when he fought against hazael king of syria.. ahaziah the son of jehoram king of judah went.
down to see joram the son of ahab in jezreel,.
9:11then jehu came forth to the servants of.
HTBWC - In chapter 10 Jehu kills all the sons of Ahab, and then the brothers of Ahaziah the king of judea. In 11 Athaliah kills all the seed of Ahaziah the king of Judea, with the exception of Jehoash, hidden by Ahaziah's sister Jehosheba, the daughter of Jehoram king of Judea. You seem to have miss spelled his name in 11:2, or have you got a very unique copy of the MT/Lxx. Check it out.
BB
when he fought against hazael king of syria.. ahaziah the son of jehoram king of judah went.
down to see joram the son of ahab in jezreel,.
9:11then jehu came forth to the servants of.
HTBWC - "(Who killed the princes of Judah? It wasn't Athaliah! LOL..."
I don't get this, if it was'nt her who was it?
BB
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
JB - I don't disagree with your concept of how America behaved during both wars, and would totally support the view that the second world war was just the end result of the first, and that the allies were probably more responsble for WWII by the treatment of Germany at the end of the first. However the first WW set the precident for total war against civilians and countries, with that incident and bombing of civilian targets. Fortunately for northern europe they did not make the same mistake twice, but left the issues that started the whole mess still unresolved to this day.
BB
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
JB - The Lusitania was sung in 1915, and America did not enter the war until 1917. This event had little to do with America entering the second world war I am afraid, so I don't really get the point of bringing it up.
BB
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
James Brown - Have you got a name of the passeger ship involved, interested in that comment?
BB
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
NHAH - I agree with you, but my point was really that although we may justify the action,does it become an act of good because it produced less death, or is it still an act of evil, albeit of a lesser evil than the consequences, which still makes it an act of evil does it not?
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
So are we saying that causing the death of any human is an evil act?
If that is not the case then are we suggesting that there is some scale of evil of such actions? Is it number or reason dependant?
At what level are we suggesting that the killing of a human is an act of good?
Can this ever be true?
sorry for such a depressing question, but i was moved by a picture i saw of the consequences.
( a woman carrying her child) and i realised:-.
a) it was a civillian population.. b) i don't see how a nuclear holocaust can ever be right.. c) they could have bombed tokyo where all the generals lived but chose hiroshima.. d) the irony after the bombing america conceeded to many of japans terms.. your opinion would be valued..
The precedent that was set if any was that these bombs were used to end a 6 year conflict world wide, not to start one. If memory serves correctly the Japanese were given the option to surrender,after the first and warned of the second in advance. However they did not react and neither did they give up after the second, but only once they had been threatened with a third, which we did not have. In fact I believe that more civilians died during the one night of fire bombing on Dresden at the close of the European campaign, than at Hiroshima. It just goes to show that war whether nuclear or conventianal causes loss and should be avoided at all costs, but people of the world are slow learners! BB
as we know, nebuchadnezzar could not conquer the island of tyre, so he could not fulfill what was predicted in ezekiel chapter 26. many years later, ezekiel admitted that the prediction failed in chapter 29:.
17 and it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the lord came to me, saying, 18 son of man, nebuchadnezzar king of babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from tyre, for the labor which they expended on it.
19 therefore thus says the lord god: surely i will give the land of egypt to nebuchadnezzar king of babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army.
Perry - Can you please explain then if there are some many reasons for why the prophecy of Tyre is so complete, why in verse 19 does the lord declare that he is giving the land of Egypt to Neb. This , according to history this event never happened. There is no acheological evidence of Neb invding and gaining control of Egypt, which not only shows this prophecy to be a lie but also the one in Jeremiah?
1) john presents a jesus who is totally different from other gospels.
2) johns claim of jesus being partial to him undermines jesuss own teaching (mathew 5:44-48).
3) johns claim of first miracle (changing the water into wine) and the last (or most spectacular) miracle of resurrecting lazarus are not known to earlier gospel writers---something impossible for them to miss!.
Pinku - Are you sure that John did not know who the trbes from the sons Israel were? I hope your not getting confussed with the Divisions of 3s for the Exodus encampment and registration for military service. Remeber that Levi was placed in the centre of the camp, total 13 , and Levites were exempt from military service due to their temple duties. In reality John only lists 11 because Manasseh is only half a tribe and Joseph can only be the other half tribe.
The real question here is why did John choose to include Manasseh when they would fall under Joseph, and exclude Dan? It is worth noting that the order that these tribes are placed in reflects the order which they are placed around the gates of the temple in the new Jerusalem from the base of the west side clockwise.
Metatron - Have you consider the use of "and" as a full stop, that way it seperates the phrases and gives each part individual meaning as stand alone statements. It completely changes the way you understand text. Just a thought, btw read it in the greek as it is written not as translated with added meaning or implication.
BB
