like a dog?

        That system of values strikes me as pessimistic and uninspired.

        Solomon was a little like King Midas; everything he touched turned to gold (figuratively speaking) and everyone wanted to be around him (so they could grab some gold)–but did anyone ever really love HIM?

        Whether Solomon was the wisest man in the world is debatable–if he was, he screwed up so much that he doesn’t offer much hope for the rest of us. But it seems almost certain that, wise or not, he was one of the world’s loneliest men–and one of the most pessimistic, too. He had it all, but his life was still empty.

        The fact that Solomon said one thing or another doesn’t much impress me–at least in Ecclesiastes. Quite the contrary. Insofar as his “wisdom” is mostly of this world, Solomon impresses me as a very wise fool–a man whose ability to tell us how to live our lives is called into doubt by the fact that he never learned how live his own. The essence of Solomon’s wisdom? Do as I say, not as I do.

        Again, I read the Bible. I use the Bible. But I don’t worship the Bible. And I surely don’t worship Solomon or Ecclesiastes.

        Some people think the Bible is “perfect”. I do not. There are parts that I believe are essential and undeniable. There are other parts that seem unessential and sometimes contradictory. I’m not sure that the contradictions are bad. Maybe they’re like “quiz’s” at the end of each chapter in a high school text book. Maybe the contradictions are intentionally included in order to provide “thought exercises” by means of which we sharpen or capacity to think and discern. Maybe the correct answers to the contradictions is found by applying love rather than algorithms.

        Maybe.

        When someone called the Christ “good,” the Christ replied, “Why do you call me good? None are good but God.” If none is good but God, it would seem likely that none is perfect but God. Therefore, I’d say (again), “Why do you call the Bible perfect? None are perfect except our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.”

        More, I even wonder if those who believe in the Bible’s “perfection” aren’t in danger of worshiping the Bible as a kind of idol, rather than merely reading it as a very useful guide book. When the Good LORD declared “Thou shalt have no god’s before me,” and warned against idols, did that warning include a warning against worshiping books–even the Bible?

        I’m not arguing that the Bible is not divinely inspired. I believe it is. But I don’t argue that prophets weren’t divinely inspired, either. I believe they were. But I will argue that despite the divine inspiration, the prophets weren’t perfect–nor did they need to be. I make the same argument for the Bible. Divinely inspired, yes. Perfect, not necessarily and probably not. And more importantly, the Bible doesn’t need to be perfect for any of us to access the Good LORD.

         
      • Yartap

        December 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM

        Al,

        I do not disagree with your thoughts about King Solomon. Yes, Solomon was given “a wise and an understanding heart” by God, and “that there was none like thee (Solomon) before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.” 1st Kings 3:12. But, this wisdom and understanding did not save Solomon from failure and corruption. This is the story we must learn from Solomon: the wisest can fail and fall, no one is perfect. This is a humbling message for all of us.

        Solomon’s Ecclesiastes is a bunch of open minded rambling thoughts by him. His arguments inside his mine sometimes becomes confusing to the reader. It isn’t until the last verses that we see Solomon’s understanding and conclusion of Ecclesiastes in chapter 11: 13&14 called the duty of man. It is the same conclusion as Deuteronomy 10: 12 & 13 called the requirements of man.

         
      • J.M.

        December 31, 2013 at 6:17 PM

        @ > 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
        TRUE. However, this is not the end of the story. If I go to the store to purchase something, this does not mean I am not coming back to bring my purchase home.

         
  14. Secretariat

    December 12, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    To any for whom bells toll, let them resoundingly lay their laurels of liberty toward those ends worthy of dogmatic subjugation.

    For many unto dogma go, and, which are every ready to enslave all!

    For to them to believe otherwise, would deny freedom’s end foreseen by their acclaimed prophet Daniel, in Daniel 2:25-45 as well their acclaimed Apostle John in Revelation 6:1-2, and Revelation 13:1-4.

    As all walks of life strive ever forward, may we find each well posed chance or opportunity for a sojourn of a lifetime, worthy of any honorable life, liberty or pursuit of Happiness reasonably speaking.

    Most graciously,….’In Honor We Trust.’

     
  15. pop de adam

    December 12, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    There is a strange thing in the evolution of dictionaries and their definitions, when defining something we often draw its outline as close to the actual object so there will be no doubt that it may be mistaken for something else. We also tend to favor definitions that don’t include mention of the original word or thing we are attempting to define.

    A is A, this is a definition, but it is self-referencing.

    A is B, this is better as it defines A by refering to B

    A is B, C, and D, this evades the entire issue of defining A to a singularity, and is better described as an explanation or example rather than a definition.

    A strange thing I have been pondering, and it seemed relevant concerning definitions.

     
    • Adask

      December 12, 2013 at 11:11 PM

      Dictionary definitions purport to be authoritative, set in stone and applicable to all. But the meaning of every word in every spoken or written sentence is finally arrived at by consent between the source and his audience. We communicate by means of agreement. Without agreement as to the meanings of the words, we don’t communicate. Dictionary definitions are seldom “set in stone”. They’re usually recommendations; preferences, rather than mandates. I think the “strangeness” you’ve encountered in definitions may be traced to the need for consent and agreement in the use of all words.

      That’s why contracts are about a “meeting of the minds”. That “meeting” is an “agreement” as to parties’ mutual intentions–without primary regard for the definitions of the words. For example, we could imagine that two illiterate men drew up a “contract” to sell a used truck from one to the other for a particular sum. The contract might be so poorly written that one party can take advantage of the other. Take the contract to court, and the judge will not necessarily be bound by the inept language of the actual contract, but will instead seek to discover what the mutual intent of the parties may have been when the contract was signed. The judge will seek to enforce the intent rather than the words of the contract.

      The contract, the communication, is about agreement rather than precise definitions.

      That’s what many of the comments on this post are all about. Some people use words with one meaning, some with another. Insofar as we can’t agree on the meanings of some words,we can’t communicate. The disagreements “failures to communicate” are frustrating for those who seek the “communion” of “communication”. Those disagreements are equally delightful for those who seek to disrupt the “communion” of real communication.

       
  16. bobby90247

    December 12, 2013 at 6:11 PM

    Reblogged this on just2bwise.

     
  17. Peg-Powers

    December 12, 2013 at 6:58 PM

    We should be asking WHY! Is it not an Act of War against a targeted group or population? It might be psycho-war, but it is still WAR. It’s been used throughout history. TPTB have defined us as goy/animals/beasts for the past hundred years. It’s the plan. After this labeling and stigmatization, it is easy to torture and murder the intended victim. Remember Waco!

     
  18. Julie

    December 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM

    Adask, you had me at MOOA. Many Thanks.

     
  19. Jetlag

    December 12, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    @Martens

    Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

    “creature” = nephesh (H5315), a noun also used in Genesis 2:7 to indicate man.

    Thus, the category of “creature” that includes entities which “moveth in the waters” and “creepeth upon the earth” – properly called “animals” – also includes man.

     
    • Yartap

      December 12, 2013 at 11:09 PM

      Hi Jetlag,

      Above, you said,

      Strong’s definition of “nephesh”, in pertinent part: “properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal OF (abstractly) vitality”. (Emphasis Mine).

      I wish to correct your writing. Where you said, “animal OF (abstractly) vitality,” (Emphasis Mine). My concordance has very small print, maybe like yours, too. It is easy to mis-read.

      It should have read as follows:

      Nephesh (H: 5315) is a “breathing creature, i.e. animal OR (abstract) vitality (ability/capacity to live, grow or develop, force that distinguishes living things from non-living things); used very widely to a literal, accommodated or figurative sense. (Emphasis & Additions Mine).

      Now, you have two types of breathing creatures with the use of the word, OR. An animal or vitality for a breathing creature.

      So, the questions continue, is man an animal OR vitality? The use of the word, OR, makes it sure that man cannot be both. What are the breathing creatures that are VITALITY? Does the use of the word, OR, create two categories of nephesh?

       
      • Jetlag

        December 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM

        Yartap,

        Both “of” and “or” definitions are coming up in about equal numbers from the search engine. This is odd, though I don’t think it changes the meaning much.

        “animal of (abstractly) vitality” means an animal that has vitality, which is kind of redundant.

        “animal or (abstractly) vitality” means an animal (a thing) or vitality (a property), but it is reasonably correct to say all animals have vitality and everything with vitality (of this type) is an animal.

        I don’t read the “or” to mean “either/or”, I read it to mean “in other words, with different emphasis”.

        “Nephesh” overlaps “anima” (from which “animal” derives) in the meaning of breath, liveliness, etc. We don’t have a word like “nephesh” or “anima” in common use today – “animal” doesn’t capture it and has a different set of connotations.

         
      • Yartap

        December 13, 2013 at 2:40 AM

        Hi again Jetlag,

        Is not the word, SOUL (H: 5315), in Genesis 2:7 an (abstractly) vitality (property and/or concept) of the word usage? The soul is not seen and is separate from the body. We are told to not fear that which can kill the body, but rather that which can kill the soul. Through out the Scriptures, SOUL is associated with only man and God, not an animal, beast nor any other creature (only “spirit” (H: 7307) is used for beast). God declared in Ezekiel 18:4, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine;”.

         
      • Jetlag

        December 13, 2013 at 1:08 PM

        Greetings once more, Yartap.

        Actually, “soul” is never used in the Bible, since none of the inspired authors wrote in English. They often use “nephesh”, which translators of the Bible sometimes convert to “soul”.

        The first use of “nephesh” in scripture is at Genesis 1:20, referring to sea life.

        Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

        Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

        “soul” and “life” in these two verses are both the Greek word “psyche” (G5590)

         
  20. Anthony Clifton

    December 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM

    whenever the time presents itself, please look into the words…historical & context.

    Solomon was granted wisdom…and fortunately for those willing to avail themselves
    of that wisdom it is still available.

    Being the son of the King, David, and having been chosen to build the Temple –
    was for the record quite an Historically significant event in and of itself,

    if there truly were Hebrew slaves in Egypt

    on account of Josephs brothers selling him into slavery…

    has this prophecy been “fulfilled”…?

    What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor?
    saith the Almighty of hosts.

    Moreover the Almighty saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

    Therefore the Almighty will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Almighty will discover their secret parts.

    In that day the Almighty will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet,
    and their cauls,
    and their round tires like the moon, hmmmmmm….
    http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/3.htm
    The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs,
    and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels,
    The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
    The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

    And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;
    and burning instead of beauty.

    I have much more sympathy for Solomon, {than say an NBA star}
    knowing the unlikely reality of keeping up with
    the daily grind….

    of a King.

     
    • Jetlag

      December 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM

      Whatever one thinks of Solomon, the book of Ecclesiastes is part of scripture and therefore is not going to make wrong statements.

      2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

      This means if Ecclesiastes 3:18-20, which is part of “all scripture”, has the doctrine that man is a beast, then man is a beast.

      Though I guess if someone is determined to disregard something in Ecclesiastes, they will also disregard this verse in 2nd Timothy.

       
  21. Kai

    December 13, 2013 at 1:34 PM

    Agree with Marten and Jetlag….except this seems like a pure theological, not lawful argument given the books are edited, some chosen over others 1700 years ago by some men sitting at a table not much unlike the 12 fed governors meeting every quarter to decide the markets fate today.

    Question your belief in man’s interpretation of the One…some Canadian Jews did, and learned Hebrew, the original language the ‘old testament’ was written in, has a self correcting error system so that all the modern multiple definitions for one word based on context rules (modern rabbi rules) are bunk, tools to control our spirits experience here…

    This section Genesis 1:26-28 has no anthropomorphic concepts of man being god’s image and no contradiction over what adam is, a creation of high design allowed to be among all beings. So if anything it seems closer to being equal to, than over…but conscious thought gives one ideas of superior positions instead of pure equality of being which my heart sings…

    http://thechronicleproject.org/PDF1/supremehistorymaster.pdf <–pdf page 12

    v26 And so to declare Originators,
    "This blood being, to span being.1
    And so to go down being amid to swim the
    sea, and amid to fly the celestials, and amid
    to herd, and amid all the Earth, and amid all
    the to produce mass offspring, the to
    produce mass offspring to mount the Earth".

    Paraphrased English
    v26 And so the Originators declared,
    "Let us use the Adam as a guide, to make a copy to
    be following.
    This blood being to span beings.
    And (they are) to go down amid
    that which swims the sea and amid that to
    fly the skies and amid herds and in all the
    Earth and amid all the producers of mass
    offspring to mount the Earth"

    FOOTNOTE
    1. Let us make a copy of the Adam using him as a prototype. This is the construction of Eve. These pages are the chronicle of the originators, NOT of Creator's actions. Adam was made by Creator on day three as seen in chapter two of Genesis (Ch 1 of the Originator History) The standard bible translation has this as the making of man and is why the two stories conflict. The corrected restoration erases the conflict.
    ___
    (SOUNDS LIKE ALL 'ANIMALS' WERE MADE FROM ADAM AS WELL!? The problem is today we are trying to CATEGORIZE ESSENCE into FORMS (animal vs man, notice 'man' is 'in' animal)…instead of just seeing ESSENCE and letting it BE).

    v 27. And so to replicate, Originators to join
    the Adam, amid to copy being.1
    Amid to copy, Originators, to replicate, to
    join being a male child. And a female to
    replicate to join those.

    v28. And so to press to produce (to bless)
    to join, those, Originators.
    And so to declare toward them, Originators
    "To break forth being, and to multiply
    being, and to fill to begin being to join the
    Earth and to subdue it.
    And to go down being amid, to swim the
    water, and amid, to fly the celestials, and
    this all to live, the to mass being to continue to
    mount the Earth.

    FOOTNOTE
    1. Adam was copied, not…we were made in the image of God.

    Our minds were programmed by outside forces until we were of age to determine our inner being in relation to the programming and keeping what resonates and sloughing off the dross that we picked up…but most can't even see this…

     
    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 9:40 PM

      Hi KaiI
      I’ve heard of a lot of things being mounted, except the Earth. People mount horses, & yes, each other, like F as in love. It begins with the mounting.

       
  22. Daniel

    December 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    So would the government just be able to omit “other” and change the definition to state, “man or animals” to get away with all of it?

     
    • Adask

      December 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      If the government omitted the word “other,” it would suit me fine. With the phrase “man or animals,” the government wouldn’t get away with anything. Instead, they’d be clearly admitting that “man” was something “other than” an “animal”–rather than just another of the multitude of species deemed “animals”.

      If man is not an animal, then “man” should have access to the “unalienable Rights” declared in the Declaration of Independence. If man is an animal, he should not.

      I.e., the Declaration of Independence declared “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” That endowment only applies to men. There is no similar endowment for animals. If there were, we couldn’t slaughter animals for our food. But if man is defined by law to be just another “animal,” then man has no claim on the God-given, unalienable Rights on which this nation was founded.

       
      • Anthony Clifton

        December 17, 2013 at 4:57 AM

        but when did the word “government” come to be deifined…
        http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/cia-claims-release-of-its-history-of-the-bay-of-pigs-debacle-would-confuse-the-public/
        as economic terrorists using paramilitary assault forces on a
        http://forward.com/articles/189187/the-most-overpaid-and-underpaid-jewish-charity-chi/
        Chirstian Cult compound…
        http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-money-changers-birthday.html
        on Sunday morning,

        http://hardylaw.net/waco.html

        with air support.

        how did a plant become “our” enemy, and “Economic Terrorists”
        Professional LIARS & MASS MURDERERS for filthy lucre..
        “our” friends ?

        flashback…
        http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-29.htm
        And the Almighty said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it is so…

        OBVIOUS !

         
      • J.M.

        December 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM

        I wonder if “pharmacia” within the meaning of The Holy Bible(Galatians-Revelation),
        & applicable to drug pushers & users in prison, if these reprobates gain access to your knowledge,will it possibly get them released, presuming it is brought up as newly discovered evidence? For example, DNA test results (newly discovered evidence) are freeing some people from prison who have been there for years & still be there if not for the results of the DNA tests.

        Wow !!! 6 years. The self made BASTARDS don’t give up easy, do they!! I don’t think I would have had the strength to endure or survive it AND using the same reasoning/stand as you did. I salute you & standing at attention.

         
      • J.M.

        January 9, 2014 at 11:38 AM

        Adask
        December 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM
        One BIG problem is, There are too many judges & attorneys who think like Martens thinks. I am grateful he was not the judge in your battle. Talk about a sore trial. I can just hear him,Judge Martens, say, Mr. Adask, I appreciate your stand. I have read a lot of Kurt Vonnegut’s books too, enjoyed em quite a lot.

         
    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      Hello,Daniel,
      I think the persecuting attorneys would have a hard time in getting a response by bringing accusations / charges,etc., against anything other than what they deem is a “man “type” animal.” Yes,it will show a difference if defined as you say but can you imagine charges being brought against a horse,cow,dog,hog, etc.? The definition as far as I’m concerned is strictly to identify / say a man is no more than just another animal, PERIOD. See what the Apostle Paul has to say about man & animals,1 Corinthians 15, verse 39, I think is the verse. In essence,he says there IS a difference.

       
  23. Yartap

    December 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    In researching the subject of defining the Hebrew word, “nephesh” H: 5315 (which covers, relates and defines the English words found in the English translated Bible like Creature, Soul and Persons), one notices that Strong’s Concordance basically defines the Hebrew word, “nephesh” to have the meaning: all living and breathing creatures (God’s created that move upon the earth), and this includes he, him, them, fowl, cattle, creepeth, “man” H: 120, “beast” H: 929 and etc. by “nephesh’s” definition.

    But, when we look at the Etymology (history) of a translated word through time, we notice a history of using a word in a derogatory or demeaning sense, i.e.: “That man is an animal/beast/swine.” Thus, we see the start of associating or equating man as an animal; and with time, we find the definition of a word evolves to include that which was not intended, i.e.: beast = man(1200c.), swine = man, animal = man (1600c.) and so on.

    In Leviticus 24:17&18, we read,
    17 “And he (H:1931) that killeth any man (H: 120 & 5315) shall surely be put to death.”
    18 “And he that killeth a beast (H: 929 & 5315) shall make it good (replace): beast (H: * 5315) for beast (H: * 5315).”

    Two verses with two different living creatures, man and beast; and with two different actions for both who killeth.

    But notice:

    Strong’s, in Leviticus. 24:17 the use of both Hebrew definitions #120 and #5315 to describe “man” in the sentence. One does not use just one definition, but rather both at the same time to describe the word, man. Thus, Strong is trying to tell the reader that the innocent man #120 is to have had continued life, breath or “nephesh #5315.” His life was not to be unjustly taken from him.

    Continuing, Strong’s, in Leviticus. 24:18 the use of both Hebrew definitions #5315 and #929 to describe the first term “beast” in the sentence. One does not use just one definition, but rather both at the same time to describe the word, beast. Thus, Strong is trying to tell the reader that the innocent beast #929 is to have had continued life, breath or “nephesh #5315,” and to not have been put to death, either by accident or intentionally.

    But the “beast for beast” part in the verse describes the two words “beast” as # * 5315 (asterisk 5315 – which “calls attention to the fact that in the text quoted the leading word(s) is changed for some other in the Revised Version.”). So, we are at a loss to know the true word used for the two final words, beast (H: * 5315), that are used.

    We can see that the use of “nephesh” for both, man and beast, jointly along with the other definitions of “man” and “beast” in both verses concurs the definition stated above, that ALL OF GOD’S CREATURES (created by God) ARE LIVING AND BREATHING.

    Mr. Adask’s “Man and Other Animals” doctrine disclosed and found in/at Genesis 1:26-28 is based upon man being made in God’s “image” and “likeness” (resemble and representative); and that God granted to man “dominion” H:7287 over all other creatures upon the earth and over the earth. No other living creature was granted this position. Nor does any other creature have dominion over man. And nor is any beast or animal offered eternal life with God. By adhering to this doctrine upon this religious belief and through the acknowledgment of religious freedom, one remove himself or herself from equating to the status of animal or beast, which government unjustly claims control. This doctrine repents (raises) man back up to the status God intended for man.

    If others wish to be “religiously” associated and liken to beast and animals, so be it. As for others and myself, we choose to differ and wish to come out of it and have our God granted dominion.

    By use, Mr Adask has proven his doctrine to be true. It stands as a logical remedy for all to use.

    Next, can his doctrine be expanded to other areas and subjects? I believe so.

     
  24. Martens

    December 13, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    Yartap:

    The description you give of what Genesis 1:26-28 actually says is correct, but the conclusions you draw from it appear arbitrary.

    Yes, Genesis 1:26-28 says man was given dominion over fish of the sea, fowls of the air, etc., but it does NOT say man was given dominion over ALL animals. It does not even mention the word “animals”. If you think man having dominion over fish of the sea, fowls of the air, etc. is somehow inconsistent with man being an animal, I’d like to see a logical argument rather than a mere declaration of this opinion as fact.

    Yes, Genesis 1:26-28 says man is made in God’s image, but it does NOT say man is a non-animal made in God’s image. If you think man being made in God’s image is somehow inconsistent with man being an animal, I’d like to see a logical argument rather than a mere declaration of this opinion as fact.

    Thanks.

    Tony:

    Regarding the post by Judy Kay, if you look just above it, you will see other definitions of “animal” that include man. There’s no reason to over-analyze a particular list of cherry-picked definitions when there’s another list of cherry-picked definitions that supports the opposite conclusion.

    What matters is that we cannot exclude the possibility that the legislators who wrote “man or other animals” were using a definition of “animal” that includes man. Therefore the use of this phrase does not constitute evidence of evil intent.

     
    • Yartap

      December 14, 2013 at 12:44 AM

      Hi Martens,
      You said:
      Yes, Genesis 1:26-28 says man was given dominion over fish of the sea, fowls of the air, etc., but it does NOT say man was given dominion over ALL animals. It does not even mention the word “animals”.

      I said, “that God granted to man “dominion” H:7287 over all OTHER CREATURES upon the earth and over the earth.” The actual scripture says in Genesis 1:28, “and over EVERY LIVING THING that moveth upon the earth.” I did not use the word, animal.

      But, YES – the scripture does say man has dominion over ALL (“every”) living (breath) thing that moveth (creature: God’s creations that move and breath). Further, in reading the verses together, the reader sees and understands the logic that man’s dominion excludes man as being dominated. Each and every man has dominion over “every living thing that moveth.”

      As I read and understand for my own mine, my usage of the word, “creature” relates and concurs (equals) with Genesis 1:28’s line, “and over (dominion) every living thing that moveth.” “Creature” and “every living thing that moveth” are the same.

      I agree that man is a “creature” (creation of God), just like a beast, fowl, cattle, fish and creepeth. But man is excluded from that which is dominated. Further, man’s image and likeness to God, places man to resemble and to represent God with the promise of eternal life with God. No other creature, except man, is promised this gift. This fact creates a difference and separation.

      You said:
      Yes, Genesis 1:26-28 says man is made in God’s image, but it does NOT say man is a non-animal made in God’s image.

      I concur with you that the word, animal, is not used in scripture. The word, animal, is not used until the early 1600c. I further state that many of definers’ definitions equate man as an animal and beast. But, Etymology shows us that over time definer’s definition of “man” include the derogatory meanings to equate man as a beast and animal. With our usage of the word, “man,” in today’s language, will we see in the future the definition of “man” evolves to include this: “Man is a motherf#*ker.”? (Please forgive me). Strong’s Concordance uses the word, “animal,” to give description in its definitions, but it does not equate man as an animal. So, let me ask, if the Bible does not use the word, “animal” as you and I concur, then………

      Why do you continually insist in using the word, ANIMAL?

      And Yes – Genesis does not say man is a NON-ANIMAL made in God’s image. Nor does it say that “man” is an ANIMAL, BEAST, FISH, FOWL, CREEPETH, CATTLE or WHALE made in God’s image and likeness. Neither does it say that God is a man, beast, fish, fowl, creepeth, cattle or whale. But, Strong’s has a separate definition for each and every for said deity and creature.

      The estate of man is manifest with the knowledge that God has made man in His image and likeness; that God has given to man dominion over all other creatures, which are collectively distinguished by today’s word, “animal;” and that man can receive the promise of eternal life with God. But the estate cannot be manifest, if man does not wake up and realize that his position is not the same as an animal/beast. To become an animal/beast, removes man from God and God’s promise.

      Blessing.

       
      • Martens

        December 14, 2013 at 3:30 AM

        Yartap:

        First off, I appreciate the aboveboard and straightforward manner in which you advocate your position, and I value your contributions. Sadly, such integrity is rare amidst the din of personal attacks, passive-aggressive hit-and-run verbosity, and other tactics of straining for a “win” through rhetoric in lieu of presenting a substantive case.

        You said: “Strong’s Concordance uses the word, “animal,” to give description in its definitions, but it does not equate man as an animal.”

        I suggest a closer look. In using “properly” to modify what is also the first definition of “nephesh” – namely, “a breathing creature, i.e. animal…” – Strong’s establishes “animal” as a principle translation of “nephesh”. Since man is a nephesh, man is an “animal” in at least one proper meaning of the word (if not its current vernacular meaning). This alone justifies the phrase “man or other animals” in terms of Biblical precedent.

        You said: “Why do you continually insist in using the word, ANIMAL?”

        For the reason described in the previous paragraph. Also because “animal” is derived from the Latin word “anima” which is remarkably similar in meaning to “nephesh”.

        You said: “To become an animal/beast, removes man from God and God’s promise.”

        I regret to say that this is merely yet another restatement of the opinion I already know you and many others here subscribe to. What I’m still looking for is a logical derivation of this opinion from the text of the Bible.

        Thanks, and blessings to you also.

         
      • Yartap

        December 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM

        Hi again Martens,

        Thank you for your kind words and your discussion. I only seek understanding and truth.

        Let’s start with the Strong’s definition of #5315 Nephesh, neh’- fesh; from 5314; properly a breathing creature, [STOP right there. We see and establish in our mines that “nephesh” is a breathing creature (“creature”: a creation of God’s that moves and breaths upon the earth).]

        Let’s continue….. Strong adds to the meaning of “breathing creature,” when it states: [I.]e. (That is) #1. ANIMAL OR #2. (abstractly) VITALITY; [Stop right here. We see and understand that a “nephesh” is an animal “OR” vitality. Is this not two types of “nephesh?” I think so.]

        But what is this “abstractly” “vitality?” Let’s define these words.
        ABSTRACTLY: thought of APART from a concrete realities, specific object (physical), or actual instances; expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instances.
        VITALITY: ability/capacity to live, grow or develop, force that distinguishes living things from non-living things.
        In my mine, these two definitions define such an English word like “soul,” which is not concrete and can grow.

        Let’s continue with Strong’s “nephesh:” used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (BODILY or MENTAL): [Stop here. Nephesh is used in a “sense” of #1 “bodily” (physical) and #2 “mental” (abstractly, non-physical). Once again, does this create two types of “nephesh?” I believe so. Does “mental” fit an English word like “soul” H:5315, which is not a bodily sense? I believe so.]

        Continuing, Strong places a colon at the end of “(bodily or mental),” then give a whole host of descriptive words that are physical and non-physical by nature to end the definition. This host of words give the word, “nephesh,” a wide selection and deviation from the physical words like man and beast. Strong gives non-physical words like appetite, desire, ghost, greedy, lust, pleasure, + (many words) slay, soul, will and X (mult.) would have it.

        Now, in considering Genesis 2: 7, where it says, “and man became a living soul (nephesh).”; the use of the English word, “soul,” constitutes a non-physical term. Thus, it cannot mean or be of a physical nature like “animal;” but rather, man receive an “abstractly vitality” and “mental” form of nephesh called “soul.”

        Blessing to you.

         
      • Jetlag

        December 14, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        @Yartap

        If I may comment here, you seem to be focusing on the word “or” to separate “animal” and “vitality” into separate meanings of “nephesh”. I think this is an incorrect reading of Strong’s, but let’s go with it and see where it leads.

        Strong’s: “properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal or (abstractly) vitality”

        So that:

        man is nephesh is animal (“animal” being a concrete noun)

        OR

        man is nephesh is vitality (“vitality” being an abstract noun)

        And you discount the first possibility. However, the second possibility (“nephesh” means “vitality”) does not fit with Genesis 2:7.

        “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

        “living” = chay (H2416), meaning “alive” in a very general sense which included plants

        “soul” = nephesh (H5315)

        Interpreting “nephesh” in Genesis 2:7 as “vitality” causes the verse to read “man became a living vitality”, which is not only redundant but grammatically incorrect, because “vitality” is an abstract noun like “freedom”, “dedication”, or “curiosity “. Grammatically, it only works to say “man became a living [concrete noun]”. This leaves “animal” as the meaning of “nephesh” in context, according to Strong’s.

         
      • Yartap

        December 14, 2013 at 10:25 PM

        Hi Jetlag,

        These definitions are from Webster’s 1913 dictionary…

        SOUL: (n.), #2 the seat of real life or VITALITY; the source of action; the animating or essential part. #5 a human being; person.

        We see that Webster used “vitality” to describe “soul.” And we can surmise that only a human being (man) can have a “soul.” Where did Webster get his meaning to include “vitality?” Did it come from Strong’s? Further, from Webster….

        MAN: (n.), #1 A human being;- OPPOSED TO BEAST. #3 The human race; mankind.

        We find Webster making a separation and a distinction between “man” and “beast.” He creates two distinct categories: man and beast.

        HUMAN BEING: (n.), Any living or extinct member of the Hominidae. Synonyms: homo, human, man.

        Now, remember when I spoke earlier about how Etymology (history of word usage and meaning) shows to us, that over time, the definer’s definition of “man” includes the derogatory meaning to equate man as a beast and animal. Webster is no exception to including derogatory and conflicting meanings of a word, like “beast.” Let’s see his definition ….

        BEAST: (n.), #1 Any living creature; an animal; – INCLUDING MAN, insects, etc. #3 any animal other than a human; – opposed to man. #4 Figuratively: A course, brutal, filthy, or degraded fellow (man, a brother).

        Now, we can see the conflicting and derogatory meaning which associates man with beast and animal. Webster’s meaning/definition of “man” and “human being” do not equate or associate “beast” nor “animal” as a man or human. But, his definition of “Beast” does equate and associate “beast” and “animal” as a man at #1, but then, at #3, the definition conflicts with #1 by calling a distinction between “animals” and “humans”/“man.” And #4 clearly demonstrates the derogatory nature of the definition, by associating “fellow” (man, a brother) as a beast.

        As I have said before, the estate of man is manifest with the knowledge that God has made man in His image and likeness; that God has given to man dominion over all other creatures, which are collectively distinguished by today’s word, “animal;” and that man can receive the promise of eternal life with God. But the estate cannot be manifest, if man does not wake up and realize that his position is not the same as an animal/beast.

        This is what King Solomon was pondering in his mine at Ecclesiastes 3:18 when he wondered if “they (men) might see that they themselves are beast.” rather than the sons of God. Thus, if a man believes that there is nothing, but life and death with no eternal life with God; then he makes himself into a beast/animal in the eyes of the Believer. Is this possible where these derogatory definitions have come from? For a man to chose to be no greater than an animal/beast, removes man from God and God’s promise.

        Does this help?

        Many Thanks and Blessing to you.

         
    • J.M.

      December 31, 2013 at 6:27 PM

      @ >Yes, Genesis 1:26-28 says man was given dominion over fish of the sea, fowls of the air, etc., but it does NOT say man was given dominion over ALL animals.

      Martens, what was man NOT given dominion over that was/is on the earth?

       
    • J.M.

      January 9, 2014 at 2:35 AM

      Martens,
      The word translated “animals” in 1 Corinthians 15:39 is “ktenos” (G2934), meaning “property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal”.
      Agreed

      @ > Not every animal is a ketnos. Obviously birds and fishes are not, though they are animals

      Disagree. I have a parakeet & two goldfish,both are domesticated. Birds are fowl & fish ?? I once knew what they were called but fish are not animals.

      To be continued & I promise to respond to everything you have written.

       
      • J.M.

        January 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM

        Martens,
        @ > 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

        How & why do you use the above scripture as evidence or proof that a man is an animal ?
        I bet you are one of those seminarians. Do you have a doctorate or a Master degree, or both?
        to be continued

         
  25. Jetlag

    December 14, 2013 at 11:55 PM

    That’s fine, Yartap, but the definition of “soul” is beside the point in the present discussion. We don’t find “soul”, an English word, in the Biblical manuscripts.

    The definition of “nephesh”, which does appear in these manuscripts, is what concerns us. Strong’s gives two principle meanings for that word: animal and vitality, and it is evident that “vitality” is the wrong type of noun for Genesis 2:7, which leaves us with “animal” as the remaining option.

    @Yartap: “For a man to chose to be no greater than an animal/beast, removes man from God and God’s promise.”

    This is a form of “assuming your conclusion”, meaning you’re making a statement that takes for granted the very thing you’re supposed to be proving.

    As to Ecclesiastes, again you have attributed a meaning to scripture without citing where you got it from. The author adds no such condition that I can find, rather he makes a flat statement: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

    One wonders when a chapter-and-verse basis for the claim that man is not an animal will eventually appear in an article or comment on this blog. Or is this claim to always remain in the Coz I Say So column?

     
    • Yartap

      December 15, 2013 at 3:52 AM

      Hi again Jetlag,

      I concur with you that “soul,” an English word, is not found in the Hebrew Biblical manuscripts. But Jetlag, you continue to insist upon using the Strong’s English word, “animal,” in your points from Strong’s definition of the said word, “nephesh.” Will you concur that Strong’s English word, “animal,” is not used in the Hebrew Biblical manuscripts, too? It is you, who is using Strong’s English definition of “nephesh” to prove your “coz I said so” point that man is an “animal” and not a “vitality.”

      Both of us are relying upon Strong’s Concordance for points of this discussion.

      You have rejected my close examination of Strong’s definition of “nephesh” with Martens. I have pointed out the two types, animal and abst. vitality, of nephesh. I have compared the English word, “soul,” against both, animal and vitality, to see which one comes close to the understanding of the nature of the English word, “soul;” which I believe to be vitality. I have defined “abstractly” and “vitality,” which relates closer to the English word, “soul ” (nephesh). I have compared the English word, “soul,” against two more types, “bodily” (physical) and “mental” (abstractly, non-physical), to see which one comes close to the understanding of the nature of the word, “soul;” which I believe to be mental like a ghost and not physical like an animal. I believe the soul to be in one’s mind or abstractly in one’s force which grows inside a man.

      Further, I have given/offered to you, Webster’s definition of “soul” to show that a claimed master definer of the English language calls a “soul” (nephesh) a “vitality,” and not an “animal.” My hope is that Webster knew proper English grammar; thou, I question his conflicting definitions.

      Finally, in Ecclesiastes 3: 16 -22, I have given my interpretation of the meaning and understanding of the verses, with the main verse 3:18 to be the point of Solomon’s pondering: if men will see themselves as “beast” H:929 (NOT “nephesh” H: 5315) and not manifest (H;1308) by God. Verse 19 For (because) that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beast (H:929); even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one (same) breath; so that a man (H:120) hath no preeminence (H:4195, gain, profit); for all is vanity (H:1802). Verse 20 All go unto one place (the grave); all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

      Thus, that which happen to beast also happens to man; and the seeing of this by man may convince him to believe that he is nothing more or less than a beast (929).

      In verse 21, we see the difference of man (120,1121) that goes to heaven and of beast (929) that goes to the grave.

      Also, one wonders when a chapter-and-verse basis for the claim that man IS an animal will eventually appear in an article or comment on this blog. I stand ready and open to receive any new found truths.

      Thanks again and Blessings.

       
    • Adask

      December 15, 2013 at 4:13 AM

      Some wonder when a “chapter-and-verse basis for the claim that man is an animal will eventually appear” on this blog.

      I wonder when some of the critics of the “MOOA” argument will grow eyes to see and ears to hear and consider Genesis 1 (especially verses 26-28) Which says that although God created all things, both inanimate and animate, he made man and man alone his God’s image. Thus, even if man was an “animal” in a generic sense, he was still a very special animal because he’s the only one made in God’s image. Man’s special nature in relation to all other creatures is reinforced by declaring that man made in God’s image should have “dominion” over “the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

      I know that Genesis didn’t expressly say that man alone should have dominion over all the “animals,” but insofar as man IS expressly given dominion over ALL the fish, ALL the birds, ALL the cattle and “EVERY creeping thing that creepeth on the earth,” Genesis makes clear that God intended man to have dominions over the whole earth and over all of the creatures not made in God’s image. Man was given dominion over all the inanimate earth and all the animate animals. Yes, God didn’t expressly tell the Hebrews that they had dominion over the viruses, bacteria and amoebae. Likewise, God did not expressly say man had dominion the spider monkeys in the Brazilian rain forest, or the penguins in Antarctica, or the killer whales in the north Atlantic (which, technically, aren’t fish but are instead mammals).

      Nevertheless, God’s generic description of (all) the birds, (all) the fish (even including the mammalian killer whales and porpoises), and (all) the cattle, and EVERY creeping thing that creeps upon the earth was sufficient for the Hebrew audience to whom Genesis was first directed to understand that man was special and man alone was given dominion over all the animals and thus, could not be an animal.

      Nevertheless, some people are so effing ignorant or so effing unintelligent or so effing determined to cast doubt where there is none or so effing determined to function as a government troll–that they continue to insist that “chapter and verse” has never been provided to show that man is not an animal, while they refuse to provide chapter and verse to prove that man is an animal. If such people are they’re right (and man is an animal in the Jewish and Christian religions) they’re so smart they shouldn’t waste their time reading a blog as poorly reasoned as this one. In fact, if they’re so smart, why don’t they start their own blog and see if they attract their own audience.

      I’m getting tired of dealing with morons who complain that the distinction between man and animals is not made clear simply because it’s not made with such exact precision that it satisfies some of today’s molecular biologists. But, within the context of the time (1,400 B.C.), Genesis communicated the message that man was not an animal to the satisfaction of of the Hebrew people of that era (whose education levels were probably similar to that of today’s 3rd grade dropouts).

      The principle that man is not an animal was established then (1,400 B.C.) even though the Hebrew people’s vocabulary was perhaps, what?–a few thousand words, tops? Maybe only a few hundred? Today’s English language is estimated to have over 1 million words. Ideas that were expressed simply (and with a minimum number of words) 3,400 years ago to some sheep herders and nomads cannot be reasonably condemned for failing to provide the sort of linguistic precision that’s available with more words, more education, more “civilization” today.

      But even with the relatively small vocabulary that existed 3,400 years ago, the principle that man is not an animal, can’t be an animal, withing the Jewish and Christian faiths is easily seen in Genesis by any one who is not too dumb, too stubborn or too perverse to see it.

       
      • Anthony Clifton

        December 17, 2013 at 5:05 AM

        the so-called “Jewish” faith is Bad Faith = Talmudic Judaism

        and is diametrically opposed to the Good Faith of Jesus Christ

        that is what makes a “Jew”…”Jewish”….!
        http://israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/
        that is why the word doubleminded is used in the book of James.

        John 8:33, is not a conversation in Yiddish.

         
      • Jim Madison

        December 22, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        Can’t seem to get any response from “others” re: 1 Corinthians 15, verse 39. This scripture is crystal clear, to me. There IS a difference in man & an animal. per this scripture.

         
    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 9:46 PM

      See 1 Corinthians 15 verse 39.

       
      • Yartap

        December 23, 2013 at 7:21 PM

        Greetings again Jim,

        I think it is a wonderful verse(s). I understand its meaning in relations with MOOA.

        Thanks, Yartap.

         
  26. Jetlag

    December 15, 2013 at 5:59 AM

    @Yartap “Will you concur that Strong’s English word, “animal,” is not used in the Hebrew Biblical manuscripts, too?”

    Of course, only “nephesh” is in the Hebrew manuscripts, so only definitions of that word need concern us. It turns out one of the definitions of “nephesh” is “animal”. We don’t need to know what “animal” means at present. It suffices to know that it occurs in “man or other animals”.

    Then we find that this definition of “nephesh” which means “animal” (whatever “animal” happens to mean) is the same definition of “nephesh” used in Genesis 2:7 to refer to man, because the other available definition of “nephesh” is the wrong kind of noun to work in that context.

    Therefore, man is an animal. Not necessarily in every definition of “animal”, but in at least one definition of “animal” (though we don’t know which). As long as man is an animal in at least one definition of “animal”, this could be the definition used in “man or other animals”.

    On the other side, nothing in the Bible says man is not an animal. Meaning, there is no chapter-and-verse citation that is inconsistent with man being an animal.

    True, man was given dominion over all the creatures besides himself, but no one can use logic to explain why this means man is not an animal, rather they simply declare this to be the conclusion, and you’re a government agent if you disagree.

    True, man was made in God’s image, but no one can use logic to explain why this means man is not an animal, rather they simply declare this to be the conclusion, and you’re a government agent if you disagree.

    @Yartap “Also, one wonders when a chapter-and-verse basis for the claim that man IS an animal will eventually appear in an article or comment on this blog.”

    It already has appeared, including in this post.

     
    • Yartap

      December 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM

      Greeting Jetlag,

      You said, “Then we find that this definition of “nephesh” which means “animal” (whatever “animal” happens to mean) is the same definition of “nephesh” used in Genesis 2:7 to refer to man,”

      No – the PROPER meaning of “nephesh” is “a breathing creature,” and is not “animal” as primary. Animal is just one of two descriptive types (i.e., animal OR abstr. vitality). By your understanding and logic, the English translation of “nephesh” into the word, “soul,” should read that “man is a living beast” to come more closely to your theory: that man is an animal. But “soul” is more closely related to an abstractly vitality. A soul is not seen in the physical world, therefore it is more closely related to vitality.

      Then you continued by saying, “[B]ecause the other available definition (abstr, vitality) of “nephesh” is the wrong kind of noun to work in that context.”

      Here again, I and Noah Webster disagree with your cos I said so “declared” proper use of grammar.

      You said, “Therefore, man is an animal. Not necessarily in every definition of “animal”, but in at least one definition of “animal” (though we don’t know which). As long as man is an animal in at least one definition of “animal”, this could be the definition used in “man or other animals”.

      Here you go again with your confusing mis-communication. I thought we were defining “nephesh” as it relates to the English word, “soul.” Your statement is mis-directing from the points of the subject. Your focus is mis-placed. Your words are misleading.

      You said, “On the other side, nothing in the Bible says man is not an animal. Meaning, there is no chapter-and-verse citation that is inconsistent with man being an animal.”

      I disagree. As Al has pointed out above, just the use of definitions is insufficient to gather understanding. It is reading all the verses together that give the understanding of the meaning to be communicated; through and with a logical thought process to reason and to conclude that man is not an animal or beast.

      You said, “True, man was given dominion over all the creatures besides himself, but no one can use logic to explain why this means man is not an animal,”

      It is NOT true that man has dominion over himself, only God has dominion over man. It is your type of mis-statement that give rise to Man or Other Animals or the “man is an animal” belief. MOOA is man’s or government’s attempt to have dominion over other men. ALL men are to have dominion, not just a few men.

      You said, “True, man was made in God’s image, but no one can use logic to explain why this means man is not an animal, rather they simply declare this to be the conclusion,”

      Man
      + made in Gods “image” (H:6754; to shade; a phantom, i.e. (Fig.) illusion, resemblance)
      + made in God’s “likeness” (H:1823; resemble, coner (worker), model, shape; adv. LIKE: – fashion, like (-ness, AS), manner, similitude.)
      + granted dominion (H: 7287; to tread down, i.e. subjugate) “over EVERY living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28
      + dominion over the earth Genesis 1:26
      + God gave man life, “breath of life.” (Gen. 2:7)
      + Man became a living “soul” (nephesh H:5315; a breathing creature, i.e. vitality).
      + Scripture does not attribute a “soul” to a beast, animal nor any other creature, except for man, that I have found.
      + Can man think of himself as a beast? Yes he can. (Eccl. 3:18).
      + Man goes to heaven and beast go to the grave. (Eccl. 3:21).

      Thanks Jetlag (and Martens), this exercise is truly strengthening my faith. Blessings.

       
  27. Jetlag

    December 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

    @Yartap “No – the PROPER meaning of “nephesh” is “a breathing creature,” and is not “animal” as primary. Animal is just one of two descriptive types (i.e., animal OR abstr. vitality).”

    Let’s have a look at that primary definition, in full and without “abstractly” being abbreviated: “properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal or (abstractly) vitality”.

    The word “properly” modifies “breathing creature”. Then the “i.e.” introduces what “breathing creature” equates to: one of two things, depending on the context in which “nephesh” appears, either the concrete noun “animal” or the abstract noun “vitality”. Only a concrete noun works in the context of Genesis 2:7, which refers to man.

    Not one of your itemized citations is on point. We would expect this, because God’s word never contradicts itself. The fact that you’re posting so much and missing every time is more evidence of a false position:

    “+ made in Gods “image” (H:6754; to shade; a phantom, i.e. (Fig.) illusion, resemblance)”

    This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

    “+ made in God’s “likeness” (H:1823; resemble, coner (worker), model, shape; adv. LIKE: – fashion, like (-ness, AS), manner, similitude.)”

    This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

    “+ granted dominion (H: 7287; to tread down, i.e. subjugate) “over EVERY living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28″

    This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

    “+ dominion over the earth Genesis 1:26”

    This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

    “+ God gave man life, “breath of life.” (Gen. 2:7)”

    This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

    “+ Man became a living “soul” (nephesh H:5315; a breathing creature, i.e. vitality).”

    The phrase “man became a living vitality” is grammatically incorrect. “Vitality” is an abstract noun, whereas a concrete noun is called for in that position. Thus, “man became a living animal” would be the only correct option among Strong’s two primary translations of “nephesh”.

    “+ Scripture does not attribute a “soul” to a beast, animal nor any other creature, except for man, that I have found.”

    Scripture does not attribute a “soul” to anything, given that “soul” is an English word.

    “+ Can man think of himself as a beast? Yes he can. (Eccl. 3:18).”

    Is man in fact a beast? Yes, he is:

    Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

    2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

    Is the book of Ecclesiastes part of “all scripture”? Yes, it is.

    “+ Man goes to heaven and beast go to the grave. (Eccl. 3:21).”

    Why are you adding to scripture? This verse does not say that. It’s a question, not a statement:

    Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

     
    • Yartap

      December 15, 2013 at 9:45 PM

      Hi Jetlag,

      Noah Webster and I are at an impasse with you about the proper meaning of “SOUL” (a breathing creature) being an animal or abstractly vitality. Your contention that a man’s “soul” is an animal, make no logical sense. A beast is a nephesh (a breathing creature; an animal; physical bodily), but can you disclose for us a nephesh that is a breathing creature, that is abstractly vitality of the mental nature? The only thing that I have found are things like soul and a few others.

      You declare that only a concrete noun works in the context of Genesis 2:7, which refers to man (Don’t you mean: which refers to SOUL?). Noah and I say, NOT TRUE to your grammar theory. Give to us your grammatical proof. Jetlag, what are the other English words used for “nephesh” that are abstractly vitality with a mental nature? Please show us these words and usage in scripture.

      Your replies back:

      “+ made in Gods “image” (H:6754; to shade; a phantom, i.e. (Fig.) illusion, resemblance)”
      This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

      Only man resembles God. Are you saying God is an animal? Man is not an animal.

      “+ made in God’s “likeness” (H:1823; resemble, coner (worker), model, shape; adv. LIKE: – fashion, like (-ness, AS), manner, similitude.)”
      This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

      Same question, are you saying God is an animal? Man is LIKE (adv.) God is. Man is AS (adv.) God is. Man resembles God. Man is modeled after God. Man is not an animal.

      “+ granted dominion (H: 7287; to tread down, i.e. subjugate) “over EVERY living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28″?
      This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

      No animal has dominion over anything. Man is not an animal. Yes – Genesis 1:28! Strong’s Concordance is based and subject to the King James Version, only. One MUST us the K.J.V. to use Strong.

      “+ dominion over the earth Genesis 1:26″?
      This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

      No animal has dominion over anything. Man is not an animal. Yes – Genesis 1:26! Strong’s Concordance is based and subject to the King James Version, only.

      “+ God gave man life, “breath of life.” (Gen. 2:7)”
      This is not inconsistent with man being an animal.

      Man is not an animal. Man and animals share life on earth.

      “+ Man became a living “soul” (nephesh H:5315; a breathing creature, i.e. vitality).”
      The phrase “man became a living vitality” is grammatically incorrect. “Vitality” is an abstract noun, whereas a concrete noun is called for in that position. Thus, “man became a living animal” would be the only correct option among Strong’s two primary translations of “nephesh”.

      See my points above. Man is not an animal.

      “+ Scripture does not attribute a “soul” to a beast, animal nor any other creature, except for man, that I have found.”
      Scripture does not attribute a “soul” to anything, given that “soul” is an English word.

      So, why do you use the word, animal? You cannot have it both ways, Jetlag. Your rules of argument are one sided. This is what make you sound like a government troll. Stop it. Man is not an ________. Oh, it not in Scripture. See what I mean?

      “+ Can man think of himself as a beast? Yes he can. (Eccl. 3:18).”
      Is man in fact a beast? Yes, he is: Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

      Jetlag, use All the words in the phrase to gain understanding of the verse. Just emphasizing “they themselves are beast.” does not reveal the true meaning. You must read all to comprehend: “and that they (men) MIGHT (may) see (think; comprehend; believe) that they (men) themselves are beast.” Then the next verse continues and starts with the word, “For.” This use at the start of the word, “For,” has the same meaning and understanding as “For (example)…” Thus, Solomon gives examples/points of what a man might see or believe to be just like a beast in man’s mind. And for a man to possibly believe that he has no advantage over an animal/beast.
      Remember, correctly or incorrectly, Solomon is formulating/pondering/rambling openly before the reader to finally come to his conclusion found at Eccl. 12:13&14. If one reads ALL of Eccl. and I mean ALL from start to finish, then one realizes that Solomon is pondering, wondering, rambling and formulating throughout the verses with many open questions. Solomon is not saying man IS an animal. He is wondering if man thinks that man’s ESTATE is just like an animals/beast, which it is not.

      2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
      Is the book of Ecclesiastes part of “all scripture”? Yes, it is.

      Agree. But, God reveal in His time to the reader. Understanding the message of the Bible is sometimes slow. Understanding bring one to the belief that Man is not an animal.

      “+ Man goes to heaven and beast go to the grave. (Eccl. 3:21).”
      Why are you adding to scripture? This verse does not say that. It’s a question, not a statement: Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

      I’m not adding to Scripture. It is you who does not understand the Scriptures’ meaning. Yes, the verse is a question which includes two factual statements with the use of the word, “that.”

      Let’s reread: Who knoweth the spirit of man (next a true statement: THAT goeth upward (to heaven))? Who knoweth the spirit of beast (929) (next another true statement: THAT goeth downward (grave)) to the earth?

      Does this make it more clear for you?

       
      • Jim Madison

        December 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

        Hi,Yartap,my friend,

        Soul IS an interesting word. Being an ex pilot, & having a few emengency situations, & trying to be brief in explaining my point, I was asked by the Air Traffic Controller, “How many “souls” do you have on board?” There have been other situations where people have written “S.O.S.” signs in an emergency situation. My point is, at least there are some who understand what souls & S.O.S. means even though we all may have gotten away from the original meaning.. The more I read, the mor I SEE WHY The Eternal “God” says he is going to make a new language. THEN we will all understand what ANY word means, ALIKE. Agreed ??
        Your Friend,
        Jim

         
      • Yartap

        December 23, 2013 at 7:35 PM

        Agreed! -Jim.

        I have troubles many times in reading and comprehending the meanings of passages. I have realized that God will give/reveal to me understanding in His time. And many times God uses others to reveal His means to me. So, I continue to seek Him and His Word.

        Your Friend, Yartap.

         
      • J.M.

        December 31, 2013 at 6:40 PM

        MY FRIEND,Yartap,
        Re: The scripture that says Fear him who is able to destroy BOTH body & soul….., tells me,they, body & soul, are TWO different things. My opinion of what this means is not important. BUT, I firmly believe that the body & the soul are two entirely different things. Sometimes the problem is not remembering that ANY translation in/of all the translations available IS NOT the original INSPIRED Bible. Good educated guesses sum some of it up.

         
    • Jetlag

      December 15, 2013 at 11:39 PM

      @Yartap

      > “Your contention that a man’s “soul” is an animal, make no logical sense.”

      I don’t know what this means. My only contention about “soul” is that it is irrelevant to this discussion.

      > “Jetlag, what are the other English words used for “nephesh” that are abstractly vitality with a mental nature? ”

      “Nephesh” is translated to the abstract noun “life” many times. Check your concordance for details.

      > “Only man resembles God. Are you saying God is an animal?”

      Of course not. Resemblance does not imply identity. Please take a moment to think before imputing such meanings to others.

      > “God is. Man resembles God. Man is modeled after God. Man is not an animal.”

      Repeating this a thousand times will not make it logical. It’s up to you to explain WHY your conclusion follows from your premises. Why does man being modeled after God imply man is not an animal? Are you ever going to explain this?

      > “Does this make it more clear for you?”

      Again you are trying to get more mileage out of a translation than it is able to give. A fair amount of error is introduced when translating texts, especially when the source is from an ancient culture. To overcome this error, it is necessary to crosscheck using other translations or, better yet, a concordance dictionary like Strong’s.

      Ecclesiastes 3:21 according to the NIV: “Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

      New Living Translation: “For who can prove that the human spirit goes up and the spirit of animals goes down into the earth?”

      English Standard Version: “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?”

      These are questions. On the other hand, “they themselves are beasts” and “a man hath no preeminence above a beast” are statements.

       
    • Adask

      December 16, 2013 at 1:05 AM

      If a man is a beast, what is the “mark of the beast”? How is it that men, if they are already “beasts,” will also have to take a mark of the beast in End Times? That’s redundant, isn’t it? Kinda like grafting a second tail on a dog?

      Or is the mark of the beast merely a mark of Satan or one of his agents who is THE “beast,” that’s applied to men who are already “beasts”?

      If there is a “mark of the beast” and it has theological significance, it would seem to follow that those men who were not beasts, but who voluntarily accept such mark will be damned as “beasts”, while those men made in God’s image who do not voluntarily take that mark will be saved?

      What about people who argue that man = animal = beast? Does that argument constitute a voluntary consent to be treated as “beasts”? Does a voluntary consent to be treated as a “beast” constitute a “mark”?

       
      • Martens

        December 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        Adask asked: “Does a voluntary consent to be treated as a “beast” constitute a “mark”?”

        Clearly not, since scripture itself says man is a “beast”, and following scripture does not constitute a “mark”.

        2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

        On the other hand, adding to scripture by ascribing meanings to it that aren’t really there can get one into trouble.

         
      • Yartap

        December 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM

        Joyful greetings Al,

        I concur.

        In Strong’s Concordance the word, “mark,” is called a “badge of servitude;” and the “beast” is related to a “trap.”

        If man is to have domination over beast, would it not be an abomination to God for even a symbolic beast to dominate over a man?

        Could it be that the all mighty Federal Reserve Note or any fiat currency is the mark of the beast?

        Just some thoughts.

        Blessings to You, Yartap.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        December 17, 2013 at 5:19 AM

        wait till you get to Phineas….who had an everlasting priesthood
        http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432
        established by the Almighty
        http://www.richardhoskins.com/bklist.htm
        Richard Kelly Hoskins also has a good read
        http://www.deism.com/phinehaspriests.htm
        Our Nordic Race & Wolves & Sheep.

         
      • J.M.

        December 25, 2013 at 10:24 AM

        I have likened the gov-co to be like a giant poisonous octopus headquartered in the Potomac with its tentacles spreading all over our Beulah Land. There is no doubt in my mind when beasts are described in Revelation the writer is describing National Governments. If the S.S.N is not the mark of the beast it is most certainly the forerunner of whatever is next. I am convinced of this. BUT, my feet are not embedded in cement re: anything except I know who my redeemer is.

         
  28. Yartap

    December 16, 2013 at 9:15 PM

    Joyous Greetings Jetlag,

    Let’s begin,

    > “Your contention that a man’s “soul” is an animal, make no logical sense.”
    You said, “I don’t know what this means. My only contention about “soul” is that it is irrelevant to this discussion.”

    Here you go again, you cannot have it both ways. Soul is relevant, because you are using the English word, “soul,” as it is translated and defined from the Hebrew word, “nephesh,” by Strong’s to come up with your believed point, that man is an animal. Are you now contending that “nephesh” is irrelevant?

    > “Jetlag, what are the other English words used for “nephesh” that are abstractly vitality with a mental nature? ”
    You said, “Nephesh” is translated to the abstract noun “life” many times. Check your concordance for details.”

    I checked, and “life” is used maybe 1 out of 50 times to be describe from “nephesh.” Where as, “soul” is described as “nephesh” all of the time with the exception of once. So, is “nephesh” and “soul” relevant? I think so. What say you?

    > “Only man resembles God. Are you saying God is an animal?”
    You said, “Of course not. Resemblance does not imply identity.”

    I agree, too. God is not an animal. But resemblance (by Strong’s definition) DOES imply identity. We are the only ones made in God’s image and likeness. Is not the son like the father? Yes, they are related. Can a son of man become a son of God? Yes, he can. Did not the sons of God see the daughters of men and find them fair (Gen. 6:2)? Yes, they did. My child resembles me. God’s children resembles Him. God and man do not resemble beast. God is represented on earth by His children, men. When we marry, does not two become one? Are not we the bride of God, who later “divorced” the house of Israel according to the prophets? Would God marry a beast or animal? I think not. I, as a man, identify with God as one of His sons. I do not identify with beast or animals. Man’s “likeness” is a “CONCRETE MODEL” (by Strong’s definition; H:1823) of God.
    Further, a Greek comparison of “soul” (pneuma G:4151) gives the meaning: “a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, i.e. (Human) the rational soul, by implication VITAL principle, MENTAL disposition, etc.” [Emphasis Mine].
    The Greek translation gives the Hebrew word, “nephesh,” a more refined and narrower meaning for us. This helps to separate man and animals (other creatures) from each other.

    You continued, “Please take a moment to think before imputing such meanings to others.”

    I’m not sure of what you mean. The only meaning I put forward was that man resembles God which is true by Strong’s definition. Or was it my question asking if you believed God is an animal. I do not wish to offend you or anyone. It was just a point of the obvious: God is not an animal.

    > “Man is LIKE (adv.) God is. Man resembles God. Man is modeled after God. Man is not an animal.”
    You said, “Repeating this a thousand times will not make it logical. It’s up to you to explain WHY your conclusion follows from your premises.

    See above and below for my explanations.

    You further said, “Why does man being modeled after God imply man is not an animal?”

    Because God is not an animal! Because man is made in God’s image and likeness with dominion over the earth and animals, not dominion over man. Therefore, man is not an animal. He is a living breathing creature, just like an animal, but he is not an animal. He is made after his kind, and an animal is made after its kind. And I surmise, that man is made after God’s kind through being made in His image and likeness.
    Now remember, Jetlag, you cannot have both ways for yourself. So, I will use your words, “Please take a moment to think before imputing such meanings to others.” Jetlag, I’m not offended by your question. I’m just poking fun. (lol). Seeking the truth is a joy!

    Now, Jetlag, I wish to THANK YOU for correcting my mis-interpretation of Eccl. 3:21. Your use of many Bible versions convinced me of the truth meaning. Again, many thanks for clearing my eyes to the truth.

    I agree with you that cross-checking different translations is very useful. So, let’s do that……

    Cross-checking Eccl. 3:18 as follows:

    > Wycliffe Bible (1380; 1st English version)
    “I said in mine heart of the sons (and daughters) of men, that God should prove them, and show (them) that they BE LIKE beasts.”

    > Gutenberg Bible (1450)
    “I said in my heart, “As for the sons of men, God tests them, so that they may see that they themselves ARE LIKE animals.”

    > Geneva Bible (1599; give additional verses 18-21 for expanded insight on subject below)
    18. I considered in mine heart the state of the children of men, that God had [a]purged them: yet to see too, they ARE IN THEMSELVES AS beasts.
    19. For the condition of the children of men, and the condition of beasts are even as one [b]condition unto them. As the one dieth, so dieth the other: for they have all one breath, and there is no excellency of man above the beast: for all is vanity.
    20. All go to one place, and all was of the dust, and all shall return to the dust.
    21. Who [c]knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend upward, and the spirit of the beast descend downward to the earth?
    Geneva’s Side Notes for verses above:
    a. Ecclesiastes 3:18 And made them pure in their first creation.
    b. Ecclesiastes 3:19 Man is not able by his reason and judgment to put difference between man and beast, as touching those things whereunto both are subject: for the eye cannot judge any otherwise of a man being dead, than of a beast, which is dead: yet by the word of God and faith we easily know the DIVERSITY, as verse 21.
    c. Ecclesiastes 3:21 Meaning, that reason cannot comprehend that which faith believeth herein.

    > King James Bible (1611)
    “I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves ARE beasts.”

    > American Standard Bible (1901)
    “I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves ARE BUT AS beasts.”

    > Orthodox Jewish Bible
    I said in mine lev, As for bnei haAdam, HaElohim tests them, that they might see that they themselves ARE LIKE beheimah.

    From the comparisons of the translations above, we can get a flavor of differences in meanings (are like vs. are). We know that the Pope was so mad that Wycliffe had produced and published his Bible, that 40 years later after Wycliffe’s death, the Pope had Wycliffe’s bones dug up, crushed and thrown into a river. Plus, to counter the Geneva Bible, King James commissioned the publication of his Bible, which is greatly used today. Think about it, the KJB is nothing more than a government issued Bible.

    But, we must remember, that the reading of Scriptures was once forbidden, and that the Kings and Queens of England claim a direct line from God through them unto the people that they rule. This, also, is the same course that governments play and take, too.

    To rule a man, one must remove his sovereignty by making him into a beast to have dominion and rule over him. By declaring certain men to be a beasts, the indiscriminate killing of them was made justifiable. Think about it, if one man can convince another that he is a beast, then dominating him makes it legal with God’s declaration of man’s dominion over all creatures in the dominator’s eyes. But, we know it is not LAWFUL. If some translators wish for us to believe that we are animals, then we fall victim to a lie and remove ourselves from the eternal life with God.

    Once again, many Thanks and Blessings.

     
    • J.M.

      December 31, 2013 at 6:59 PM

      @ >Could it be that the all mighty Federal Reserve Note or any fiat currency is the mark of the beast?

      If so, we all have it, i.e. the mark of the beast. Remember a rose by ANY other name is still a rose?
      What is the “number” called, today, that most people believe they “MUST” have to gain employment, SO he/she can receive earnings, so he/she will have what is required to purchase the necessary things to sustain life? There is a NUMBER required. What it is called, is just part of the deception because it “sounds” right & good.

       
  29. Jetlag

    December 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM

    @Yartap

    Quote: “Soul is relevant, because you are using the English word, “soul,”…”

    Huh? I’m only using the English word “soul” to tell you that I am not using the English word “soul”. As far as I’m concerned, the English word “soul” is irrelevant to discovering what the authors of scripture meant by “nephesh”. If you want to keep bringing it up, that’s fine, but don’t expect me to address it except maybe to say that I won’t address it.

    Quote: “But resemblance (by Strong’s definition) DOES imply identity.”

    Why?

    Quote: “God and man do not resemble beast.”

    Apparently you don’t you see the problem with attempting to prove “man is not a beast” by using a statement like this. The problem is a textbook fallacy called “assuming yo conclushun”. You can’t include the conclusion you’re arguing for in the argument itself. I know you can do better than this.

    Quote: “Because God is not an animal!”

    Question: According to what scriptural citation or principal of logic do you reason that, because God is not an animal, an image of God can’t be an animal?

    Answer: The scriptural citation or principal of logic by which I reason that, because God is not an animal, an image of God can’t be an animal is [to be completed by Yartap].

    Quote: “Because man is made in God’s image and likeness with dominion over the earth and animals, not dominion over man. Therefore, man is not an animal.”

    Questions of the form “why does A imply B?” are not answered by saying “A implies B”.

    A: man is made in God’s image and given dominion over animals

    B: man is not an animal

    Question: According to what scriptural citation or principal of logic do you reason that A implies B?

    Answer: The scriptural citation or principal of logic by which I reason that A implies B is [to be completed by Yartap].

    As to Ecclesiastes 3:18, “they are beasts” and “they are like beasts” are equivalent for our purposes. Even the KJV says, in the next verse, “man hath no preeminence above a beast”, which allows that man and beast are distinguishable yet maintains the essential equivalence of their earthy nature.

     
    • Yartap

      December 17, 2013 at 12:35 AM

      Hi Jetlag,

      Did you not use the word, “nephesh,” derived from the word, “soul,” in Genesis 2:7 earlier? If it is irrelevant, then what the hell was all that about earlier? Could it be point abandoned on your part?

      Your Question: According to what scriptural citation or principal of logic do you reason that, because God is not an animal, an image of God can’t be an animal? (Answer below).

      A: man is made in God’s image and given dominion over animals
      B: man is not an animal
      Your Question: According to what scriptural citation or principal of logic do you reason that A implies B?

      ANSWER: An animal is not granted by God the power or right to dominate. If man is an animal, then he is not granted nor has the power or right to dominate.

       
  30. Adask

    December 17, 2013 at 1:00 AM

    Martens, if man is made in God’s image, and man is a “beast,” does it follow that God is also a “beast”? Or is God’s image merely that of a “beast”?

     
    • Jim Madison

      December 19, 2013 at 10:57 PM

      Martens has made one thing crystal clear. HE IS AN ANIMAL !!! BUT, I am not saying he is. He is saying he is.

       
      • Adask

        December 19, 2013 at 11:09 PM

        I wonder if Proverbs 23:7 (“For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he . . . .”) is applicable.

         
    • J.M.

      January 30, 2014 at 1:45 PM

      @ Martens, if man is made in God’s image, and man is a “beast,” does it follow that God is also a “beast”? Or is God’s image merely that of a “beast”?

      On second thought, I wish Martens would have been your Judge. I don’t believe the “Good Lord” would allow him to rule in the gov-co favor. I have also wondered IF Martens had been the Judge & he was “hell-bent on ruling that you, Alfred Adask ARE an ANIMAL, he may have, for example, suffered a heart attack BEFORE he could have made that ruling. YES now I wish Martens would have been the Judge.

       
      • J.M.

        January 30, 2014 at 2:02 PM

        P.S.
        @ On 2nd thought, I wish Martens had been your/the Judge in your MOOA case.

        See the danger in just saying the above without more? I almost did that. Just that sentence only,& nothing more. Then it would appear to some others that I was secretly wanting you to lose,etc. I have made this mistake many times before of saying something, but not explaining my reasons for saying what I did.

         
  31. Jetlag

    December 17, 2013 at 2:05 AM

    @Yartap

    > “Did you not use the word, “nephesh,” derived from the word, “soul,” in Genesis 2:7 earlier?”

    Why would I do that? The word “nephesh” was not derived from the word “soul”. The word “nephesh” predates the entire English language by many centuries.

    > “An animal is not granted by God the power or right to dominate.”

    Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately, we are not yet on firm scriptural ground. Instead, your answer, since it is not a direct scriptural citation, leads to another question.

    Question: On the basis of what chapter-and-verse scriptural citation do you assert that an animal is not granted by God the power or right to dominate?

    Answer: The chapter-and-verse scriptural citation which is the basis for my assertion that an animal is not granted by God the power or right to dominate is [chapter-and-verse scriptural citation provided by Yartap].

    Obviously your answer won’t state or assume that man is not an animal, since this is the very point in contention.

    @Adask

    I’ll answer those, though Martens may answer differently.

    The relevant section of Ecclesiastes is not saying man is a beast because he bears the image of God. Rather, it seems to be saying that, due to the fall of Adam, man is a beast despite bearing the image of God.

    Along somewhat similar lines, man is dust not because he bears the image of God. Rather, man bears the image of God despite being formed of mere dust.

    Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    God is not a beast because man, who is a beast, bears his image. Similarly, God is not dust because man, who is dust, bears his image.

     
  32. Yartap

    December 18, 2013 at 1:58 AM

    Bible Verses for Man is not an animal:

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion” (Gen. 1:26) “over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:28).

    I know, I know – but I had to include it.

    “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” (Gen. 2: 16)
    “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely DIE.” (Gen. 2:17)

    It is apparent, man has eternal life at this time.

    “(The woman said,) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” (Gen: 3:3)
    “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:” (Gen: 3:4)
    “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye SHALL BE AS GODS, knowing good and evil.” (Gen: 3:5)

    That damn serpent, he will always lie: you won’t die and you will become a god.

    “And they heard the voice of the Lord God WALKING in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.” (Gen: 3:8)

    The Lord God is “walking.” Hmmm. Man is made in God’s image and likeness. Man has two legs. I’ll venture to bet, that God has two legs.

    “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man IS BECOME AS one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:” (Gen. 3:22)

    Maybe that serpent wasn’t lying about the god part. Oh no! Man has lost eternal life unless he can FIND that tree of life. With limited life, God has made man and woman to greatly multiply to being forth children. Maybe a few, that can please God, can be found out of the many.

    “And God saw that the WICKEDNESS of MAN was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5)
    “And it repented the Lord that he had MADE MAN on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Gen. 6:6)
    “And the Lord said, I WILL DESTROY MAN whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and BEAST, and the CREEPING THING, and the FOWLS of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:7)

    Boy – God is mad, but why take it out on the beast, creeping thing and fowls? His focus is man.

    “And the angel answered and said unto her (Mary, mother of Jesus), The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

    Man came from dust, animals came from dust, woman came from Adam’s rib bone, and Jesus came from the Holy Ghost and Mary, who came from her father and mother. Note the capital “S” on “Son of God.” He is one special child.

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

    Ok – the Word is God.

    “And the Word was made FLESH ( man), and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

    Let’s see, the Word is God and the Word was made into a man. Or was he made into an animal? I think that we have established that God is not an animal.

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

    Hey – what is with that capitalized “Son” in the KJV (Wycliffe has it capitalize, too)? Oh yea – Jesus is God’s “representative” just like in His image and likeness.

    “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:6 KJV)
    “I said, Ye be gods; and all ye be the sons of the high God” (Psalm 82:6 Wycliffe Bible)
    “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye all are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:6 Geneva Bible)

    WOW!!! That’s a strong verse! So, how can man be an animal? He can’t!

    “I (Jesus) and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

    Two become one? Sounds like a Genesis 2:24 marriage to me. Hey – didn’t God divorce His people, the house of Israel?” That too, sounds like a marriage, if they divorced. Animals do not marry, only God and man marry.

    “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)
    “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;” (John 10: 35)

    WOW!!! Try to break that scripture!

    But what about when God divorced His people, would not that negate (end) being gods?

    Romans 7:1-4 (KJV)
    1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
    2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
    3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
    4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him (Christ) who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

    Through Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; we are redeemed (bought back) to be married unto God. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

    “And I (John) fell at his FEET to worship him (Angel). And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and OF THY BRETHREN that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Rev. 19:10)

    I’ll venture to bet, again, he is a two legged Angel, because he is a “brethren” of man. A “brethren?” Hmmm. Angels are not animals; and neither is man, who is a brethren of Angels.

    “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Rev. 21:7 KJV)
    “He that shall overcome, shall wield these things; and I shall be God to him, and he shall be son to me.” (Rev, 21:7 Wycliffe Bible)
    “He that overcometh, shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my Son.” (Rev. 21:7 Geneva Bible)

    Only a Father gives an inheritance to a son. We will be the inheritors, but only as sons and not as animals. God will not allow an animal to inherit, unless God is an animal, which He is not. Man is called a “Son” (Capitalized “S”) in the Geneva Bible just like Jesus is call the “only begotten Son” in John 3:16, KJV. The implication is that, a Son is a deity.

    “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the TREE OF LIFE, and may enter in through the gates into the city (New Jerusalem).” (Rev. 22:14)

    I want to see and eat from that Tree of Life. Amen.

     
  33. citizenquasar

    December 21, 2013 at 12:14 AM

    This defense is so brilliantly invincible that I would use it in my own defense and I am not even a Christian.

     
    • Jim Madison

      December 21, 2013 at 7:16 PM

      citizenquasar,
      May I inquire as to what it is that you will be defending ? Also, I am uncertain as to what or whose defense you are speaking/writing of/about. Apparently everyone who read your reply understands except me but I am not to proud or ashamed to ask. Maybe I should be but I KNOW I am not very smart/perceptive,etc. Thanks for your reply to me, IF you do reply.

       
      • citizenquasar

        December 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM

        Any Federal drug charge.

         
  34. Jim Madison

    December 22, 2013 at 12:49 AM

    Thank you,citizenquasar.
    One more question. If the drug charge is “State initiated instead of Federal,at the beginning, will you still claim a 1st amendment violation?

     
    • citizenquasar

      December 23, 2013 at 6:33 AM

      Probably NOT. It is because of the way that the Federal law is written that makes the First Amendment a defense to prosecution. This may NOT apply at the state level. In ALL cases, Drug usage is protected by the Ninth Amendment. This is because we have a right to put whatever we want to into our body, our most intimate personal property, in any way we want to. So I would probably start with a Ninth Amendment defense at the state level and while a Ninth Amendment defense may also work at the Federal level, Al’s First Amendment defense has a proven record of success at the Federal level.

       
      • J.M.

        December 25, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        Thanks again, citizenquasar,

        Every State Constitution I am aware of has an identical provision in the Bill of Rights as the first amendment in the Federal Constitution. The only time, at least at one time,we would claim a 1st Amendment violation was WHEN the Feds charged us & NOT the State. The way things are NOW, it almost appears that State Constitutions are just historically interesting documents. I believe “Union citizens” aka citizens of the United States & subject to ITS jurisdiction are the only ones that should claim a 1st Amendment violation when the so called charge initiates with the State. All State Constitutions I am aware of also have an identical provision in the Bill of Rights as the 9th Amendment in the Federal Constitution. I like the 9th. Wish those who took an oath to uphold support & defend it did, i.e. like it. Frankly, I am of the belief that most gov-co public serpents never read (red) a word in either Constitution. Their oath is just a ritual performance. Thank you for your comments, citizenquasar.

         
  35. Timmy

    January 8, 2014 at 12:16 AM

    RE: the mark of the beast in Revelation… in the context of that book, and following the principles of sound, sober and consistent Biblical prophecy interpretation, “beasts” are political states. Just a heads up.

    I would conclude that the mark will be a “stamp of approval” or inclusion by the ultimate state- the long desired (by the evil) all powerful one world government.

     
    • J.M.

      January 8, 2014 at 4:15 PM

      @ >“stamp of approval”
      This term would be easier on/for the law enforcement officers to use too,e.g., instead of demanding to see “your driver license,registration & proof of insurance, he/she says, I need to see your “stamp of approval documents.” This is 4 words less, & 24 alphabet letters less. A lot easier on their vocal chords.

       
  36. Jim

    January 25, 2014 at 8:40 PM

    For those who argue that “Man or other animals” does not classify man as an animal, and believe me when I first heard that concept my brain refused to accept the premiss.

    However a simple exercise is easy to follow and get your brain untangled. How about “Dogs and other animals.” Does that make sense. Rabbits and other animals. Horses and other animals.

    So yes, Al Adask is exactly on point. Also there is another avenue to consider. Those who wrote that phrase are declaring that they, themselves, are animals.

    Going into a court you would need to ascertain if the judge was a carnivore, a herbivore, a rodent, etc..

    Great show Al and great information and by the way I think my Congress critter is a Mule.

     
  37. Tim

    January 26, 2014 at 5:21 PM

    Al, I can tell you exactly why your “defense” worked, but it really doesn’t have as much to do with religion as you think. Better than me writing a disortation on the subject, why don’t you just head over to TalkShoe.com, and look up a man called “Karl Lentz” and his show called “Unkommon Law”. Start listening and be prepared to be stunned and amazed as he breaks down exactly why governments cannot define “man”, just as you cannot define your Creator. They may mention “man”, but I seriously doubt it’s in the definitions section of the relevant law, which means, it’s “color-of-law” and you are to “presume” it means one thing, when in fact it means something else, or nothing at all.

     
  38. dave

    January 29, 2014 at 6:46 AM

    Jordan Maxwell reads a passage from the Bible as ” Let us make man in our image” and you can interpret that as Man was allready here on this planet and” the gods” changed man to look like them by modifiying the DNA . you can look this up on you tube on Jordan’s videos .

    This is becoming the new way of thinking I guess ,many are saying this as it was intererpreted from the dead sea scrolls by Zacharia Sitchen.I am not agreeing with this but it is another way to look at it.(not that you need that crap too)

    Regardless man goes to a doctor not a vet ,man goes to a hospital not an animal hospital ,man is buried in a cemetary not an animal cemetary,as the elephant man said “I am not an animal”. The way the laws were written seems to those that fall victim to it it was never intended to be clear. No wonder everyone is half nuts and they are only enforce for us stupid animals.

    Anyway keep up you great work we need people like you to out smart these evil bastards, I saw you on Alex Jones and had to check out your web site .

     
  39. EarlatOregon

    May 14, 2014 at 1:01 PM

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Sovereignty’s Promise:
    The State as Fiduciary
    (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

    Book Description
    Publised: Dec 8, 2011

    Political theory is traditionally concerned with
    the Justification and Limits
    of State power.
    .
    .
    .

    It asks:
    Can states legitimately direct and Coerce Non-consenting subjects?
    .
    .
    .

    If they can, what Limits, if any,
    Constrain sovereign power?
    .
    .
    .

    Public law is concerned with the Justification and Limits of Judicial power.
    .
    .
    .

    It asks:

    On what grounds
    can judges ‘read down’ or ‘read in’
    statutory language against the apparent intention of the legislature?

    What limits, if any,
    are appropriate to these exercises of judicial power?

    This book develops an original constitutional Theory of political authority
    that yields novel answers to both sets of questions.

    Fox-Decent argues that
    the state is a Fiduciary of its people,
    and that this fiduciary relationship
    grounds the state’s authority to announce and enforce law.

    The fiduciary state is conceived of
    as a public agent
    of necessity
    charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom.

    Whereas the social contract tradition
    struggles to ground authority on Consent,
    the fiduciary Theory
    explains authority with reference to
    the state’s
    fiduciary obligation
    to respect legal principles constitutive of the rule of law.

    This obligation arises from the state’s possession of
    irresistible public powers.

    The author begins with a discussion of Hobbes’s conception of legality
    and the problem of Discretionary power in Administrative law.

    Drawing on Kant,
    he sketches a theory of fiduciary relations,
    and develops the argument through three parts.

    Part I shows that it is possible
    for the state to stand in a public fiduciary relationship to its people
    through a discussion of Crown-Native fiduciary relations
    recognized by Canadian courts.

    Part II sets out the Theoretical underpinnings
    of the fiduciary theory of the state.

    Part III explores the implications of the fiduciary theory
    for Administrative law and Common law Constitutionalism.

    The final chapter situates the theory
    within a broader philosophical discussion
    of the rule of law.

    .
    .
    .

    Review

    …it provides a clear discussion of the idea
    of fiduciary relationships and duties
    that is useful for, and should be largely accessible to,
    non-lawyers.

    Matthew Lister, Ethics
    .
    .
    .

    About the Author

    Evan Fox-Decent is Assistant Professor of the Faculty of Law,
    McGill University.

    He teaches and publishes in
    legal theory, administrative law,
    First Nations and the law,
    immigration law,
    the law of fiduciaries,
    and human rights.

    He has worked on human rights and democratic governance reform in Latin America since 1987.
    He has served with the UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (1996-99),
    and has consulted on behalf of numerous development and research agencies,
    as well as on behalf of legal institutions in Latin America,
    including the Supreme Court of Venezuela, the European Union,
    the World Bank, the International Development Bank, USAID,
    and Canada’s International Development Research Centre.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    http://www.amazon.com/Sovereigntys-Promise-Fiduciary-Oxford-Constitutional-ebook/dp/B008C7YTPU/ref=sr_1_54?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400089590&sr=1-54&keywords=fiduciary+guide

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

     
    • bobby90247

      May 14, 2014 at 10:53 PM

      Unfortunately, his entire argument is based on “Theory!” In the real world, the government is “bought & paid for” by Individuals…NOT by the “Common” People.

      Therefore, the “rule of Law” is interpreted by those who have the most money!.

       
      • EarlatOregon

        May 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        Quote from Book

        “The fiduciary state is conceived of
        as a public agent
        of necessity
        charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom.

        Whereas the social contract tradition
        struggles to ground authority on Consent,”
        .
        .
        .

        Earl writes:

        Consent is superior because the people on their own,
        may Withdraw Consent,
        or better yet,
        Not give Consent.
        .
        .
        .

        as in
        Without Recourse
        or
        Without Consent

        .
        .
        .

        Without Recourse
        or
        Without Consent

        written on the Signature line
        of
        Documents you do Not agree to.
        .
        .
        .

        Are these words the Magic Bullet?
        .
        .
        .

        Without Recourse
        or
        Without Consent
        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • bobby90247

        May 16, 2014 at 12:13 AM

        “…The fiduciary state WAS DREAMED UP of as a public agent of necessity charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom…”

        In today’s fiduciary state a “…regime of secure and equal freedom…” no longer exists, much less there being anything guaranteed!

        “OUR” fiduciary state is based on the constructs of the “elite” and their wishes and concerns and overrides any Without Recourse OR Without Consent when they use “imminent domain” as “Trump Card.”

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s