Everything about modern culture and society is set up in such a way that its virtually impossible to pay people daily in a majority of jobs. Now, I'm not saying its right, just saying that its how it is and good luck trying to change it back. We know that society would get worse and worse, because wicked men are waxing worse and worse. A lot of what the Bible forbade in the Old testament is not done anymore, anywhere. But also remember, it was written FOR Israel, not for everyone, everywhere. Like the rest of the law of Moses. Is it a good principle? Of course it is, but its not a good society we live in, not a godly society, so we should not expect it to run like God demanded of Israel. I suppose if a church has the ability to have paid staff, they could pay daily if they chose-but even there, when you are dependent upon the money coming in one day, maybe two, per week, even then you need to work the pay according to when the money comes in. The OT biblical principle is based upon people who, as was said above, generally worked as day labour. It was to make clear that, whatever agreement was made by the one hiring, would be made good according to the agreement. If he hired them to be paid that day, they were to be paid that day; if he hired them with the understanding that they would be paid weekly, then he was to pay them weekly, not keep it extra time over the agreement.
Okay, where are we? Who is asking the next question? Seems to have gotten a bit confusing.
If I may add a rule, if Li Bai Jia doesn't mind, let's keep questions to where the answer is a clear Biblical fact, not speculation, ie, not, Who were the sons of God that married the daughters of men? because it will lead to speculation and argument. Clear facts. And since I'm not sure where we are, if I may, I will ask the next question and we can continue on. Ahem ahem.. What animal was used for the atonement sacrifice for Israel on the Day of Atonement?
Actually I believe Jesus was born around 5BC-primarily because, according to the current calendar, Herod the Great, who was the king that sought to kill Jesus, died in 4BC. Of course, because of a monk's mistake, we may never be exactly sure on any of those dates. So, if that's the case, then Jesus was actually born 5 years before Christ-HA! Then He would have died on about 29AD, I believe. But I honestly am not sure, haven't personally done that math.
Its supposed to be ancient dry blood. And it is said to have turned part liquid, so they are calling it a 'partial miracle'. I suspect it is a device that releases a small amount of water into the 'blood' so that it liquifies. A simple parlour trick, and of course, no one would ever be allowed to inspect it to see what it actually is.
Thats their story and they're sticking to it. its like how someone explains away 1-1/2 days being actually three nights and days, concerning Jesus dying on Friday and raising on Sunday and somehow that's three days and three nights. If the Bible had just said Three Days, then maybe the explanation of "any part of a day is considered a day", would make a little more sense. but when it says Thee Days and three nights" that's pretty specific. Or the days of creation not really meaning literal days, except that it specifies evening and mornings. Which is exactly what makes a Hebrew day. Too specific to mean anything but just what it says.
We have a station called Retro, and it has a lot of the old shows like Hogan's Heroes, Batman, the old Superman, even the late 70's, early 80's Dr. Who with Tom Baker, one of the best runs in many opinions. I think a lot of the stations I get are local Reno channels. I live about 60 miles away, but I bought an antenna and attached it to my old satellite dish and it boosts the power of the antenna. If you look online you can see how to do that.
Yeah, this is why I got rid of satellite and cable. Now I get about 16 local channels, with old movies and classic TV shows like Andy Griffith and Star Trek, original, 1966 Batman and 1970's Wonder Woman. And Soupy Sales-remember him? Much preferred over such drivel.
I remember hearing a sermon once, though the preacher escapes me, about a long, detailed conversation Jesus had when he was 12, with the Father, telling Jesus who He was and what His job was going to be. Now, I understand kind of why he preached this, since it is the only aspect of jesus' youth mentioned, when he was 12 and was left behind at Jerusalem, and mentioned being about His father's work. But its assuming that He didn't already know. I am all for careful speculation on what the Bible doesn't specifically lay out, but to make an entire sermon about a conversation that we have no idea if it took place, or even needed to take place, was a bit beyond need. It was entertaining, but not scriptural.
I don't even bother with 'biblical' movies anymore, don't give them a moment of my time, unless its out of sheer morbid curiosity. I watched on TV about 5 minutes of the new Noah, and it was as bad as I had believed. The movie 'Four Blood Moons' just came out in limited release, Hagee's book made to a movie, with radio talkshow host Joe Pags doing the narration. Another one I won't bother with. People have been gushing over it, how amazing it is, and how biblical. HA! As far as I can see, the Bible speaks on one instance that the moon will be as blood, nothing about a series of four of them, whether they coincide with Jewish feasts or not. And it was also be accompanied by a sun as black as sackcloth, which we haven't yet seen. I don't believe these will be eclipses, as many believe, and as these four 'blood moons' are. I believe it will be a singular event of portend, signifying the wrath of God, or an aspect of His wrath. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. These blood moons will pass with nary a whisper, and nothing occurring, and these people will be left discredited. I don't care about Hagee-he has no credit as is, but Pags is a pretty good radio host, very conservative and I suspect some brand of Christians, though clearly a weak one if he's buying into this. I hope he will see that nothing happens and repudiate his part in it, maybe even start really studying his Bible, not just what people say things mean.
Well, it early yet. As for his time in the senate, while many complained about that, its the one thing I saw no problem with. Again, the original intent of the founders was not to have career politicians. Washington held no other politcal office-he was a general with the Army, and then was made president. Originally, a man was to be a citizen, come to office, do his time, and then go back to private life. Not be forever on the dole. It is amazing what a person can learn about international issues by personal study. Long terms in politics causes people to lose touch with what the real issues of life are in the country, which is why the freshmen in the senate are often so excited and full of zeal-but the longer in office, the more they begin to follow the political thought, and why nothing of real importance to the modern individual ever gets dealt with, and its why both Dems and Repubs believe government needs to be bigger. So honsetly, I'd like a decent, conservative, Christian guy who hasn't had a life in politics as a president, or senator. And why I believe term limits should be made law for congress, both houses.
My primary issue at this time is his eligibility. The first continental congress set a precedent that a natural-born citizen was one who was both born within the borders of the United States, and both parents were born there, as well. Now, we have since seen others make changes in that, going baclk and forth, some saying only the parents had to be, or that even only one parent had to be a born citizen, and the candidate could be born anywhere. So it really brings up a lot of questions. There was a lot of noise over Obama;'s birthplace, now nary a peep over Cruz's Canadian birth. I think its time to set something in stone over this.