Gen V Quotes

J'ai ri. Il a secoué la tête et m'a regardée. - Quoi ? Ai-je demandé. - Rien, a t-il répondu. - Pourquoi tu me regardes comme ça ? Augustus a eu un petit sourire. - Parce-que tu es belle. J'aime regarder les gens beaux et, depuis un certain temps, j'ai décidé de ne me refuser aucun petit plaisir de la vie. D'autant plus que, comme tu l'as délicieusement fait remarquer, tout ceci tombera dans l'oubli. - Je ne suis pas bel... - Tu es belle comme mille Natalie Portman. Natalie Portman dans V pour Vendetta. (...) - Ah bon ? S'est-il étonné. Fille sublime, cheveux courts, déteste l'autorité et ne peut s'empêcher de craquer pour le garçon qui ne lui apportera que des ennuies. Ta bio, en somme.

The cross has also been discerned in the Old Testament, predating Christianity by centuries. As the Catholic Encyclopedia further relates, "The cross, mentioned even in the Old Testament, is called in Hebrew... 'wood,' a word often translated crux by St. Jerome (Gen., xl, 19; Jos., viii, 29; Esther, v, 14; viii, 7; ix, 25)."43 Christian writers such as Barnabas asserted that not only was the brazen serpent of Moses set up as a cross but Moses himself makes the sign of the cross at Exodus 17:12, when he is on a hilltop with Aaron and Hur.

Los intervalos entre los saltos en el tiempo varían —siempre que no sean controlados por el cronógrafo— de un portador del gen a otro. Si bien el conde de Saint Germain, en sus observaciones, llegó a la conclusión de que los portadores del gen femeninos saltan con una frecuencia y una duración significativamente inferiores a los masculinos, en la actualidad no podemos dar por válida esta afirmación. La duración de los saltos en el tiempo incontrolados varía, desde el inicio de los registros, entre ocho minutos, doce segundos (salto de iniciación de Timothy de Villiers, 5 de mayo de 1892) y dos horas y cuatro minutos (Margret Tilney, 2º salto, 22 de marzo de 1894). La ventana temporal que el cronógrafo facilita para los saltos en el tiempo es de, como mínimo, treinta minutos, y como máximo, cuatro horas. Se desconoce si en alguna ocasión se han producido saltos en el propio tiempo vital. En sus escritos, el conde de Saint Germain parte de la base de que, a causa del continuum (v. Leyes del continuum, volumen 3), esto no es posible. Los ajustes del cronógrafo hacen igualmente imposible un envió de vuelta al propio tiempo vital. De las Crónicas de los Vigilantes, Volumen 2, «Leyes generales»

Gen 22:11–16a The story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac is traced to E. It refers to the deity as Elohim in vv. 1,3,8, and 9. But, just as Abraham’s hand is raised with the knife to sacrifice Isaac, the text says that the angel of Yahweh stops him (v. 11). The verses in which Isaac is spared refer to the deity as Yahweh (vv. 11–14). These verses are followed by a report that the angel speaks a second time and says, “… because you did not withhold your son from me….” Thus the four verses which report that Isaac was not sacrificed involve both a contradiction and a change of the name of the deity. As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). Of course, the words “you did not withhold your son” might mean only that Abraham had been willing to sacrifice his son. But still it must be noted that the text concludes (v. 19), “And Abraham returned to his servants.” Isaac is not mentioned. Moreover, Isaac never again appears as a character in E. Interestingly, a later midrashic tradition developed this notion, that Isaac actually had been sacrificed. This tradition is discussed in S. Spiegel’s The Last Trial (New York: Schocken, 1969; Hebrew edition 1950).

The doors led to Prince Rhy’s private chambers, and Gen and Parrish, as part of Prince Rhy’s private guard, had been stationed outside of them. Parrish was fond of the prince. He was spoiled, of course, but so was every royal—or so Parrish assumed, having served only the one—but he was also good-natured and exceedingly lenient when it came to his guard (hell, he’d given Parrish the deck of cards himself, beautiful, gilded-edge things) and sometimes, after a night of drinking, would shed his Royal and its pretentions and converse with them in the common tongue (his Arnesian was flawless). If anything, Rhy seemed to feel guilty for the persistent presence of the guards, as if surely they had something better to do with their time than stand outside his door and be vigilant (and in truth, most nights it was more a matter of discretion than vigilance). The best nights were the ones when Prince Rhy and Master Kell set out into the city, and he and Gen were allowed to follow at a distance or relieved of their duties entirely and allowed to stay for company rather than protection (everyone knew that Kell could keep the prince safer than any of his guard). But Kell was still away—a fact that had put the ever-restless Rhy in a mood—and so the prince had withdrawn early to his chambers, and Parrish and Gen had taken up their watch, and Gen had robbed Parrish of most of his pocket money

The Genesis text portrays marriage as a solution, not for “incompleteness,” but for aloneness (Gen. 2:18).

This important theme of Abraham’s deep trust in God’s promise and faithfulness helped shape Israel’s own self-understanding and identity. So it’s not surprising to hear Moses’s words to Israel at Sinai: “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test [the Hebrew verb is nasah] you, and in order that the fear [yir’ah] of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin” (Exod. 20:20). These two key verbs link back to Genesis 22. Abraham was tested by God (Gen. 22:1) and through this ordeal demonstrated his fear of God (v. 12). Abraham’s obedience is intended to serve as a model for Israel and to inspire Israel’s obedience and solidify their relationship with (“fear of”) God.5

SIR:—Yours of this date, proposing armistice and appointment of Commissioners to settle terms of capitulation, is just received. No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works. I am, sir, very respectfully, Your ob’t se’v’t, U. S. GRANT, Brig. Gen. To this I received the following reply: HEADQUARTERS, DOVER, TENNESSEE, February 16, 1862.

it is relevant to mention instances of proximity of NDTV personnel to the UPA – Sonia Singh is the wife of R P N Singh (Home Minister of State). Nidhi Razdan has been talked about as being close to Omar Abdullah (ally of Congress and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir). NDTV Group CEO - K V L Narayan Rao (son of former Chief of Army Staff Gen K V Krishna Rao) etc., was in the IRS (Income Tax Dept). Now the latest, Sarah Jacob (who hosts We the People post Barkha’s exit from NDTV) is the daughter in law of Montek Singh Ahluwalia. One can clearly accept and fathom how the “privileged access party continued” for so many years.

The commanding officer at Camp Upton in New York, General F. Franklin Bell, took it upon himself to quell an escalating dispute between a group of black soldiers and a regiment of white Southern servicemen who had attempted to remove the black soldiers from a recreational facility. General Bell dismissed all the soldiers except the Southern white officers. “Now, gentlemen,” he said to them, “I am not what you would call ‘a Negro lover.’ I have seen service in Texas and elsewhere in the South.” The fact was, however, that the Southern whites had “started this trouble. I don’t want any explanation. These colored men did not start it. It doesn’t matter how your men feel about these colored men. They are United States soldiers. They must and shall be treated as such. If you can’t take care of your men, I can take care of you.” If the Southerners instigated another racial incident, Bell assured them, “you will be tried, not by a Texas jury but by General Bell, and not one of you will leave this camp for overseas.”16 After Bell delivered this message to the white officers on his base, Camp Upton quickly developed what one contemporary historian called “the finest atmosphere surrounding Negro soldiers in America,” which was due primarily to “the high stand and impartial attitude taken by the late Gen. Franklin Bell, commander.

Over six the Angel of Death had no dominion, and these were:—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Respecting the first three it is written, "in all" (Gen. xxiv. 1), "of all" (Gen. xxvii. 33) "all" (A.V. "enough," Gen. xxxiii. 11). Respecting the last three it is written, "by the mouth of Jehovah" (see Num. xxxiii. 38, and Deut. xxxiv. 5). Bava Bathra, fol. 17, col. i.

On the afternoon of 16 December Maj. Gen. Leonard T. Gerow, commanding the V Corps, concluded from the fragmentary reports coming out of the main battle area that the 2d Infantry Division might soon find itself in a difficult situation. He asked the First Army commander, General Hodges, for permission to call off the attack at Wahlerscheid and move the 2d Division to the natural defensive line offered by the ridge running north and south of Elsenborn. This was refused. Late in the evening the deputy corps commander (Maj. Gen. Clarence R. Huebner) cautioned General Robertson to keep the unengaged troops of his division in hand for a quick change of plan, despite the order to continue the attack.72 By this time the three battalions of the 9th Infantry and two of the 38th were committed. On the morning of the counteroffensive’s second day, with the American position in the 99th Division and VIII Corps sector rapidly deteriorating, Gerow renewed his request. The First Army commander was unwilling to give orders for a withdrawal but authorized the V Corps commander to act as he saw fit. Gerow phoned Robertson; it was now about 0730.

We can appreciate the thematic organization of this chapter best if we step back from the various issues related to particular terms and look at the structure of the chapter as a whole. The first verse (Gen. 1:1) functions as a general introductory statement. The second verse (v. 2) sets forth a problem that the rest of the chapter is going to solve. The problem is one with which ancient Near Eastern people would have been familiar: The world is engulfed in a primordial chaos. More specifically, the earth is enveloped in “darkness,” covered by “the deep,” and in a state that is “formless” and “void” (tohu wabohu). The author’s goal was to show how Yahweh solved each of these problems and thus succeeded in bringing order out of chaos. The creation week is divided into two groups of three days (days 1–3 and 4–6) with the seventh day acting as a capstone. Within each three-day grouping, four creative acts of God are identified by the phrase “Let there be . . .” Most significantly, the creative acts in the second group mirror the creative acts in the first group. That is, day four mirrors day one; day five mirrors day two; and day six mirrors day three. The first set of three days addresses the problems of the darkness, the deep, and the formlessness of the earth as spelled out in v. 2. God addresses these problems by creating spaces within which things may exist. The second set of three days addresses the voidness problem of v. 2. God solves this problem by creating things to fill the spaces he created in the first three days. More specifically, on day one God created light (which addressed the darkness problem) and separated it from the darkness (vv. 3–5). On day two God created the heavens (which addressed the watery abyss problem) and used it to separate the waters above from the waters below (vv. 6–8). On day three God created dry land and vegetation (addressing the formless earth problem) and separated the earth from the waters below (vv. 9–13). Thus, by the end of day three the first three problems had been addressed: darkness, water, formlessness. The second set of three days addresses the final problem of voidness— the lack of things to fill the spaces God has created. This is how the second set mirrors the first set of days. Day four fills the space created on day one. Day five fills the space created on day two. And day six fills the space created on day three. More

and John explained that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. In the broader context of Isaiah 40–55, there is a close connection between the outpouring of the Spirit and the resulting new creation: “For I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring” (Isa. 44:3; cf. Gen. 49:25; Ezek. 34:26–27; Joel 2:14; Mal. 3:10–11). Here the dry and thirsty land receives the outpouring of water, which brings rejuvenation, and this imagery is tied to the outpouring of the Spirit. Concerning this verse, though, John Goldingay explains, “Yhwh’s renewal of the people is an act of new creation.”46 This conclusion seems warranted, especially in light of Isaiah 44:2: “Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb [עשך ויצרך], who will help you.” E. J. Young explains, “The expression Creator [יצר] used of God as the Creator of His people is found only in Isaiah, as also the parallels Maker and Former.”47 This language is used, for example, in the creation account of man (Gen. 2:7). All of this imagery comes with a kaleidoscope of ideas that ties together creation, exodus, new creation, and the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit.48 These observations are not new. J. Luzarraga, commenting on Isaiah 31:5, explains that this verse, as well as the others thus far surveyed, refer to: a “return,” a second exodus, a new exodus, which…comes described with features taken from the first exodus, projecting upon an eschatological future, for the gifts that God has granted in the past are only a symbol of his provision in the future. As in the days past, so also in the ones to come, “Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it; he will spare and rescue

I. Non nominare il nome di Dio invano (ma comunque spesso) II. Dieci millenni ci dicono: gli uomini hanno gens e rampolli. (Niente pillola). III. Ci sono distretti. Evita litigi. (Gira armato). IV. Senza grano non mangerai, né alleverai bachi, esempio dell'Imperatore fu l'arare. (Tu fotografa). V. E poi non sprecare. (Investi). VI. Dieci millenni ci dicono: addestrate gli studiosi ...bovem epiphyatum balteatum ... ornatum. (Cornutum. VII. Non occorrono aggeggi (onora gli artigiani). (Una idea per i sindacati). VIII. Difendi il Codice vigente - senza emendarlo, mi raccomando, dai residui di quello napoleonico. IX. Lega e nutri la vacca smarrita (purché sia una vacca) X. La parola paterna è compassione; filiale la devizione; la fraterna mutualità; Del tosatél la parola è rispetto. Nel tuo fascismo privo di violenza, di ignoranza, di volgarità, di bigotteria, Destra sublime, che è in tutti noi «rapporto di intimità col Potere»

Ale to zacházíme příliš daleko, která země nemá ve starých sklepeních staré démony, která země nemá své obchodníky se zbraněmi a se sny o věčnosti, který lid nemá ve svých kostech nějaký ten gen pošramocený dějinami, který lid nemusí čelit chaotickým hnutím života a která církev nebyla zasažena bleskem nečekaného vědeckého osvícení? Lidstvo je jen jedno, nejsou jich desítky, a zlo má v sobě, v morku kostí.

Adam passa la main dans ses cheveux ras. Il sentit qu'en faisant cela, il ressemblait à un Américain. 'Vous savez quoi?' dit-il; 'vous savez quoi? Nous passons notre temps à faire de la saloperie de cinéma. Du cinéma, oui. Du théâtre aussi, et du roman psychologique. Nous n’avons plus grand-chose de simple, nous sommes des cafards, des demi-portions. De vieilles loques. On dirait que nous sommes nés sous la plume d’un écrivain des années trente, précieux, beaux, raffinés, pleins de culture, pleins de cette saloperie de culture. Ça me colle dans les dos comme un manteau mouillé. Ça me colle partout.' 'Eh - qu'est-ce qui est simple, à ce compte-là?' intervint, assez mal à propos, l'étudiant à lunettes. 'Comment, qu'est-ce qui est simple? Vous ne le savez pas? Vous ne vous en doutez donc pas quand même un peu, vous?' Adam eut un geste vers sa poche pour prendre le paquet de cigarettes, mais, nerveusement, sa main s'arrêta. 'Vous ne la voyez donc pas, cette vie, cette putain de vie, autour de vous? Vous ne voyez pas que les gens vivent, qu'ils vivent, qu'ils mangent, etc? Qu'ils sont heureux? Vous ne voyez pas que celui qui a écrit, "la terre est bleue comme une orange" est un fou, ou un imbécile? - Mais non , vous vous dites, c'est un génie, il a disloqué la réalité en deux mots. Ça décolle de la réalité. C'est un charme infantile. Pas de maturité. Tout ce que vous voudrez. Mais moi, j'ai besoin de systèmes, ou alors je deviens fou. Ou bien la terre est orange, ou bien l'orange est bleue. Mais dans le système qui consiste à se servir de la parole, la terre est bleu et les oranges sont orange. Je suis arrivé à un point où je ne peux plus souffrir d'incartades. Vous comprenez, j'ai trop de mal à trouver la réalité. Je manque d'humour? Parce que d'après vous il faut de l'humour pour comprendre ça? Vous savez ce que je dis? Je manque si peu d'humour que je suis allé beaucoup plus loin que vous. Et voilà. J'en reviens ruiné. Mon humour, à moi, il était dans l'indicible. Il était caché et je ne pouvais le dire. Et comme je ne pouvais le mettre en mots, il était beaucoup plus énorme que le vôtre. Hein. En fait il n'avait pas de dimensions. Vous savez. Moi je fais tout comme ça. La terre est bleue comme une orange, mais le ciel est nu comme une pendule, l'eau rouge comme un grêlon. Et même mieux: le ciel coléoptère inonde les bractées. Vouloir dormir. Cigarette cigare galvaude les âmes. 11è. 887. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. et Cie.' 'Attendez, attendez un moment, je -' commença la jeune fille. Adam continua: 'Je voudrais arrêter ce jeu stupide. Si vous saviez comme je voudrais. Je suis écrasé, bientôt presque écrasé..." dit-il, la voix non pas plus faible, mais plus impersonnelle.

Summing Up One must read biblical commands and prohibitions in terms of their underlying forms of moral logic. The moral logic underpinning the negative portrayal of same-sex eroticism in Scripture does not directly address committed, loving, consecrated same-sex relationships today. Although Scripture does not teach a normative form of gender complementarity, the experience of complementarity itself may be helpful and important in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, even if complementarity is not construed along hard-wired gender lines. The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judg. 19) focus on the horror of rape and the ancient abhorrence of the violation of male honor in rape. As such, they help to explain Scripture’s negative stance toward the types of same-sex eroticism the Bible addresses, but they do not directly address the case of committed and loving same-sex relationships. The prohibitions in Leviticus against “lying with a male as with a woman” (18: 22; 20: 13) make sense in an ancient context, where there were concerns about purity, pagan cults, the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation, violations of male honor, and anxieties concerning procreative processes. However, these prohibitions do not speak directly to committed and consecrated same-sex relationships. Nor are they based on a form of moral logic grounded in biology-based gender complementarity. The references to same-sex eroticism found in two New Testament vice lists (1 Cor. 6: 9 and 1 Tim. 1: 10) focus attention on the ancient practice of pederasty—the use of boy prostitutes in male-male sex. As such, they also do not address committed and mutual same-sex relationships today. There are many more questions to be explored, but this book has attempted to focus on core issues involving the interpretation of Scripture, as the church continues to wrestle with a multitude of questions that arise outside the heterosexual mainstream.

Summing Up • An analysis of the form of moral logic underlying most traditionalist positions shows that what traditionalists find most fundamentally wrong with same-sex intimate relationships is that they violate divinely intended gender complementarity. • But “gender complementarity” is really more like a category under which a variety of forms of moral logic may appear. Some of these more specific forms, such as hierarchy, are not universally embraced among traditionalists as the deep meaning of gender complementarity. • The most widely embraced form of gender complementarity among traditionalists focuses on the anatomical or biological complementarity of male and female. The physical union of male and female in this view represents the overcoming of the incompleteness of the male on his own or the female on her own. • But this hypothesis raises a deeper question: Is anatomical or biological gender complementarity what Scripture assumes and teaches? The central issue here is the interpretation of the creation of woman in Genesis 2. • In response to a variety of traditionalist readings of Genesis 2, this chapter has argued the following countertheses: ° The original ʿadam of Genesis 1: 26–2: 18 is not a binary or sexually undifferentiated being that is divided into male and female in Genesis 2: 21. ° The focus in Genesis 2 is not on the complementarity of male and female but on the similarity of male and female. ° The fact that male and female are both created in the divine image (Gen. 1: 27) is intended to convey the value, dominion, and relationality that is shared by both men and women, but not the idea that the complementarity of the genders is somehow necessary to fully express or embody the divine image. ° The one-flesh union spoken of in Genesis 2: 24 connotes not physical complementarity but a kinship bond. • These countertheses demonstrate that Genesis 2 does not teach a normative form of gender complementarity, based on the biological differences between male and female. Therefore, this form of moral logic cannot be assumed as the basis for the negative treatment of same-sex relationships in biblical texts. Hence we need to look further to discern why Scripture says what it does about same-sex intimate relationships.

At the Platoon Weapons Division, I got to serve with Major (later Lieutenant General) Milan Naidu. Extremely soft-spoken, Milan was married to Neeharika, who was the daughter of Lieutenant Colonel B Awasthy who had been killed by the Chinese in 1962 at the Lagyala Gompa. Originally from 2 Rajput, Awasthy was moving to Mathura to take over the unit which had finished its NEFA tour of duty in Walong. Unfortunately, that was not to be. Neeharika was an extremely talented singer and was quite the star at most social gatherings.

Ils obligeaient les gens à monter à quatre-vingts dans les wagons, avec seulement un seau d'eau potable par voiture. Mais, le pire, c'est qu'ils cadenassaient les wagons. Entassés dans ces voitures sans air, les voyageurs étaient sûrs d'étouffer ! (30 mai 1944, p. 136)