Complete aeronautical information including location, runways, navaids, radio frequencies, and FBOs.

Provides road data in two sections: one devoted to planned events, such as construction and detours, and one focusing on the weather related road conditions.

I for one am pretty interested in what the guy experienced because,
crazy as it sounds -- and to me it does sound crazy -- it also sounds
kind of true. I know that's contradictory but any vision (and I'm
assuming that's what he had) would be considered basically nuts.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:
> zach wrote:
> > then why does 1 Tim 3:16 say he was "taken up?"
> >
> > 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He
appeared
> > in a body,
> > was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,
> > was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world,
> > was taken up in glory.
>
>
> I don't quite see the problem. Please explain your question in such a
> way that even I can understand it.
>
> I understand from the RSV, that old manuscripts differ as to the
> wording of Lk. 24:51 (about the risen Jesus leaving his disciples);
> some old manuscripts say "he parted from them" and some add "and was
> carried up into heaven." Also Acts 1:9 uses the words "he was lifted
> up and a cloud took him out of their sight". Acts 1:11 says, "This
> Jesus who was taken from you into heaven". So Luke and Paul both
seem
> to use words like "taken up".
>
> Am I missing something?

I don't recall you were here for the threads the past few weeks on
whether Jesus was the only one to "ascend" into heaven... vs. being
"taken up" or "translated" like Elijah and Enoch, respectively.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

stephen.cr...@student.adelaide.edu.au wrote:
> Isn't a bit pointless for [righteous] Abel to spend his life tending
> sheep if God had prohibited eating animals until after Noah?

I would think that Able and his kin ate and enjoyed mutton as much as
Noah and his family did. But sheep not only are used for foods* but
for wool, worship Gen. 4:4) and other things. And we know from reading
scripture that (after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil) Adam and Eve did not like to go naked. They were somewhat
prudish about remaining nudist after "the eyes of both were
opened"(Gen. 3:7-8). Also, of course, it may have got a bit cold in
the winter time. And wool can protect one's modesty and also protect
one from the cold.

Secondly in Genesis 1:30 God gives man all the beast, so it was man's
responsibility to keep the sheep" (Gen. 4:2), as sheep probably would
not last long on their on out in the wilds.