Saudia Arabia: Can’t Pay Its Bills, Yet Funds War on Yemen

By Robert Fisk, The Independent, September 12, 2016

Almost exactly a year after Salman bin Albdulaziz Al Saud, king of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and head of the House of Saud, left his millionaire’s mansion near Cannes with his 1,000 servants to continue his vacation in Morocco, the kingdom’s cash is not flowing so smoothly for the tens of thousands of sub-continental expatriates sweating away on his great building sites.

Almost unreported outside the Kingdom, the country’s big construction magnates–including that of the Binladen group–have not been paid by the Saudi government for major construction projects, and a portion of the army of Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan and other workers have received no wages, some of them for up to seven months.

Indian and Pakistani embassies approached the Saudi government, pleading that their workers should be paid. Economists point out that the authorities have been overwhelmed by the collapse of oil prices. They usually prefer not to mention something at which the rest of the world remains aghast: deputy crown prince and defence minister Mohamed bin Salman’s wasteful and hopeless war in Yemen. Since the king’s favourite son launched this preposterous campaign against the Houthis last year, supporting the internationally recognized Yemeni president against Shia Muslim rebels, aircraft flown by Saudi and Emirati pilots (aided by British technical “experts” on the ground) have bombed even more hospitals, clinics and medical warehouses than America has destroyed in Serbia and Afghanistan combined since 1999.

The result? A country with 16 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves, whose Aramco oil company makes more than $1bn a day and now records a budget deficit of $100bn, cannot pay its bills. At first, the Yemen fiasco was called “Operation Decisive Storm”, which–once it proved the longest and least decisive Arab “storm” in the Middle East’s recent history–was changed to “Operation Restore Hope”. And the bombing went on, just as it did in the pre-”hope” “storm”, along with the help of the UK’s “experts”. No wonder the very same deputy crown prince Mohamed announced this year that state spending on salaries would be lowered, yet individual earnings would rise.

In Pakistan, whose soldiers make up a large number of the “Saudi” armed forces, there has been outrage, parliamentarians are asking why three Saudi companies have not paid salaries for eight months, refusing even to provide food for their employees. In some cases, the Pakistanis have paid their own nationals for food supplies.

In Saudi Arabia itself, the government seems unable to cope with the crisis. The Arab News says that 31,000 Saudi and other foreign workers have lodged complaints with the government’s labour ministry over unpaid wages. On one occasion, the Indian consulate and local Indian expatriates brought food to the workers so that their people should not starve. The overall figure that the government debt to the construction companies may be billions of dollars.

Embassy staff from the Philippines, France and many countries in the Middle East, have raised the problems with the Saudi government. Typical of their responses has been that of Saudi Oger which said it had been “affected by current circumstances [sic] which resulted in some delays in delays in fulfilling our commitments to our employees”.

The Saudi government insisted the company paid its employees. An official of the company made the extraordinary statement that “the company’s situation is unstable due to the scrapping [sic] of many of its projects it was to execute,” Meanwhile, workers at United Seemac construction company are complaining they have not been paid for months–or even granted permission to leave the country. Some had apparently not been paid for more than a year and a half. Unlike the big companies such as Binladen and Oger, these men–and they are indeed mostly men–are consumed into the smaller employees. “All the attention is on the big companies–it’s easy to ignore us because we are not so many people.”

All in all, a dodgy scenario in our beloved monarchy-dictatorship, whose war against the Shia Houthis–and the Shia Hezbollah, the Shia/Alawite regime in Damascus and Iran–is unending.

Read More

A 350-year-old method to get people to change their minds

Olivia Goldhill, Quartz, September 11, 2016

The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for Pascal’s Wager which, in the first formal use of decision theory, argued that believing in God is the most pragmatic decision. But it seems the French thinker also had a knack for psychology. As Brain Pickings points out, Pascal set out the most effective way to get someone to change their mind, centuries before there was any formal study of persuasion:

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Pascal added:

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

“One of the first things you have to do to give someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already staked out,” he says. “If I immediately start to tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position in a way that allows co-operation.”

Markman also supports Pascal’s second persuasive suggestion. “If I have an idea myself, I feel I can claim ownership over that idea, as opposed to having to take your idea, which means I have to explicitly say, ‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.’ Not everybody wants to do that,” he adds.

Read More

Roger Stone: Hillary In Meltdown Mode,

Read More

SixPence None The Richer - Trust

Read More

The Fall of Hillary Clinton

Read More

Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition

http://creation.com/creation-days-and-orthodox-jewish-tradition
by Paul James-Griffiths

After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers? (Of course, one should be cautious to distinguish between real exegesis of the Word of God, which must always overrule the ‘traditions of men’ [Mark 7:13], and we’ll see some examples. Although not covered here, it applies especially to modern Judaic revisionism of the Messianic passages after the rise of Christianity.1)

On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed in the 5th century AD.2

Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.

I turned to Rabbi Abraham Ben Meir Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1167) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

In fact, in the preface it says, “Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.” Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal, imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological mysticism known as the Kabbala.


Figure 1. The first word of Genesis. Its first letter (on the right) is open only at the front, indicating that it is pointless trying to consider a time before the beginning.

But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, “One day refers to the movement of the sphere.” This shows that the common skeptical objection “how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created” was solved in principle centuries ago. The ‘sphere’ referred to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its followers promoted a ‘flat earth’.3 But now we would say that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.

The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, “The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet …”.4 This shows that they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day, as opposed to ‘appearing’ as many long-agers, e.g. Hugh Ross, claim. There is a perfectly good word for appear (ra’ah), e.g. when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). But it is not used here.

I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days.

In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day! But here they delved way beyond the information in the text. The Talmud says, “In the first hour his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second it was kneaded into a shapeless mass; in the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into him …”. But on Day 6, God created all the animals and brought them to Adam to name, then created Eve (Genesis 2:18–24).
In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day.

However, the Talmud errs more seriously when it claims that in the twelfth hour Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.5 Creation was still ‘very good’ at the end of Day 6, so the Fall of both Satan and the first couple must have happened after Creation Week. It can’t have been more than a few days, because Adam and Eve were told to reproduce (Genesis 1:28), and, being physically perfect, they would have been fertile and unlikely to disobey.

The Rabbis who have compiled this commentary on Genesis write, “The Sages however, tell us explicitly (Yalkut, Tehillim [Psalms] 49; Midrash; Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 11) that all the events related here—[creation of man, Fall, etc.] including the birth of Cain and Abel [Tosaf. Sanhedrin 38b excludes Abel; see Maharsha ad. loc.] occurred on the very first day of Adam’s creation”.5 This is also wrong, because Cain’s conception occurred after they had fallen and were expelled from Eden (Genesis 4:1).

We are even told that the ancient Rabbis did not bother to debate about the literal days so much as the actual month in a solar year when the world was made! The commentary says, “It appears that the ancients referred to Tishrei [September/October] as the first month, for in it creation was completed.”6

Search as I might, I could not find any reference to a day (Hebrew yôm) in Genesis 1 meaning any more than a literal 24-hour period. Some of the Rabbis did debate about Genesis 2:4, which says, ‘This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.’ However, in this case, yôm is prefixed by the preposition be, so beyôm, and was just an idiom for ‘when’. The days in Genesis 1 had no preposition, and had the phrase ‘evening and morning’ and a number, which are always indicators of ordinary days everywhere else in the Old Testament. None of the rabbis tried to juggle this ‘day’ (in Genesis 2:4) to suit pagan philosophy (the Greek philosophers held to a long-ages understanding). Instead, most of them correctly took ‘day’ here to mean ‘at the time when’ creation took place.7

There was a popular prophetic understanding of a ‘day’ meaning the coming of the Messiah at the end of the world, but this had nothing to do with creation itself. The Talmud says, “Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. … it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.”8
I discovered a stubborn refusal to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Rabbis calculated these six thousand years by basing them on the six literal days of creation. They reasoned that one literal day of creation prophetically referred to a thousand years of history.9 This reasoning was the traditional approach of most of the early Church Fathers, too.10

A number of old-earthers, including Hugh Ross, have misrepresented their teachings and claimed that they believed in thousand-year creation days, which as we saw above is not what they taught. Rather, they regarded the creation days as corresponding to, not equal to, thousand-year periods of earth history, with the seventh day corresponding to the millennium.11

Turning to some of the more modern Jewish scholars, I discovered a stubborn refusal to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. Professor Ginsberg had this to say:
“There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation of the expression ‘day’?. On the contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively demands that ‘yôm’? should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word ‘day’? in common parlance, i.e. as a natural day.”12

Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13

My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal. As I left the London School of Jewish studies and passed a Jewish newsagent on the way back to the tube (London Underground train), I glanced at the Jewish Chronicle. It was dated in the year 5,760 since creation. The Rabbis calculated this date 4,000 years after the event, and a lot of information was missing at the time. With modern knowledge of post-biblical chronology, we now know they were about 250 years short.

But even so, it is roughly 6,000 years ago with no thought of millions or billions of years. This shows that they must have accepted a straightforward understanding of the creation days in Genesis 1 and the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11.

I smiled and disappeared into the bustle of the London rush hour.

Related Articles
What was the ancient Jewish view of creation?
Hebrew scholar affirms that Genesis means what it says!
How long were the days of Genesis 1?
Genesis is history!
The days of Creation: A semantic approach
On literary theorists’ approach to Genesis 1: Part 1
On literary theorists’ approach to Genesis 1: Part 2
Problems in interpreting Genesis: Part 1
Problems in methods of interpretation—Genesis 1–11: Part 2
Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Further Reading
Who wrote Genesis?
Does yom with a number always refer to 24-hour days?
The seven-day cycle
The authority of Scripture

References and notes

For evidence about how they were historically understood, see Fruchtenbaum, A.G., Messianic Christology, Ariel Ministries, 1998.
The Talmud comprises the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah was oral tradition, which was specifically what Jesus referred to as the ‘traditions of men’ (Mark 7:13). The Mishnah was written down in the 2nd century AD. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah completed in the 5th century. There are actually two Talmuds, but when most people say ‘the Talmud’, they mean the more comprehensive Babylonian Talmud rather than the Jerusalem one.
See also the articles under, Does the Bible really teach a flat earth?
Ezra, I., Commentary on the Pentateuch, Genesis (Bereshit), translated and annotated by Strickman H.N. and Silver A.M., Menorah Publishing Co., New York, USA, p. 33, 1999.
Translation and commentary by Klotowitz R.M., Overviews by Scherman, R.N., Bereishis, Genesis: A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources, vol.1 (a); Art Scroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publications Ltd., p. 113, 1977.
Ref. 5, p. 249.
Ref. 5, p. 87.
Shachter, J., Freedman, H. and Epstein, I., Talmud: Sanhedrin, The Soncino Press, London, 97a and 97b, 1987.
However, this passage (Psalm 90:4, cf. 2 Peter 3:8) is really teaching that God is outside of time, by contrasting a short and long period of time: a day and a millennium. Note that the comparison also includes ‘like a watch in the night’, but no one tries to claim that a shift of night watch duty had any parallel with any millennia.
Examples: Irenaeus (Heresies 5:28:3); Hippolytus (Commentary on Daniel 4); Methodius (Fragments 9); Lactantius (The Divine Institutes 7:14); Augustine (City of God 20:7).
Note that CMI is not hereby taking a stand on eschatology, but merely reporting what early commentators believed, and correcting a common deceptive argument.
Ginsberg; cited in: Wiseman P.J., Creation Revealed in Six Days, Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., p. 22, 1948. For a critique by a linguist of Wiseman’s ‘days of revelation’ error, see Taylor, C.V., Days of Revelation or Creation?
Sarna, N.M., The JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, USA, p. 8, 1989. 

Read More

Chris Tomlin - Amazing Grace

Read More

Video of Hillary Collapsing That Is Being Censored

Read More

Healer | Kari Jobe

Read More

O Ocaso da Vida

Compilação
[The Sunset of Our Lives]
http://anchor.tfionline.com/pt/post/o-ocaso-da-vida/

Ó amigos que hoje se encontram,
No lindo dia com o sol a brilhar,
Eles me chamam a seguir
Os passos que estiveram a trilhar;
Deixaram para trás sua armadura,
Sua corrida terrena terminaram;
Guardaram a fé com paciência
E a coroa de vida ganharam.
Eles chamam gentilmente.
Docemente me chamam a seguir,
E vejo por entre as sombras
Abençoadas luzes de meu lar a luzir.

—Fanny Crosby

*

Eu acho que talvez o Senhor queira que passemos mais tempo sozinhos preparando para deixar esta terra e ir para o céu. Mais tempo em comunhão com Ele, refletindo sobre nossas vidas e vendo o que realizamos; pensando e orando muito sobre se estamos fazendo o nosso melhor para o Senhor, e orando sobre o que mais poderíamos fazer.

Observamos o pôr do sol e pensamos no pôr do sol da nossa vida; vemos o amanhecer e pensamos no amanhecer do amanhã. Às vezes nos perguntamos qual será o nosso último amanhecer. Às vezes nos perguntamos se este é o último e se temos feito tudo que podemos, e se Ele vai dizer: “Bem está, querido filho!”

Quando você vê o pôr do sol, se pergunta se fez o que podia hoje. E ao ver o sol nascer, se pergunta se vai fazer todo o possível amanhã.

O sol nascerá amanhã, sim amanhã,
O sol na sua glória espera por mim;
O sol nascerá amanhã, sim amanhã,
Nascerá com Jesus por toda eternidade.

—Slim Whitman

Não haverá mais tristeza, então, obrigado, Senhor! Não haverá mais doença, tristeza, dor ou morte! Não haverá mais pôr do sol, apenas o nascer do sol para nós no Céu.

Realmente o ajuda a ter as prioridades corretas e perceber o que é importante e o que não é. Acho que, em parte, é o Senhor nos preparando para morrer, porque isso é algo que todo o mundo terá de enfrentar, em um certo sentido, a sós com o Senhor ou com um de seus emissários. Graças a Deus não temos que enfrentar a morte sozinhos. Eles costumavam cantar uma antiga canção:

Não terei que cruzar o Jordão sozinho.
Jesus morreu pelos meus pecados.
Quando a escuridão eu vir enfim,
Ele estará esperando por mim.
Não terei que cruzar o Jordão sozinho.

—Thomas Ramsey

Seria ótimo se o ocaso de uma vida fosse tão lindo como o ocaso na criação de Deus. Seria maravilhoso se pudéssemos morrer de forma tão bela como o amanhecer. — De maneira tão linda, graciosa e tranquila, com algumas doces palavras de despedida, algumas palavras finais.—David Brandt Berg

*

William Nelson, general da União na guerra Civil, foi consumido pelas batalhas em Kentucky quando, em uma briga, foi atingido com um tiro mortal no peito. Ele havia enfrentado muitas batalhas, mas o golpe fatal veio enquanto ele estava relaxando com seus homens. E ele foi pego totalmente despreparado.

Quando os homens subiram as escadas correndo para ajudá-lo, o general tinha apenas uma frase: “Chame um clérigo; quero ser batizado.” Ele nunca teve tempo quando era adolescente ou jovem. Nunca teve tempo quando era soldado nem depois que se tornou general. E o seu ferimento não parou ou abrandou a guerra. Tudo à sua volta ficou praticamente inalterado, com exceção das prioridades do general. A poucos minutos de adentrar a eternidade, a única coisa que lhe importava era a preparação para a eternidade. Ele queria ser batizado. Trinta minutos depois ele estava morto.[1]

*

Quando Corrie ten Boom do famoso livro The Hiding Place [O Esconderijo] era uma garotinha na Holanda, ela se deparou pela primeira vez com a morte depois de visitar a casa de um vizinho que havia morrido. Ela ficou impressionada com o pensamento de que um dia seus pais também iriam morrer. O pai de Corrie a consolou com suas palavras de sabedoria. “Corrie, quando nós vamos à Amsterdam, quando é que lhe dou os bilhetes?”

“Logo antes de entrarmos no trem,” foi sua resposta.

“Exatamente,” disse seu pai, “e o nosso sábio Pai no céu sabe quando vamos precisar das coisas. Não queira correr na frente dEle, Corrie. Quando chegar a hora de morrer, você encontrará a força que precisa no fundo do seu coração bem na hora.”[2]

*

Um amigo meu visitou Portugal há alguns anos em uma turnê evangelística. Ele ficou encantado em encontrar muitos crentes que eram “gigantes espirituais”, entre eles um missionário da Grã-Bretanha chamado Eric Barker. Ele tinha passado mais de 50 anos em Portugal pregando o Evangelho, muitas vezes em condições adversas.

Durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, a situação tornou-se tão crítica que Barker foi aconselhado a enviar a sua esposa e oito filhos para a Inglaterra por segurança. Sua irmã e seus três filhos também foram evacuados no mesmo navio. Apesar de seus parentes queridos terem sido forçados a partir, ele ficou para trás para continuar o trabalho. No dia do Senhor após a sua saída, ele estava diante de sua congregação e disse: “Acabei de receber a notícia de que toda a minha família chegou em segurança ao lar!” Ele então começou com o culto como de costume.

Mais tarde, o pleno significado de suas palavras foi revelado a todos. Pouco antes da reunião, ele soube que um submarino tinha torpedeado o navio, e todos a bordo se afogaram. Ele sabia que, porque todos eram crentes, haviam chegado ao “porto mais desejado”. Apesar de estar avassalado com a dor, ele foi capaz de elevar-se acima das circunstâncias, pela graça de Deus, e continuar a servir o Senhor. Saber que sua família estava desfrutando da imensa felicidade do Céu era o consolo de seu coração.—Henry G. Bosch

*

D. L. Moody costumava dizer: “Um dia vocês vão ler no jornal que D. L. Moody do Leste de Northfield está morto. Não acreditem em nem uma palavra! Nesse momento eu estarei mais vivo do que nunca!”[3]

Publicado pelo Âncora em agosto de 2016.

[1] Christianity Today, 1994.
[2] Today in the Word.
[3] The Wycliffe Handbook of Preaching and Preachers.

Read More