Posted on 09/22/2010 8:32:49 PM PDT by Abin Sur
Ishmael isn’t simply one person in the genealogy. He is the beginning of the genealogy. The Bible says that from Ishmael would come a great nation. If he didn’t exist the nation wouldn’t exist. Nation in the biblical sense being a “people” and not an actual country of course. Here is a biblical reference.
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
I didn’t choose Ishmael/Hagar. I was just explaining why someone would. The Bible is clear that Ishmael was a wild man that was never at peace with his brothers.
BTW, the genealogy in the Bible is actually the most accurate of any ever recorded.
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions/Historically.html
1) Mao
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) FDR
4) The founders of the beatnik movement
The local bar really rocked in the sans-George world....
I said not in the particular form it took leading to the USSR — initially Kerensky & co. were in charge of the Russian Revolution and were relatively moderate/democratic. Lenin led the Bolsheviks to seize power most ruthlessly at a time when a less extreme revolution might still have succeeded.
(although the pattern of political revolutions has been to move to the most extreme elements, from Robespierre to Mao, but still, without Lenin I don’t think the Bolsheviks would have ‘achieved’ what they did in 1917-20)
I was under the impression that historians don't consider including people who live for over 900 years in genealogies indicative of accuracy....
There is no secular history from before the flood. There is no record of anyone after the flood living that long. It really doesn’t matter what modern day historians consider accurate. They thought the Bible was inaccurate when it spoke of the Hittites. No one had ever heard of the Hittites before and then after the discovery they realized that the Bible knew something that no one else had record of previously.
Tough one.
Lincoln or Paul.
Ping
Let's assume that the Biblical flood actually occurred
(a rather dubious proposition: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Modern_geology_and_flood_geology)
and did so in 2304 BC +/- 11 years as per Answers In Genesis. Cuneiform records date back to the 34th Century BC, and Egyptian hieroglyphics date back to the 32nd Century BC.
There is no record of anyone after the flood living that long.
Since no one ever has, that's hardly surprising.
It really doesn’t matter what modern day historians consider accurate.
Unless, of course, you wish to understand history.
They thought the Bible was inaccurate when it spoke of the Hittites. No one had ever heard of the Hittites before and then after the discovery they realized that the Bible knew something that no one else had record of previously.
It's one thing to give credence to the Bible when it mentions the existence of another culture...that's plausible. Taking Biblical mythology seriously is quite another thing, given that it's contradicted not only by history but by physics, geology, biology, cosmology...etc.
So in other words, the Bible is accurate except when it is not. :)
Lol your link on flood geology was quite entertaining.
‘Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell’s principle of uniformitarianism’
IOW, we know the flood never happened because the shape of the earth is caused by slow processes over millions of years because things have always been the same.
‘In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism ASSUMES...’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)
The rest of your post is irrelevant, I don't have to picture anything. The southern states would have lived and died based on the free market.
and the purpose of this thread, the gist of my post, isn't about slavery, it's about limited government.
without Lincoln, there is no FDR grabbing more power from the individual to the federal government.
Enjoy your serfdom.
Alleged unconstitutional actions, counselor. Unlike Jefferson Davis, Lincoln had a Supreme Court watching his actions and with but one or two exceptions, none of his acts were ever found to be unconstitutional.
The rest of your post is irrelevant, I don't have to picture anything. The southern states would have lived and died based on the free market.
Your history has some gaps in it. During the four years Davis was in power he controlled the economy, literally nationalized whole industries, and seized private property without compensation. The confederacy was the antithesis of free market.
and the purpose of this thread, the gist of my post, isn't about slavery, it's about limited government.
And your desire to blame all our ills since the rebellion on Abraham Lincoln, justified or not.
without Lincoln, there is no FDR grabbing more power from the individual to the federal government.
Absolute nonsense.
Enjoy your serfdom.
Last time I checked Maryland was still part of the U.S., and deeper into Blue State Land than mine own home of Kansas. Are you anticipating an imminent move abroad to escape serfdom? Or you going to remain in the Peoples Republic of Maryland and sink deeper into serftitude than me?
Nice glossing over the "one or two" actions that were found unconstitutional...long after the war was over, btw. Which include suspension of habeus corpus and arresting judges and legislators.
Don't worry, I'll be out of the people's republik of MD very soon.
You, otoh, have serious issues.
None of your responses to me actually address my point...that Lincoln usurped many powers delegated to the states and individuals in the constitution...which paved the way for FDR's socialist lite policies.
I never held Davis out as an example, I simply stated a fact regarding what Lincoln did. You respond by trying to divert the argument to Davis' policies. That's a different debate.
You are no better than the first year law student we had in our office who told me that my argument that Lincoln ruined individual rights was a racist argument without having any facts to back her statement up. Well, at least you tried to obfuscate by shifting the debate to Davis.
as to my desire to blame out ills on Lincoln - those are your words not mine...if you look at my original statement, I pretty much indicate that I blame both Lincoln and FDR, with the edge going to Lincoln because he came first. However, he had lots of help in his cabinet and a pussy Supreme Court that delayed ruling on the legal challenges until after the war was over. But then when one of the defendants has already arrested sitting judges I guess you can't blame the SCOTUS for being intimidated. (/sarcasm)
Would you be so sangquine if Bush, Clinton or Obama decided to arrest a legislature or a judge that was acting in opposition to one of their policies?
I certainly hope not.
Actually Ex Parte Milligan was an 1865 decision handed down while the war was on. And as you should know, being a lawyer as well as an historian and all, the legality of a number of Lincoln's actions were ruled even earlier in the conflict. The legality of the blockade, for example, was settled by the Prize Cases.
Which include suspension of habeus corpus and arresting judges and legislators.
The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has never been ruled on. And if by legislators you are referring to the arrest of some of the Maryland legislature in the fall of 1861 then what would you expect. They were trying to take Maryland into rebellion which is certainly an illegal act. The few weeks they spent in prison were much less than they deserved, and legal under the conditions in place at the time.
Don't worry, I'll be out of the people's republik of MD very soon.
But I'm guessing you'll still be in serfdom somewhere else in the U.S. You all love to talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, in spite of all your bitching and moaning, you're still here doing nothing to improve the situation other than complaining.
None of your responses to me actually address my point...that Lincoln usurped many powers delegated to the states and individuals in the constitution...which paved the way for FDR's socialist lite policies.
And just how am I supposed to put your opinions to rest? Perhaps if you can state some specifics on just how Lincoln paved the path for FDR I can present some arguments.
I never held Davis out as an example, I simply stated a fact regarding what Lincoln did. You respond by trying to divert the argument to Davis' policies. That's a different debate.
No, what you did say was that the confederacy would have lived and died based on the free market. I merely pointed out that in it's short existence the confederacy lived and died under a big government, centralized, socialistic economy. And that Davis in his own way was more of a statist than Lincoln was. Your belief that it would have suddenly done a 180 and adopted free market, small government model is, frankly, a fantasy.
You are no better than the first year law student we had in our office who told me that my argument that Lincoln ruined individual rights was a racist argument without having any facts to back her statement up. Well, at least you tried to obfuscate by shifting the debate to Davis.
And like that first year law student, we're supposed to accept your version because you said it was true. Because you're a lawyer and self-proclaimed historian. No evidence. No link between Lincoln or FDR. Completely ignoring Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and every president between the two. Sorry to disappoint you.
However, he had lots of help in his cabinet and a pussy Supreme Court that delayed ruling on the legal challenges until after the war was over.
Ignoring for a moment all the rulings handed down during the rebellion, surely you, as an attorney, is aware that the Supreme Court can only take up cases that are brought before them? And rule on actions only after the fact? So what, in your opinion, should the Supreme Court have done that it didn't do?
Would you be so sangquine if Bush, Clinton or Obama decided to arrest a legislature or a judge that was acting in opposition to one of their policies?
Southron hyperbole aside, it would depend on the circumstances and the laws in place at the time. Wouldn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.