betsy

I was giving my take on the Jesus t-sthirt incident. The original post, I guess.

Who says there's anything wrong with socialism in theory? It's when it's controlled by greedy or corrupt people....that's when it becomes a problem. Anyway, helping the poor, kindness, etc.....those aren't confined to political ideologies.

Well in this incident, it's the schoolboard that made a major boo-boo by their bullying attempt to stifle freedom (Religion and Expression), coinciding with the anniversary of the Charter of Rights to boot! They missed a golden opportunity to explain about rights and freedom! They could've taught the whiners how to roll their eyes over a message they don't agree with! Then, instead of admitting they were wrong, and instead of showing a positive example to everyone by apologising to Swinimer - or to any child for that matter if we caused them some grief or offense - they tried to backtrack with this so-called "dialogue." Well, it's the schoolboard - more than anyone else - who needs counselling and training.

Dear Rue, one of the basic rules to reading and understanding the Bible is not to quote-mine or pick-out a verse here and a verse there. You've got to read the whole chapter to see the whole premise and so as not take it out of context. There's the matter too of understanding the culture of the time....word meanings....history...etc.., A Bible with bible-study footnotes will be most helpful. I usually use KJV or NKJ. I'm still learning....and just trying to do my part, in my own way of spreading the Good News.

How can you? Who can feel the love when one is so proccupied with rebuffing that love? How can one feel any love if one's determined to keep her heart closed?

For those of you interested in this co-called pagan-influence, here's a long-read article. "Christianity was not influenced by paganism A review and response to claims that Christianity was influenced by paganism and other religions. By G.R. Konig Written Aug. 15, 2006 Revised Oct. 29, 2006 About-Jesus.org There is no shortage of scholars and writers who claim that there are striking similarities between Christianity and paganism, or that Christianity was influenced by paganism. G.R. Konig is a Christian who believes in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Christianity has been accused of borrowing from paganism virtually every important detail in the New Testament, including the virgin birth, the baptism, the Eucharist, the offer of salvation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The implication is that Christianity does not come from God, but from a stew of pagan ideas and concepts. Many of the claims grew out of the 19th and 20th century works of Franz Cumont, James Frazer, and Kersey Graves, who continue to be influential among scholars and writers today who continue a tradition of: 1. Using Christian terminology to describe pagan traditions, 2. Then remarking on the alleged similarities, 3. And then claiming that Christianity copied from paganism. With this as an approach, any ancient tradition involving water could be described as a "baptism," any pagan artwork depicting food and beverage could be characterized as a "Eucharist," any tradition involving an unusual birth of a pagan deity could be framed as a "miraculous birth" or as a "virgin birth," and any deity related to the agricultural cycle could be made into examples of "saviors" who "died" and were "resurrected." Many novels, books, magazines and web sites have made and repeated allegations that the New Testament writers borrowed ideas from the ancient mythologies of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon and India. The most commonly cited examples involve the traditions of Adonis, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithras and Osiris, that these pre-Christian deities supposedly had much in common with Jesus Christ. This article will review some of these ancient traditions, showing that they have not influenced the theology of Christianity or the "creation" of Jesus." http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm

Refer back to your Bible and read Psalm 58. Not just part of it. All of it. Same with Proverbs. Here's one study explanation for that. "In this supposed contradiction, a portion of a psalm attributed to David (Psalm 58:10-11) is thought to oppose a general proverb in “the words of the wise” (Proverbs 24:17-18). Before concluding that these passages contradict one another, one should consider how they differ from one another. Here are some examples: they were written at different times and under different circumstances. The psalm describes what “will” happen, the proverb is counsel about what one should do. The psalm speaks of “vengeance,” the proverb speaks of rejoicing/gladness at someone else’s downfall. The psalm is specifically about unjust leaders (cf. Psalm 58:1-2), the proverb is about people in general, whether good or bad. From these examples one can see how difficult it is to line up the passages for a direct comparison. The supposed contradiction does not take any of this into account. Now, regarding the psalm, it is important to note that the rejoicing in this case is a reaction to God’s decisive judgment of the wicked. It does not describe personal revenge but the feeling of vindication one experiences when a wicked person receives deserved justice. The psalm describes punishment unto death (n.b., “blood”), which would prevent the wicked from attacking the celebrants. The proverb does not assume someone’s death but merely his stumbling. The proverb urges a person not to take joy in part because the enemy has the opportunity to rise up again. In other words, suspend the party, the war is not over! On top of this counsel, the proverb notes that the Lord has a habit of helping the downtrodden. Your rejoicing over the enemy (remember that the enemy in this case could be either a good guy or a bad guy) may compel the Lord to have compassion on your enemy---an ever worsening circumstance for you. Principle: When comparing passages, do not just consider how they say things that are similar but also how they speak differently. Watch for general and specific features." http://lutheranwriter.blogspot.ca/2011/12/silly-bible-contradiction-26-rejoicing.html

Well sorry for the long delay. There is no contradiction. There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The best way to understand the creation story is to see Genesis chapter one as an overview of all God did to create the heavens and the earth. In chapter two, the story zooms in to look at day six and study those events in a more detailed fashion. It's a technique of storytelling used even today by many movies. The film will start by saying something like "This is a story of two people. They met and fell in love. But then they lost each other. But after a while they finally found their way back to true love again. How they did so is the beginning of our story..." The movie will then show exactly how that all takes place. The creation of man is written in the same way. Genesis 1:26-27 says, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." From the General to the Specific Once we get to chapter two, verse four we read, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of (8) dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." As you can see, verse four is a transitional verse. It starts, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." much like the "How they did so is the beginning of our story..." line above. Chapter two talks about God planting a garden toward the East - and growing plants there. This doesn't mean that there weren't plants in other parts of the world; it just means the focus of the story has shifted to man and his situation now. Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con005.asp#ixzz1vDfuhMfM

Your "discussion" has now ceased to be a discussion. Your responses had deteriorated into adhominems like..."that's laughable," "you don't know what you're talking about," and just simply insisting that evolution is true. Well ladida - so, is the tooth fairy! You've also completely ignored my arguments, including the articles...and, you've got nothing new to say. You're stubbornly digging in and hiding behind obtuseness. And I won't budge....because I know I'm right. So....really, what's the point.

He might've been although how'd he known about uranus or the milky way? That doesn't make any sense at all. As I've said, these ancient people wouldn't have known about the atoms...and must've been puzzled themselves as to the meaning of what they've written. Besides, the verse states, God's creation of "the universe." Then, thousands of years later, along came science. Science found out that we have these building blocks called atoms. Therefore, this verse had become literal in meaning. Uttered in the right context. Supported by science. Hebrews 11:3 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Yes you're accepting the initial premise - a finished creation - however, you're trying to negate it by using a supposition. That's all there is to it, Kimmy. No matter how hard you try....that's jusy the way it is. You can't contradict a fact with a supposition. As supported by the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing is limiting God's ability. Nothing is restraining God....after all, He is God. Whatever He decides to do....that's up to Him. He can do as He wishes....as He pleases. But of course, that's me speaking through faith. Aren't we getting too melodramatic here? Who did I condemn for saying they may be allegorical??? Some parts are shown to be literal by science. (Hydrological cycle, "Stretching" heavens, Mountains and trenches in the sea, atoms, sanitary practices, disease prevention and public health, blood, human body made from dust, et.,) Some - like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection - are taken literally by faith. I'm saying that science supports the Bible - and I've given the listed facts (most, if not all are supported by science). We also learn from the interpretations of religious scholars which ones are allegorical - example is the mustard seed. Dr Craig has invested 25 years in research and studies in defense of Christianity. His work is dedicated to defend Christianity - and he's given Christians the tool and resources. Why shouldn't any Christian involved in debates use the resources he's providing, after all that's what they're there for? For years, new atheists have been using the "resources" given by Dawkins and contemporaries. That Dawkins turned out to be faulty and unreliable - well, that's the problem of his fans. Anyway, your usage of "lemming" is out of context. Posters who parrot and repeat statements and claims made by others without giving any thought as to the credibility and accuracy of said statements....are whom I call, lemmings. One example: Usage of "Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pie-in -the-sky!" Like, c'mon! Why'd everybody have to use the exact phrase? And as it turned out - the coined title doesn't even jive correctly with belief in God! And yes, they can't think for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be repeating a faulty line. I bet there are some phrases or arguments in the God Delusion that's been bandied and used too! I don't blame you! Suddenly, nobody's trying to be associated with Dawkins on this forum! That includes the poster who - quite sometime ago - was so awed by Dawkin's "meme" bs! Well, good for you! And I mean it. Three cheers for Kimmy! Ehhh? FYI, I'm "beating" Dawkins - and this founded new atheists - for starting a war on Christianity! I'm not at war with atheism. If they've been told about the good news, have been invited to come and join Christ, and yet they stubbornly refuse....well, we don't waste time on them. They can believe whatever they want! You can't force faith. For some atheists....the time will come when they will seek out and join Christ. That's true. That's why you're not the lost sheep that's referred to by Jesus.....for how can He lose someone who's never belonged to Him in the first place. Yes. These are the ones! Our lost brothers and sisters. They have their own reasons for turning their backs on Christ.....and I think it appropriate to say that Christians would love to seek and welcome them back, that they may find rest and peace in Him. Cheers!

Bumped.

Your responses to all our debates speak fro themselves. AND, that's what happens when you stubbornly quibble and despite your opponent's request, you wouldn't state clearly where you stand. See what happens? Next time, don't hesitate to say that you are a Christian. Just like the song from Jesus Culture: SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

Why, isn't common ancestry our bone of contention???

and here's a quote from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution That was stated in 1985. Afetr a century or so..... ...still nothing new at present time, except that there's now more aggressive and loud denunciation of evolution. And some atheists have abandoned ship and either converted to Christianity or become Deist. Of course, there's also Dawkins doing the chicken dance and had gone hiding. Atheists cling to Neo-Darwinism, because to them it does not require a Creator. Atheists scientists try their best to make up for lack of evidences to evolution by hypothesising, making unsubstantiated claims and to some, doing downright fraud, just so they can prop up what's tantamounting to be a hoax. I'm not contesting natural selection. In fact, if I'm not mistaken - are you ready for this? - there seems to be an indication of natural selection (breeding) somewhere in the Old Testament. Let me think where I've seen that....or if I'm confusing it with something else. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution Why did you even have to bring up natural selection? You're all over the place. So why don't you rebutt the articles and sources I've posted? Especially the last one about evolution's best argument getting torpedoed. The valiant yet feeble attempt to rebutt that article got them trying to resuscitate the 29 so-called evidences of Theobold - which btw, also got torpedoed. Speaking of dishonest means....you don't want to go there. What about the Fundamentalist Evolutionist Preacher - Dawkins -_ and his unsubstantiated claims that another evolutionist, Lewontin, exposed? These are all in those topics mentioned above. These are serious accusations. Support your claims. Cite.

Correction. You misunderstand. It is science that's going against Neo-Darwinist evolution. The newer details were clearly explained in Creation, Video Debates and Interviews. The topic Darwin - although old topic now - still holds some points. Correction. The box is Neo-Darwinism. Atheists has no choice but to try to cling to it. They don't have the option of entertaining the possibility of Intelligent Design. To do so would mean that they're no longer atheists. To accept the possibility of a Creator means they've become agnostics.

To people in ancient time - before science discovered atoms - not visible with the naked eyes is exactly the same as being "invisible!" They don't know that atoms exist! That alone adds weight to the significance of the Biblical statement. Like I said, they must be wondering what on earth they meant when they wrote that, or other similar statements that must've sounded like riddles or puzzles to them! In fact, that's the whole point! The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, after thousands of years, it turned out science supports the Bible!

I had stated it numerous times. I'm arguing with practically the same people here - so I don't need to specify each and every time. In fact, here is a very clear statement of view. My response to Pinko. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=60 Coming from you....on the same token, what took you so long to straighten the record and specifically explain that you are a Christian??? Especially when the person you're debating with - me! - had been asking you pointedly to be specific with your position. That should be clear to you that obviously I need some clarification! You kept repeating, "well, I already said it before....!" Why would I waste my breath asking you repeatedly if I know?? Somethings in your previous posts didn't tally to give the impression that you are a Christian! I even mistook you to be not only an atheist, but a new atheist at that! All you did in your previous posts was quibble about your belief. Stating that, you've "got your faith in God," is not exactly the same as admitting you are a Christian! You could be referring to the god Tuktoobuktoo for all I know. Demonstrated??? Not macro-evolution! You've gotta be kidding me! The fact that it is still debatable whether you are indeed a christian or not! Trying to discredit the Bible - to the point of being quite obtuse about it - is really one hard evidence against you. Then, there's also the fact that you seem to be rooting for atheistic beliefs while you're trying to downplay the significance of the Bible. Check these previous posts: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=30Take note how you gave atheists some justification or excuse: "They don't say that there was nothing, or something, beofre the Big BVang, but rather that there is no answer yet to this question -" http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=45And yet you're not prepared to do the same for the Bible, by being confident in saying: "Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God, but it has proven that things did not occur the way described in Genesis." Who told you science will never prove the existence of God? How can you be so sure about that? Shouldn't you give the same excuse you've given the atheists - that there is no answer yet? Why would you not only question my Bible facts, but ridicule and downright do your darndest debunking them - that science had proven or supported them - and yet you so readily embrace it for facts that science has proven things did not occur the way they did in Genesis? Your statements are not consistent with your professed christian faith. Your own unclear and confusing previous statements (especially your views about Bible and science) - plus the fact that you were not willing to come right out into the open and declare yourself a Christian - is the reason why you've been mistaken for a non-Christian. Do not blame me for that! EHHH? EHHHHH? I'm lost here.....my mind is reeling. What are you actually saying? In simple English please. Who's claiming to prove the non-existence of God?? But no, the evidence doesn't lead to macro-evolution. Well that's what you think. I also happen to overhear one of my Christian children shouting to the sky, "Thank you MOTHER NATURE for the sun!" Of course I didn't let that pass and asked, "whoa! What do you mean mother nature? Who created nature?" After some quizzing it turned out he learned that from mommy and daddy! These are Christian folks - and I don't doubt them. But like so many Christians who got immersed into secularism - they end up spouting things, the very same things, that earned God's wrath in the the Old Testament! We're not even aware of it. I was like that too....until I started reading the Bible, and found out what exactly are the do's and don'ts. Why do you think God forbade the Jews - in the OT - to marry and intermigle among the heathens? I gave the latest ones. You ignored them. I find it astonishing that you keep discrediting and denying the Bible.....and yet you accept Neo-Darwinism without any qualms - even with no clear evidence to prove with, what more despite evidences that actually kills it! Since you believe Neo-Darwinism, why don't you provide the evidence for it - the irrefutable proof of common ancestry? C'mon. Let's hear it! Can you provide the url for your sources? I don't want simply stating where it came from, like the ones you gave above. I want to be able to verify for myself! So says the person who couldn't bring himself to come right out readily to identify himself as a Christian. Like as if admittance is too painful to do - like a hard lump one can't swallow. I may have said that I follow where scientific evidences lead me - but let me be clear that scientific evidences is not generally required. Like, I firmly believe in the death and Resurrection of Christ. Even though there is no scientific proof of it. I'd like to ask you: Do you? Do you believe in the Virgin birth, and death and Resurrection of Christ? Or do you need science to prove or disprove them?

There is no dishonesty on my part. I've been stating flatly throughout that when I talk about evolution - I'm talking about Neo-Darwinism. It is you who seems to insist in twisting my words around. Or you don't really read what I say. Furthermore, which part of this consistently stated views are so hard to understand? Christians believe in evolution. Micro-evolution. Science is a tool by God to reveal to us what He wants us to know, at His own time and convenience, according to His plan. (and since science is considered as a tool by and a gift from God the following is therefore logical) Christians can follow where the scientific evidences lead. My views can shift, depending on future discoveries (given Noah's Ark as an example). The explanations about Intelligent Designers position - their belief. So, who's actually being dishonest here? If you insist to twist my words around, then why should I bother with you? You're trying to paint me to be what I'm actually not. Like some - perhaps including you - had tried to paint me as a "young earther." Not very unlike as to how you cleverly try to do the same to the Bible, and at the same time you claim to be its "protector." There is no discussion with someone who can twist and distort stated views and statements. That's like arguing with a liar. And yes, Neo-Darwinist evolution is dead! That's the only conclusion that can be drawn. Your best argument has been shotgunned. The only reasons it's still around is due to our secularist society. I think there is more to the actions of learned people who decided to jump ship to Intelligent Design than listening to some opinion here that says "nay"....after all, as you can see in this forum, with most of those argumentative nay-sayers, we're not actually having a rational discussion. The aim is not to rationalize it seems....it's now more into how words can be twisted around.

Your rebutts are missing the point. This is one good example how you're missing or deflecting, or mis-interpreting my point. Never mind my own "assumptions" about atoms. You hedged on this one. Answer this: Do you see atoms with your naked eyes?

Well, you gave a statement that requires facts. How do you know? Just because your neighbor or some Christians say they believe in evolution, does not necessarily mean "less and less" christians believe in Creation. If you really analyze it: rejecting Creation - which I mean to be that everything was/is created by God - means rejecting a Creator. That's why atheists don't accept Intelligent Design. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "evidences" or "science." Intelligent Design requires that a Creator exists. Atheists will never accept that...unless they become agnostics - which means they become skeptics. They come to believe that the existence of God or a god is possible. Once they think and accept that possibility, they're no longer atheists! Well, it's one thing for these groups to state they find evolution to be revealing, but do they specify if it's NEO-DARWINIST evolution they adhere to? Do they adhere to the kind of evolution being promoted by atheists - which of course in their (atheists) own rationale eliminates the existence of God? So what kind of Christian Churches would embrace such thing? Perhaps you need to inquire what exactly they believe in, and question what they exactly mean. Don't forget, Intelligent Design does not reject evolution outright....but they don't require it! They want to follow the scientific evidences. NEO-DARWINIST's position, on the other hand, is very narrow-minded! They've placed themselves in a small box, unwilling to step out and instead, they try to fit or mould everything to their inconclusive "conclusion." Mind you, a Christian Church - can't remember which - actually announced they don't believe in Christ's divinity! I remember that statement caused a lot of controversy and criticisms within that church. So, go figure.

I don't want to waste time. It is therefore, incalculable, to date. That they've had to re-think with Huble (discovering that there were "hidden" stars)...and now rely on Herchel (?)..... You're missing the whole point, my friend. How does a simple man - simple in the sense that his knowledge couldn't have possibly think, let alone imagine, the magnitude of knowledge that science would've shown to man thousands of years into the future - know enough to even make a simple statement that compares the numbers of stars to sand? Why didn't he just look up, and do a quick calculation - he didn't have to be precise - to all the stars he saw above him? The Bible stated simple statements - a description of the Creator and His creation - that described His action of "stretching/stretches the heavens." It is science that says, the universe is expanding. Furthermore, as my science source indicated, the most accurate word to describe the "expanding" universe is that....it is "stretching." Such an uncanny personal assumption, don't you think? Especially when based on 11 or so Biblical verses stating the same thing. Anyway, you are making assumptions in seeing it as metaphor for the sky that is visible - a real "stretching" that is - since whoever stated the incalculable stars didn't calculate what is visible in the sky. Oh yeah? If you are standing at one end of the long bridges (I don't know the name) that connect islands, can you see the "expansion" happenning as the constructors add some more on the other end? Even if you're riding on a rig truck, you can't see if the bridge is broken - let alone "expanding" - until you reach the point when you can see it! The same goes for the atoms and the sphere. You're missing the point. You're grasping at semantics and preciseness - although the descriptions given are too close for comfort - yet failing to understand that all these came from men who didn't have any idea at all that something such as science is going to exist in the future, and support their "assumptions." We're not talking about one or two or three "coincidences" here that turned out to be true! ---------- The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, science supports the Bible. How many times do I have to explain that??? Since I'm not done with the facts yet....why don't you just match the numbers of facts listed so far? C'mon, give one ancient book - as old or older than the Bible - that has 50 science-supported revelations. Thanks for the advice. But you do need to go back and brush up with the basics of Reading and Comprehension.

These have been the most recent arguments I used for Intelligent Design. Below was an excerpt of my response to another poster in Creation. How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument. How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument. How so? Explain how its methods has nothing to do with science. How so? Support your statement. Cite. While I could mention some scientists and famous atheists like Philosopher Anthony Flew - who promptly reversed his position and became Deist, embracing Intelligent Design, your assertion however needs some back-up. Support your statement that less and less Christians are buying into this. Can you show some data? Where did you get your numbers?

Science can and have proven some which can be taken literally. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html But to have used the most accurate word, "stretching" or "stretches," 11 times, by more than one author, in the same context, and relating to creation....written by people who probably didn't even understand what it was they were describing at the time! You could almost see them now - probably scratching their heads and wondering, "what was that all about?" Well, it could be semantics. The following is an answer to the question: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm Here is the verse that was quoted, specifically talking about the creation of the universe. Can you see atoms with your naked eye? Hello? What do you mean by this so-called, "some other person's "science?" http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=346 Here we go again with the litany of ancient places. You mentioned a variety of ancient places/cultures there. Now, can you please cite one single ancient book written by one of the ancient places you mentioned - an ancient book as old or even older than the Bible, which contains as many scientifically proven facts. Well, cite one ancient book! What scientifically proven facts do they have? To an atheist, "so what!" is an expected answer. You will resist at all cost, any evidences given to you. Why shouldn't you resist? Proof of God's existence is the swan song of atheism. well, instead of just calling it a joke...why don't you stretch your neck out a bit and defend your argument with a real argument? Why don't you be like me? I could've just as easily dismissed your response - considering the kind of previous responses I had from you (hello Mr Trilobites, for one) - and yet I rebutted your list one by one. I even corrected your mistakes. Saying, "it'preposterous!" or "it's ridiculous!" or "it's a joke!" is not enough. You gotta have a back-up and explain, why! CREDIBLY. With supporting sources. Personal opinions do not count. You didn't say anything new. You regurgitated the same-old, resurrected the same lame arguments which of course you tried to tweak around so as to make it like new. As you can see, it still got the same fitting answers.

The Bible study notes explains that from 24:8 - 25:4, relates to the ninth Commandment. The concept of fairness is emphasized. 24:17-22, the orphan, stranger and widow were to be dispensed justice and charity alike. The key phrase is: Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there; The Old testamnet insists that the protection of the weak is a duty not only of kings, but also of the whole society. 25:1-3 guarantee the proper exercise of justice to convicted criminals in cases of demanding corporal punishment. Excessive beating would humiliate a man to the level of a beast and thus his dignity would be offended. Forty blows was the maximum number, a figure that occurs also in the Assyrian Code and suggests a widespread custom. 25:4 Animals were to be treated mercifully. Love and kindness were to be shown to all God's creatures. 25:5-10 deal with levirate marriage. Levirate is from the Latin meaning "brother in-law" or "husband's brother." This was not unique with Israel, for the Hittites and Assyrians observed the practice. The Assyrian extended the practice to a betrothed person. (Note Gen 38:1-10 for the ancient practice in Israel) This custom was designed to prevent extinction of the family name and property (cf Num 27 and 36 with the daughters of Zelophehad). Lose his shoe (cf Ruth 4:7, 8). When the woman did this to the man it indicated that the brother had abandoned his responsibility, and therefore deserved the shame symbolized by spitting. 25:13-16. A just weight is a "righteous one," a weight that conforms to the norm. Not only does the law prohibit the use of dishonest weights and measures, but it even prohibits their possession, Israel was urged to avoid tempting situations as well as the actual acts themselves.