Monday, February 28, 2011

God calls the Jews a stiff necked people. Worship the Golden Calf

Last weeks reading (I'm a week behind) had the sin of the Golden Calf (See Exodus 32) in which God calls the Jewish people a stiff necked people.

This photo is from

Moses pleads with God and God stiff punishes the Jewish people by having the Levites kill some of the leaders involved seems like they were men and then God punishes the Jewish people as a whole with a plague. But God first wanted to kill all the Jewish People except Moses to which Moses convinces God not to. And then later on God reveals to Moses the holy attribute of God being slow to anger showing kindness to 2,000 generations and punishing for only 4 and forgiving sins but not completely.

It seems that God was letting Moses speak on behalf of his people and playing this game of making this threat as God wanted Moses to intercede on his people. Which of course Moses then questions God for being so harsh to which it seems that God then reveals his attributes to Moses that are very compassionate.

That is what it seems like to me reading it. As you read it Moses starts questioning God as I think it is about the fact that Moses is wondering why God is being so harsh here as he can't believe he has more compassion then God God tells Moses he can't reveal his full face and only his back.

Later when God is giving Moses the new tablets God reveals that he does forgive sins although not completely and shows kindness to 2,000 generations among other things God being a God who compassionate and gracious, is slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness. (Exodus 34:6)

The Poltically Inorrect Census only counting males over 20: Biblical reading of Exoducs Chapter 30:11-34:34

I am a week behind. You have to forgive me here. Anyway.

Here is some analysis of the very politically incorrect way the torah requires the Jewish people to do a census which they may have to do for a number of reasons. Military may be one situation(but there may be MANY OTHERS as men have to appear at the temple three times a year) but I am not sure this specifically because if that was the case why all men over 20. Older men over 45 maybe shouldn't be considered. Could be for representation as well as larger tribes deserve more representation.

God talks to Moses about taking a Census. In it God demands that we give a half shekel (in this case no body gives more then someone else) and it seems to suggest only men over 20 as it uses the hebrew word "Ish" in giving this half a shekel so no plague should befall the people during the census. (Exodus 30:11)

I was taught and it seems like a good reason was that well a Census may be needed numbers by itself could give a people a false sense of security which is why they have to give a half a shekel.

So the question becomes why only men over 20. What about women and children. Shouldn't they be counted for a census if it is a census to know how to allocate certain resources. Exodus 30:12 uses the hebrew word Rosh which means head and it literally means head of the children of Israel. Not every man over 20 may be married though.

My answer to this is that God wanted each family to be an entity in it's own right and the man was suppose to work and speak for his own families care. God didn't want to count women and children to make the government the ones responsible for them as by doing this you give very little role and responsibility to most men.

In fact someone may ask well why didn't our founding fathers be concerned about women voting. I think the answer is they were concerned about their own rights and their own experience is autocratic rulers put other men at risk sending them to fight endless war for the ego of the leader. Similarly they likely understood that autocratic rulers having to woo women also would undermine men who weren't connected to the autocratic rulers and that the bible itself didn't seem to think that "individuals' should be counted on their own.

I can't disagree. Despite the feminist propaganda the reality is it is natural for a man to want to protect a woman especially those who are fertile and attractive and men sometimes kill another man for a woman.

When the government becomes those who have to attract women towards them many times the government will them view other men as threats which they will then do what is their power to undermine men in every way which sadly goes on in most Western Countries where everything is done to make the father, the husband you name it a fool, an idiot. Furthermore, the women become focused on the government being their protector and provider and they see no need for a husband which again just gives power to a few men on top.

In fact during the early 20th century when many European and the US liberalized voting rights and gave women the right to vote it was not in a time when women were picked on. In fact it was after WWI when many men died for nothing and in the US there was the focus on the UN and globalism. And in the US the ones involved were very racists as they did not allow black women in their group.

To have women have full "individual" rights we really have to ban all religion as there are only two countries where women don't have sufferage. Saudi Arabia and Vatican City although in these cases not sure they really are doing it to PROTECT THE FAMILY UNIT AND GIVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO HUSBANDS and not have the government rule over women. It may just be a power grab in their situations. Certainly with the Vatican they support women like Sarah Palin so it seems like they are hypocrites as only in their situations do they not want women to have a say but in other situations they want women to rule over men.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Barley Search in Israel for when Passover is as it has to be "in the spring"

 THIS IS SO INTERESTING!!! In fact without the leap year Passover would come out on March 21st I think the first day of spring. The other part of the Rabbinic calender that is a problem is that they make it that certain holidays could only come out on certain days of the week. Passover in the Rabbinic calender can only come out on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. Of course that means you have to manipulate the new moon by a day or two  so it won't come out on a Wednesday, Friday, or Monday as sometimes the new moon cycle would mean the 15th day would be on one of these days. This is so fascinating to me. If they don't find the Barley by March 6th Passover will be the same day whether you use the Rabbinic calender with it's adjustments not based on the new moon but on other considerations or not. I hope the Barley isn't starting to sprout by March 6th.


"Speaking of barley (one of the seven blessings of Israel listed in the above
verse in Deuteronomy), the Aviv Barley Search is coming up in a few weeks on
March 4-6. Back in 2005 we found Aviv barley on March 8, so it is a real
possibility we will find it this year by March 6. This would put Chag HaMatzot
(Feast of Unleavened Bread) in late March, a month before the rabbinical
observance of the feast. Carrying out this annual search requires a great deal
of time and resources. I need your help to make this happen! Please consider
supporting this effort by sending a check to Makor Hebrew Foundation, POB 13,
Mansfield TX 76063 or click on the "donate" button at:"

Monday, February 21, 2011

Video by Nehemiah Gordon who is now a Karatie Jew. Father was a Rabbi.

This is an interesting video.

The worst thing about this whole issue is that the people that hate the Karaites and attacking them on you tube most are converts. On you tube you have these no nothing converts attacking them. Why are Rabbi's using converts as their attack dogs. It seems like a very low class thing to do and if their position was correct Rabbi's themselves would debate them. Not use converts as their attack dogs. These converts clearly hate the complexity of some Jews.  I don't agree with every position they have (the part about not having a fire seems against what the torah says that you can prepare beforehand) but they also allow questions unlike with the Rabbi's.And that is their only criticism which I am sure the Karaites have made some positions that are wrong as well but they seem more willing to discuss this. Also they really don't hate the Rabbi's and don't reject EVERY position they have but in some cases feel their position is wrong which I have to agree.

Very interesting. I admit. Some of the things said about the Talmud can't be true. We say everything a Rabbi says is the words of Torah. It can't be. Just my own experience is most Rabbi's seem insecure and don't like people asking them questions. Also some of the Rabbi's who were famous were very divisive figures.

The Rambam was very harsh to some groups and actually wanted to ban Karaites. He also had a sort of liberal approach to using violence to get someone to do what you want them to do.

Then you had Rashi who had three daughters and no sons and the daughters put on Tefilin. If anyone else did this they would be condemned and it just doesn't give you a sense of a consistent position.

Savage on what is going on in Madison, WI and the teachers Unions

Sadly from what I have read the Unions from the beginning have been about violence if they don't get their way. If other people want to replace the workers (who are legit citizens and have the right to work as well if some have got too lazy and greedy) they threaten violence which is wrong and thuggery. Some Presidents in the early 1900's allowed the Unions to engage in this kid of thuggery and didn't say it is wrong to threaten to beat people up who are willing to work instead of the strikers. What is worse is when unions work in the government sector which is what public school as the salary comes from the taxpayer. In the private sector they are shaking down a boss they think it is being cheap although that may not be the case. Here they are shaking down the taxpayer wanting them to pay for their benefits which don't exist to the same degree in the private sector and certainly don't exist if you work PART TIME JOBS. Shameful how spoiled they are.

Anyone have anything intersting about the torah reading about the Temple and the Kohen's

Recently we read from Exodus 25-30:10 which discusses the building of the temple and the rooms and the responsibilities of the Cohen in the temple who only they were allowed to work and give the sacrifices in the temple. Which is interesting that it was based on being from the lineage of Aaron as he was rewarded for his actions and the actions of Pincheas later on in Numbers. Today in a synagogue the leader of it can be anyone and he just has to pass a test doesn't have to be a leader by doing something very noble. Just pass a test. Or the cantor also what is important is he have a good voice not that he is of good character.

Also interested that it was important to beautify the temple as they did as it say in Exodus Chapter 25 1-6.

So if people have things to say about these bible reading that deal with the temple and the Kohen's please in Chapter 25-29 and the beginning of Chapter 30 please do as I am a little tired and would like to hear some idea's from others as well.

Sorrry haven't posted much recently. Been really busy. Have 8 weeks to go.

I have been working three jobs so I haven't had much time to post here although I will try to post at least once a week or so.

I am starting a job tomorrow locally. We will see how it goes. Actually it is with someone is Muslim I think.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

I'm really tired.

Working a few different jobs is tiring.

Monday, February 07, 2011

The bible reading of Exodus Chapters 21-24 Part V: The boundries of Israel

In Exodus 23:31 It sets the boundries of Israel being from the sea of reeds to the sea of Philista. What is that today?? Clearly this is much bigger then what Israel is today. The situation now with Egypt isn't the Sinai suppose to be part of Israel!!

If so clearly God will want Israel to recapture this.

This crisis in Egypt may force Israel to have to reconquer this area which to be fair Mubarak has played all sides and has done little to improve relations because he does not want what happened to Sadat to happen to him and in addition I am sure deep down he doesn't like Israel but likes the money he gets for America for not "openly declaring war in Israel" but in other ways wanting his people to hate Israel and giving money to groups that undermine Israel and fight wars with Israel.

So this being the case it isn't good if Israel has a false sense of security with a nation that really is hostile to them except for the money they get from America which is America declined there also would be no reason for them to honor this treaty just to get money for themselves. Mubarack is 82 years old.

So is this part of Israel defined in the bible the Sinai. I would think it is since it is where the Jews received the torah. Why would God want that in Egypt's hands.

The bible reading of Exodus Chapters 21-24 Part IV: Punishment for stealing.

In Exodus Chapter 22 it discusses the punishment for stealing and also if you kill the robber. If it is in darkness you are not liable to protect yourself when you are dark although if the sun has risen he is held liable which I assume if he has no gun which for if he is trying to kill you as well as steal from that is self defense.

Interesting. This was at a time where people could not have automatic weapon.

You also have to pay double what you stole.

Sadly we have some Rabbi's who believe if a non-Jew steals he should get the death penalty according to the "7 noahide laws" but this idea has no basis and in fact contradicts what the bible says here.

The bible reading of Exodus Chapters 21-24 Part III: The context of Eye for Eye

It is interesting that eye for eye is not meant literally. In fact the context of this per the prior post is comparing it to causing a woman to have a miscarriage by pushing a woman by accident that he should be based on reckoning.
(Exodus 21:22)

But in other injuries it is based on the injury itself which is all it is saying.
In fact Exodus 22:26 and Exodus 22:18 in two different situation explain the consequence of injuring someone else and in neither do you do to the person what he did. The first case he caused someone to be in bed you don't do the same to him to make him in bed. He does have to pay for the idleness and his cure (lost wages and doctor bills). Exodus 21:19.

The bible reading of Exodus Chapters 21-24 Part II: Causing a miscarriage while wrong doesn't seem to be mansluaghter.

Continuing from this weeks portion. It is sad that some Jewish people just parrot the line of another religion even though their own bible doesn't suggest this.

In Exodus 21:22 it talks about when men fight and they bump into a woman and cause a miscarriage they should be "FINED" for it and pay the husband but it is not considered manslaughter. It then goes on to say if other damage happened you would have to pay for the damage done life for life which is to say unlike if you cause a miscarriage.

Reading the JPS translation actually now I am more confused. Artscroll defines it as a fatality and the problem with this is well then what does eye for eye have to do with a fatality as you have to remember it only says one hebrew word before life for live eye for eye which the damage definition makes more sense and actually Artscroll is being dishonest here as this word doesn't mean fatality from what I remember.

In fact I THINK IT IS SAYING that it is wrong as the woman could function without the fetus without any disability but you just aborted a potential life with this miscarriage although it is not manslaughter.

So both are wrong injuring the fetus or another part of the body although it is not manslaughter or a type of tort if happened by accident.

A woman shouldn't do this because you are not allowed to cut up your own body as God gave you your body. If you want to cut your finger because it reminds of you of something bad you can't do this.

In fact no normal person would do this. Sadly in normal times no woman would want to abort their fetus. The whole reason I think the bible views at as such a serious sin rape and adultery with a married woman is a man could have another man raise and pay for his child if he gets the woman pregnant. We don't want the woman to have to work against her body to cause a miscarriage at best. This is to protect all the parties as a man wouldn't want her wife pregnant with another man's child even because of rape that it isn't the woman's fault that they decide to give it up for adoption but if adultery obviously the woman doesn't care for her husband to raise another man's child and that is just a horrible thing for a woman to do to a man.

Sadly today though some women view their own body and getting pregnant as preventing from focusing on a job and/or a career. Sandra Day O'Connor has said this that a pregnancy could interfere with a job. It is leading woman to do unnatural actions which I think is the biggest reason today this plus just using men and if we really wanted to stop this issue of this unnatural aborted your own fetus in your own body I do think the issue of feminism and unbiblical views of male-female relations is causing this in MOST cases.

Which is why the whole abortion issue is just a wedge issue IMO that the people's ideas have no effect. In fact it has been mixed in with feminism as Susan B. Anthony is who many woman use as a good example on this issue when she felt marriage was a "luxury" only for some. It is more about worshiping their own body
which it is the issue of hating men that puts women in these situation that a pregnancy would seem as something they have to end because they have to work and show those men that they can do everything a man can.

And again in my own view it is not considered murder (although it clearly is wrong to do as cutting up any other part of your body from what I understand) except maybe late term abortion which as far as I know they actually do take the fetus out and murder the baby. Anyway that could add to this please do!!

Although I do wonder why the bible doesn't mention this evil as it does mention Jewish people should not give their child to molech even though it is unnatural to sacrifice your own son or daughter but people can become very evil.

The bible reading of Exodus Chapters 21-24 Part I: The rights of a woman.

Exodus (21:7-11)

I do apologize for being a week behind as this was read 9 days ago.

This weeks reading is very interesting however and 4 different area's I wanted to discuss.

Firstly, is the rights of a woman that are discussed in Exodus 21:7-11. It discusses that if a woman is sold to you because was poor and she in not pleasing in your eyes you can't treat her like you would treat a man and you can't sell her but have to let her be redeemed. That is the JPS tanach translation which according to Nehemiah Gordon. Wondering what the difference is in reality with any of the translations. If people think this doesn't go on today sadly it does in countries like North Korea and other very poor countries and clearly the torah recognizes a woman being vulnerable when she has a family who is poor and has no connections.

Secondly, it talks about the rights of a woman if he marries a second wife that he has to give her food, clothing, and conjugal rights which would obviously apply to her first wife I would think. According to Artscrol it is sexual intimacy which I'm not sure what conjugal rights means. Does that mean general proper relations between husband and wife as that what is seems to be defined as according to the dictionary. Artscroll definition is very narrow. So if you feed, cloth and have sexual intimacy but nothing else that is ok. Shouldn't there be some kind of emotional connection.

Also there are times when sexual intimacy may be hard because of tough times and of course the purpose of is to bring children into the world if the woman is in that portion of her life and not just for pleasure which is wrong for both men and women but maybe that is why if a man can't do this and have more children he shouldn't marry a second woman.

What exactly does conjugal rights mean? Just wondering as I read a short definition.

Of course the EEOC makes it hard for men to fulfill their obligations.

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Michael Savage on Egypt.

I mostly agree although I do think that Savage overplays Mubarak a bit much although clearly what will take him place will not be better. I also agree on some of his other shows about it that this is not "spontaneous".

And some if not most of the rioters are career criminals like in many of these cases.

Will have a few posts up tommorow. Here is one post on a debate on LASIK.

I am off during the day tomorrow as I have had a couple of jobs for this tax season which I started last week.

Here is a video of former head of FDA Robert Waxler with a debate with Slade who now feels that approving LASIK was a mistake which I am glad I found out as at one point I was considering it and use to get stuff in the mail from a LASIK company known as LASIK plus. They make it sound like it is even better then the normal LASIK which is just to over-hype it although I have never received anything for them in a long time.

When I am listening to this guy Slade he really seems disingenuous. Just look at him. He sounds a lot like Bill Clinton when he was lying. 

I give credit to Waxler for admitting he was wrong although he no longer works for the FDA and the FDA is still doing nothing and downplaying the problems of LASIK. In fact the FDA according to one of the comments in this video is covering up for someone who was injured by LASIK. Clearly it is a case of confluct of interest as the people saying LASIK is ok are those who profit from it and this includes those in the military as well as I did read that Pat Tillman the football who was killed in friendly fire the person who killed has the PRK eye surgery and had hazy vision  which has similar problems to LASIK except for the flap problems.

I wish over time I could reduce my prescription from the -5 it is now in my better eye as my eye doctor gave me a pair slightly less then fell strength by about .5 which is at 4.5 as he does do that although I have my full prescription pair too but they are very expensive as both pairs were over $200. Which you see reading glasses for nothing and it is the same thing except it isn't high index and it is a plus lens instead of a minus lens.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Started my job yesterday.

Worked from 6PM-11PM. Went OK. Was just dong some QuickBooks work. Dong a lot of typing.