Scaduta la tregua, fra maoisti e governo il 20 novembre, continuano le discussioni. Addirittura il leader maoista Prachanda si è recato a Singapore per incontrare il Grande Vecchio del Congresso Koirala (ospedalizzato lì). Tutto si muove verso un accordo (come previsto in altri posts)  proprio nel giorno in cui si festeggia e ricorda la fine della guerra civile (1996-2006) con la firma del Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) fra i maoisti e i partiti democratici. Da allora si è mosso poco (stesura costituzione, smantellamento esercito maoista, riforma dello stato, ripresa economica). Si conta su un accordo ma l’attenzione di è già spostata sul piccolo villaggio di  Bariyarpur (Terai) dove stanno giungendo centinaia di migliaia di pellegrini per celebrare il  Gadhimai Mela, uno dei più importanti festival dell’India del nord (e Terai nepalese). che si tiene nel piccolo villaggio ogni  cinque anni. Qualcuno è già morto per aver bevuto come un matto, tradizione della festa, liquori contraffatti.

La zona è già nota per le apparizioni del Buddha Ragazzo e perché sarà il punto d’arrivo della prima strada a quattro corsie che dovrebbe congiungere la Valle di Kathmandu al Terai e India (finanziamenti permettendo). Intorno al villaggio,  piane foreste spelacchiate, qualche coltivazione di riso, mais, fiori gialli di sesamo, tanti bufali gobbuti e povertà. Non distante il confine indiano, la città ponte di Hetauda, grandi traffici e contrabbandi.  Le poche fabbriche del Nepal (chimica, juta, cotone) sono sull’orlo del fallimento o già chiuse come la Palmolive-Colgate e la Everest Polymers. Il distretto industriale ha perso il 45% della produzione (e dei posti di lavoro) a causa della crisi internazionale e dell’assenza di una politica economica del governo.  Qualche anno fa, si tenne una delle rare manifestazioni sindacali (proprio per una chiusura di una fabbrica) che finì con qualche morto fra gli operai.

Questo posto è, da qualche tempo, al centro dell’attenzione della stampa internazionale (specie indiana) per il gran festone del Gadhimai, una tradizione che va avanti da oltre 200 anni. Durante la festa (24-26 novembre) verranno sacrificati oltre 500.000 animali (fra cui 60.000 bufali), importati illegalmente dall’India senza controlli sanitari e doganali). Non è una novità nella tradizione hindu dove la venerazione alle divinità “energetiche” Shiva, Shakty, Kali, Durga, Devi è sempre accompagnata da sangue e morte. Gadhimai, dal volto nero e spettrale e dai grandi occhi bianchi, è una delle molti potenti emanazione dell’Energia Primordiale, Femminile e Generatrice. E’ la Madre Terra cui si deve (come in molte altre civiltà, compresa la nostra idealmente) manetenere viva la Forza offrendo sangue ed energia umana o animale (la Vita). In cambio, l’Umano, ha benefici generali (raccolti, protezione vita) e particolari (figli, mariti, potenza nel mondano, salute). Questo racconta la gente che ogni martedì e sabato sgozza polli e caproni fra gli alberi cupi di Dakshinkali (sui margini meridionali della Valle di Kathmandu), nelle migliaia di templi di Durga durante il Dashain, o sulle rive dei fiumi sacri, come al grande tempio di Kali a Calcutta. Da tempo immemorabile, questo raccontano i sacerdoti nei milioni di villaggi hinduisti del subcontinente e su questo vivono.

Le stesse speranze spingono centinaia di migliaia alla pagoda di Bariyarpur a fine novembre da oltre 200 anni, quando ancora qui governava la dinastia dei Kiranti (11-14 secolo) e Bara era parte del potente regno Mithila. Addirittura, si racconta, che il famoso tempio di Taleju a Kathmandu sia una replica di quello dedicato a Gadhimai e che la stesso culto della Kumari (la Dea Bambina, emanazione di Durga) venga da qui. I sovrani di Kathmandu scendevano nel Terai durante la festa e così fece anche l’ex re Gyanendra che oggi si è pentito e ha richiesto, insieme a animalisti, intellettuali, il Buddha Tamang , Brigitte Bardot, monaci buddhisti,  al governo nepalese (che se ne è impippato) l’abolizione della festa. Un corteo è sfilato nei giorni scorsi a Bara chiedendo di sostituire i sacrifici animali con offerte di frutta e vegetali (quello che fanno buddhisti e vishnuisti).

Si è mossa anche Maneka Gandhi (da sempre ambientalista) vedova del discusso Sanjay Gandhi e pecora nera della potente famiglia con un bello ma fragile articolo. Fragile perché le sue argomentazioni non toccano  i contadini, operai, disoccupati (il proletariato del subcontinente), che non potendo comprare i biglietti della lotteria si affida alla tradizione per continuare a sperare di migliorare le proprie condizioni o di re-incarnarsi in un ricco possidente. Scrive giustamente Maneka del business che sta dietro a tutto questo , (come ad ogni espressione rituale delle religioni), dei venditori di alcol (che s’arricchiscono durante le feste), degli onnipresenti prestasoldi che anticipano le spese dei sacrifici, dell’import ed export di animali, pellami, carne (ciò che resta dei sacrifici), e di sacerdoti che s’ingrassano a Bara come nei villaggi. Addirittua c’è un sito (non funzionante) sulla festa. Questa è ancora l’India, del resto cosa dovrebbero dire i milioni di tacchini uccisi (più o meno nella stessa data) al Thanksgiving nella civilizzata America.

Gli appelli degli intellettuali indiani per sospendere la festa non hanno avuto successo sul governo nepalese allo sbando. Il Buddha ragazzo, Ram Bahadur Bamjan, ha promesso di essere lì durante la festa per impedire le uccisioni. Il gran sacerdote del tempio di Gadhimai, il brahmino Mangal Chaudhari ha assicurato che, progressivamente, il numero di animali sacrificati diminuirà, la polizia ha aumentato il numero di uomini impegnati per evitare che, alle tradizionali botte fra i festeggianti, qualcuno non se la prenda con i contestatori.

Gilberto Perri, pastore della Chiesa Pentecostale ‘Gesù Cristo è il Signore’ di Gallico (RC), ha introdotto l’unzione della bara, guardate cosa fa in questo video!

Interpretando arbitrariamente le Scritture, come è suo solito, è riuscito a far credere ed accettare alla Chiesa che cura pure questa diavoleria. Un abisso chiama un altro abisso, dice la Scrittura; e questo è quello che sta accadendo anche nel caso di Perri, che oramai è in balia di spiriti seduttori che fanno di lui e dei suoi seguaci quello che vogliono.

Diletti, guardatevi da queste pratiche superstiziose, che non hanno nulla a che fare con l’insegnamento della Parola. Nessuno vi seduca con vani ragionamenti.

Giacinto Butindaro

Post correlati:

Ed Kowalski, of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation, said: “To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having U.S. constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and it’s never been done before. President Obama is wrong to do this.”
~Families of 9/11 Victims Divided Over Detainee Trial Plan

I wonder where the change is that our nation was promised. We have heard long winded speeches that have brought about no substance and no results. Arrogant rhetoric that has time and again put down this people and have turned our vicious and dangerous enemies into victims. I wonder if this man thought he could bring about a world-wide Utopia with a silver tongue, and a self demeaning attitude.

The president is a civil servant. He is placed at the head with the understanding that he serves not himself, but the people. I wonder whose dream he is trying to fulfill; ours or his own.

I have no faith in this man. One who does not understand war. One who does not see with open eyes that we have real enemies banging at our doors looking to hurt us in whatever way they can. With only the weak wagging of a finger, and a disapproving scowl in the direction of our adversaries, he emasculates us before the whole world.

What has happened to my country, and to my countrymen? What has happened to the pride we had in ourselves. How have we have given too strong a voice to a minority who opposes the very values that the majority upholds, and how have we allowed such snakes into the highest of places to represent a majority that they truly don’t represent at all? We have been fooled.

The men to be tried are not U.S. citizens. They are war criminals and should be tried as such. Yet we are quietly standing by as one man tries these madmen under the protection of the U.S. Constitution as if they were fellow citizens with us.

Aggiornamento 13\11: Oggi si è conclusa, con una grande manifestazione la seconda fase delle proteste di piazza dei maoisti, bloccata gran parte ella città con un corteo stimato in qualche decina di migliaia di persone. Tutto in ordine e prefettamente organizzato, gruppi di ragazzotti in maglietta rossa hanno vigilato. Nel resto della città, la vita è proseguita più o meno regolarmente e la gente ha pensato a sbarcare il lunario, anche qui la politica è un pò distante dalle aspettative della gente comune. Il comizio del leaderissimmo Prachanda ha entusiasmato la folla: una tregua fino al 20 novembre e poi inizierà la terza fase, pura e dura, con un bello sciopero generale. Alternativa, tornare nell’Assemblea Costituente e mettere sotto accusa il Presidente della Repubblica Yadav, ritenuto insieme a Koirala il grande manovratore dell’esclusione dei maoisti dal governo e del mezzo colpo di stato (appoggiato dall’esercito) che lo provocò.

Botta da orbi oggi intorno a Singh Durbar, l’enorme Palazzo Bianco che un tempo ospitava i Principi Rana ed oggi sede di numerosi ministeri. Come ai vecchi tempi, quando i maoisti erano appena usciti dalla clandestinità, sono arrivati i bus dai villaggi di Kavre, Ramechap, Gorkha, carichi di contadini e ragazzini che sembrano in gita scolastica. Per sicurezza scuole chiuse.

Prima dell’alba, nel nebbione invernale, sono entrati nel compound del Palazzo ministri, segretari e travet per sfuggire al blocco (gherao) dei maoisti. Poi qualche migliaio di persone ha bloccato la zona, batti e ribatti e, come sempre, accade dalla parole si è passati ai fatti e sono iniziati a mulinare i bastoni (lathi) dei poliziotti.

 Gli scontri si sono estesi a tutta l’area centrale di Kathmandu e hanno coinvolto attivisti, parlamentari e leaders dei maoisti, una cinquantina ricoverati in ospedale. Nel resto del Nepal circondati e bloccati i gli uffici pubblici. Prima, dice Prachanda, una tregua per continuare le trattative poi, se non c’è accordo, inizierà la terza fase della protesta e la formazione di un governo alternativo.

Gli interlocutori (i principali leaders governativi) sono bloccati dall’influenza suina che ha colpito il Primo Ministro Nepal (ha addirittura rinunciato all’abituale gozzoviglia prevista alla FAO di Roma, per parlare, guarda un po’, degli effetti del clima sull’agricoltura) e la mummia Koirala, gran burattinaio della politica nepalese da decenni. Quelli in salute vanno e vengono da Delhi, dove l’India non sa più che fare.

Il  Grande Fratello, secondo me, vorrebbe che si mettessero tutti d’accordo per iniziare a stabilizzare il paese. Per gli indiani, con importanti investimenti, moltitudine di migrati e migliaia di chilometri di frontiera, sarebbe importante che il Nepal raggiunse, dopo 15 anni, un minimo di stabilità, che dalle sue frontiere bucate non transitassero più droga, armi, denaro falso, medicine contraffatte. I maoisti, e c’è da crederci visto i problemi che hanno, dicono che non hanno rapporti e collegamenti con i loro colleghi indiani, che sono uno dei grandi problemi della sicurezza per Delhi. La necessità di non far precipitare la situazione, le pressioni internazionali (nè alla Cina nè all’India piace l’instabilità alle frontiere), la voglia di pace della gente comune mi fà continuare ad essere ottimista su una prossima soluzione negoziata. Due segnali sembrano confermarlo: il governo ha ritirato il blocco alle manifestazioni nella capitale minacciato e la Corte Suprema ha iniziato a valutare la costituzionalità degli atti del Presidente della Repubblica  Dr Ram Baran Yadav (del Congresso e amico personale di Koirala) relativamente al suo supporto al generale Katawal entrambi invisi ai maoisti. Certo che non è facile rinunciare a parte del potere per far posto ai maoisti a parte degli attuali goevrnanti.

Ma la stampa internazionale e specie quella indiana più dell’interminabile crisi politica si è occupata del Nepal per la Grande Gadhimai Mela che si terrà a Bara (nel Terai). Fra l’altro qui è progettato che arriverà l’unica strada a quattro corsie del Nepal, collegando Kathmandu al Terai. Bara è stata anche famosa perché nelle foreste che la circondano meditava il Buddha Ragazzo. Comunque il 24 e 25 novembre arriveranno centinaia di migliaia di pellegrini (specie indiani) per il quinquennale auspicio di Gadhimai, una delle tante forme della Dea Madre, dell’energia creativa, di Kali, Durga. Durante la festa, come tradizione, verranno sacrifica milioni d’animali, fra cui, si parla, di oltre 60.000 bufali. La storia è un po’ strana per il business che ci sta dietro, decine di personaggi (fra cui il Buddha Ragazzo) hanno firmato articoli e petizioni di protesta, oggi migliaia di persone sono sfilate mangiando vegetali e chiedendo che al posto di galline, capre e bufali vengano offerte alla Dea banane e spinaci. Che in effetti sarebbe meglio. Ma ne parleremo in un altro post.

Professor Ellen van Wolde’s recent paper on Genesis has captured significant attention for claiming that the Hebrew bara ought to be translated as “divided.” That is:

Met andere woorden, onze conclusie is dat het woord bara niet ’scheppen’, maar ’scheiden’ betekent.

I’ve already pointed out why I don’t think she can be correct, but I did so with the caveat that I hadn’t read her work. A reader pointed me to a PDF of her paper, so now, having read it, I’m able to offer this brief review. (I think I’ve got it right. It’s not so easy for me to read Dutch.)

The Evidence

Van Wolde’s evidence that bara means “separate,” not “create,” is this:

1. Creation in Genesis comes about only in one of two ways: Jussive speech (as in, “let there be light”), or with the verb asah. She writes:

Telkens wanneer iets nieuws wordt gemaakt in Genesis 1, staat dat aangegeven op een van de volgende twee manieren. 1. “God zei” gevolgd door een directe rede met een werkwoord in de aanvoegende wijs of iussivus [...] 2. Zeven keren gebruikt de verteller het werkwoord asa “maken” om het scheppen van God van iets nieuws te beschrijven: God maakte het uitspansel….

2. In Genesis 1:1, the verb bara applies to two direct objects, both of which are definite, and therefore known. (“Het werkwoord drukt een type handeling uit die God uitvoert met betrekking tot twee directe lijdende voorwerpen, de hemel en de aarde….”)

3. We learn from verses 6-7 and 9-10 that the creation story is, at least in part, about transformation of the uniform water into four regions: water above the sky, water in the sky, water below the sky, and dry land. (“De handeling zelf transformeert deze uniforme watermassa in ten minste vier ruimtelijke domeinen: water boven het hemelgewelf, water onder het hemelgewelf, terwijl het water onder het hemelgewelf verder wordt verdeeld in droog land en zeeen.”)

4. Other ANE texts refer to creation stories that feature separation at the beginning.

5. In Genesis 1:21 we find the verb bara for the taninim, which are not mentioned in the previous verse or in the following verse, so the verb bara in Genesis 1:21 refers to separating the taninim from the other animals.

6. In verses 26-27 we first find asah used in reference to the plural “us” and “gods,” then, in verse 27, bara only refers to “him” (God). Further, asah in verse 26 matches up with d’mut and tzelem, “image and likeness” (beeld and gelijkenis), while bara in 27 only has tzelem. Van Wolde uses these facts to posit that verse 27 refers to (a) separating man from the plural god-man construct; and (b) then separating man from woman.

7. Van Wolde points to the word toldot in Genesis 2:4, using its etymology to suggest that it complements bara. Genesis 2:4 for her is about “begetting” and “separating.” (“Aldus blijkt dat vers 2,4a het hele verhaal evalueert en afsluit: het maken of tot stand brengen (’schepping’) wordt weergegeven door het begrip verwekken of voortbrengen (toledot) en het scheiden wordt weergegeven door het woord bara.”)

8. Van Wolde points to other words (asah and kana) that mean “create.”

9. Van Wolde suggests that the present participle of bara is never used to mean “creator.” (“Een vierde toetssteen voor de hypothese is het opvallende feit dat in de Hebreeuwse bijbel het abstracte woord schepper nooit wordt uitgedrukt door het tegenwoordig deelwoord van bara.”)

10. Isaiah 45:7 reads, “[God] yotzers light and borehs darkness, osehs peace and borehs evil.” Van Wolde points out the theological problem with a text that ascribes the creation of darkness and evil to God, and further suggests that, in part because the words come in pairs, the verb here, too, means “separate.”

My Evaluation

I still don’t think Professor Van Wolde is correct.

Van Wolde’s “evidence” in (1) above is essentially her conclusion. If one assumes that God’s acts of creation are only described in terms of speech acts or with the verb asah, of course it follows that bara doesn’t refer to acts of creation. But (1) is what she’s trying to show, and by assuming it at the beginning she starts off weakly.

I think (2) and (3) are vague, and compatible with too many hypotheses to be helpful.

I think (4) may be interesting, but probably not directly relevant.

Points (5) and (6) also appear vague to me.

Point (7) seems to rely too closely on the etymology of toldot.

Point (8) seems irrelevant, because the same logic could show that asah doesn’t mean “create,” because kanah does.

I may have misunderstood the Dutch that I summarized as point (9), because it doesn’t seem to be accurate. Isaiah 40:28, for example, reads, “Adonai is the boreh of the ends of the earth.”

Finally, (10) is the same sort of reasoning as (2), the theology notwithstanding.

So in the end, Van Wolde’s argument boils down to two arguments: (A) the verb bara is sometimes applied to pairs; and (B) other verbs mean “create.” And her article doesn’t address the numerous other uses of bara where it seems that only “create” is possible.

So I’m not convinced.

The Dutch Trouw has an article about Professor Ellen van Wolde’s notion that:

Zo stuitte ze op de openingsverzen van het bijbelboek waarop ze ooit promoveerde. Preciezer: Op het werkwoord bara. Dat betekent volgens iedereen ’scheppen’, maar voor Van Wolde voldeed die vertaling niet meer. “Het klópte gewoon niet.” Bij het werkwoord was God het onderwerp (God schiep…), gevolgd door ’steeds twee of meer lijdende voorwerpen’. Waarom schiep God niet één ding of dier, maar steeds meerdere? Omdat, stelde Van Wolde vast, God niet schiep, maar scheidde. De aarde van de hemel, het land van de zee, de zeemonsters van de vogels en het gekrioel op de grond. [Emphasis added.]

That is, according to Van Wolde, bara means “separated,” not “created.” Her evidence is that the verb applies to more than one thing at a time: “heaven” and “earth,” for example, which she takes as “separated heaven from earth.”

I don’t see it.

There’s enormous evidence from elsewhere that bara means “create,” not “separate.” And even though Genesis starts out by things that are created in pairs or groups, we don’t have to look far to see counterexamples: The first part of Genesis 1:27 (“God barad adam“), Genesis 5:1 (similar), Isaiah 43:1 (“…Adonai, who barad you…”), Malachi 2:10 (“[we are all the same because] one God barad us”), Amos 4:13 ([the one who "forms the mountains and baras the wind"), Ezekiel 21:35 ("in the place where you were barad ... I will judge you"), etc. Even her own example from Genesis 1:21 ("sea monsters," and "birds") seems barely to fit her thesis.

And for that matter, there is a verb "separate" (hivdil) in the creation story.

I wouldn't want my own work judged from a newspaper account of it, but in this case we all have the lexical data. It's true that bara sometimes applies to more than one thing. But even without the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think it would be an unwarranted leap to therefore assume that the verb means "separate."

[UPDATE: For more, see here, here, and here.]

[UPDATE 2: I've put together a short review of Dr. Van Wolde's paper.]

Nu sitter jag på tåget mot Karlskrona, men riktigt så långt ska jag inte utan jag hoppar av i Karlshamn där en taxi väntar för att köra mig till älskade Södra Hoka.
En värdhelg väntar tillsammans med Simon, har dock varnat honom att jag inte hinner vara värsta social då mycket plugg medföljes. Träningskläderna är nerpackade för att ta en joggingtur i den vackra höstskogen som omgiver Södra Hoka gården.

Strax efter 02 inatt blev jag klar med kurs 4 i Amadeus och nu återstår 3 kurser innan jag är helt klar. Måtte jag bli klar med kurs 5 i helgen för sen återstår de 2 minsta kurserna i Amadeus.

Nästa vecka är fullbokad:
Måndag - köpa kläderna till praktiken på Hilton, kolla på höstskor och plugga Amadeus. (Och spela Quake!)
Tisdag – plugga Amadeus och ungdomsgruppen
Onsdag till Fredag – är jag i Bara och bor hos Denise, Angelica och deras hundvalp Nikita (och katter, hamstrar och råtta.. tror inte jag missat något djur nu.. mer än dammråttorna..)
Lördag - Packa, plugga Amadeus och mer packande.
Söndag – BERLIN!

Mañana, sábado 26 de septiembre las Carpas de Roda de Barà cierran sus puertas hasta la próxima temporada.

Para ello contará con la presencia de algunos integrantes de Gran Hermano 10: Ivan, German, Gemma y Palomares. También podremos presenciar un espectáculo pirotécnico en la despedida.

Entrada libre + copa para todos hasta la una.

No os lo perdáis!

Y para más información: WWW.PARADISLESCARPESDERODA.COM

Ya Allah, hari ini padahal sudah mau usai. Hari sudah mulai gelap.Hujan pun mengguyur tanah, seolah sedang meredamkan bara di hati. Menentramkan gelisah, melarutkan sedih. Hari ini ujian PPL. Meski terkesan memaksa, semua sudah berlalu. Perpisahan selalu tidak menyenangkan, akan tetapi semua memang harus dilalui. Ada awal dan ada akhir. Tetapi kita selalu bersama Yang Tidak Berakhir. Allah Selalu Bersamamu…
Biarlah tulisan ini tak koheren. Biarlah kalau memang antara kalimat satu dengan yang lain tak berkait. Hanya ingin sekadar mencurahkan rasa. Meredam bara. Melarutkan sedih. Mengungkap gelisah.

“Enten må en akseptere hele Bibelen eller forkaste den fullstendig”. Slik argumenterer mange kristendomsskeptikere når jg diskuterer med dem.

Argumentet er ofte at man kan ikke tillate seg å tro på Bibelen om man godtar evolusjonsteorien. De som er enig med dem i denne påstanden,er  mange kristne som  føler de må forkaste evolusjonsteorien av nettopp samme årsak.

Men må det være slik?

En bokstavtro tolkning av Bibelen i forhold til tidsperioder, er faktisk fersk som utbredt fenomen – den ble til i USA på slutten av 1800-tallet på grunn av den evangelikale vekkelsen som mente de skulle være “bibeltro” på alle områder. Men mange kristne lærde, og jødiske lærde helt siden oppstarten av jødedommen, har ment at man ikke skal tolke tidsperiodene helt bokstavelig – om det så gjelder jordens alder eller lengden på skapelsen.

En del mener at man er nødt å tolke slektslistene i Bibelen bokstavelig, men i gammel- og nytestamentlig tid var det helt normalt å si f.eks “han er sønn av” en gitt person, og så var det ment som at vedkommende var en etterkommer langt ut i slektsleddet. Det er derfor vi leser om “Abrahams sønner” brukt på hele det jødiske folket. Man nevnte ofte dessuten ikke mennesker som var av såkalt “liten betydning” i slike lister.

I tillegg kan begrepet “bara” som i grunnteksten kan oversettes med ordet “skape”, bety at man skaper noe over lengre tid. Det kan altså bety at man utvikler noe – slik evolusjonsteorien sier.

Ser vi på skapelsesberetningen i 1.Mos levnes det ingen tvil om at det vi mennesker ser blir beskrevet, ikke det vitenskapen kan avdekke. En eventuell gud ville nok ha visst at vi i ettertid ville hatt forutsetninger for å finne ut av hvordan ting ble til, men ikke hvorfor. Til dèt hadde man trengt åpenbaring. Vi snakker altså om to ulike vinkler å se verden og universet fra, og dermed innebærer det ikke nødvendigvis en konflikt mellom vitenskap og religion. I stedet kan man kanskje heller si at de utfyller hverandre.

Frontfiguren for ateisme gjennom mange år, Anthony Flew, skiftet for et par år siden. Han gikk fra å være ateist til teist – og du kan tro han ble upopulær blant nyateistene.En viktig årsak til at han begynte å tro at det finnes en Gud, er fordi jo mer vi har funnet ut om universets tilblivelse, jo mer ser vi hvor usannsynlig en slik hendelse er. Flew mener det virker som om universet har ventet på oss. Dét kan du lese om i neste artikkel.

(Recipe by www.theonefour.com)

Doubles are sold as a convenient meal by street vendors in Trinidad and Tobago

If you go to Trinidad, you are sure to see this snack sold by street vendors. It’s called doubles. Doubles are said to have East Indian roots. Many East Indians, newly released from being indentured servants, chose to stay in Trinidad instead of returning to India; therefore, they needed a way to make money. Ever-enterprising, they set up small stalls to sell whatever they could, which just happened to include curried and fried channa (chick peas) in small paper cones. Later on, as the story goes, a vendor discovered that adding bara (East Indian fried bread) would make a nice little meal.

So now you’re wondering how did the name doubles come about, right? There’s always a story. So here it goes! The bara along with the channa caught on so well that people began asking the vendors to double up on the bara. And through the creativity of slang, the request was shortened to just asking for “doubles.” Now doubles are sold on wax paper for a quicker more cost-effective way of serving customers. See the recipe for doubles below.

Barra

2 cups of flour

1/2 tsp salt

1 teaspoon curry powder

1 teaspoon cumin

1/2 tsp ground pepper

1 teaspoon yeast

1/3 cup warm water

1/4 tsp sugar

1/4 cup oil for frying

Channa Curry

2 cups of chickpeas, canned or soaked over night and boiled until tender.

1 tablespoon curry powder

3 cloves garlic, minced

1 onion, sliced

1 tablespoon oil

2 tsp ground cumin

1 tsp ground allspice (if you have it)

1 tsp Pepper sauce

2 tsp salt

1 tsp black pepper

Instructions:

• In a small bowl place the warm water, sugar and yeast and set to sponge for 5 minutes. In a large bowl combine the flour, salt, curry powder and cumin. Add the yeast mixture and enough water to make a slightly firm dough. Knead until the dough is no longer sticky, adding flour if necessary. Cover the dough with a damp cloth and allow to rise for an hour.
• For the filling, heat the oil in a heavy skillet, saute the onions until they are translucent, and then add the garlic and spices. Saute for another minute or so and then add the water. Add the chickpeas and let simmer for 15-20 minutes. Add pepper sauce and season to taste
• The dough should be punched down and allowed to sit for 10 minutes. To shape the bara, take 1 tablespoon of the dough and flatten to a round, 4 or 5 inches in diameter.
• Wet your hands so that the dough won’t stick to them but not so much as to make the dough too wet to fry.
• Fry the baras in hot oil until puffy (about 15 seconds per side), turning once and drain on kitchen paper. When all are cooked, fill with channa by placing a heaping tablespoon of the cooked filling on each bara and top with cucumbers and hot pepper sauce.

Historical information taken from Amazing-Trinidad-Vacations.com

“La început a făcut Dumnezeu Cerul şi Pământul”. Aşa începe Vechiul Testament al Bibliei creştine, dar şi Tora evreiască. “Facerea”, primul capitol al Cărţii Sfinte, ni-l înfăţişează pe Dumnezeu drept creatorul din nimic al tuturor lucrurilor vii sau neînsufleţite, inclusiv al Pământului. Însă profesoara Ellen van Wolde, specialistă renumită în Vechiul Testament, e de altă părere.

Ea susţine că prima frază a fost tradusă eronat, verbul ebraic “bara”, care însemnă “a crea”, având, în acest caz, semnificaţia “separării spaţiale”. Iar Dumnezeu nu a făcut şi Pământul, ci “doar” l-a separat de Rai, adică de “Cer”, Terra existând dinaintea Creaţiei.

“Exista deja apă. Erau deja monştri marini. Dumnezeu a creat unele lucruri, dar nu Pământul, şi nici Raiul. Ideea că El a făcut totul din nimic e o mare neînţelegere. Viziunea tradiţională asupra lui Dumnezeu-Creatorul nu se mai susţine la ora actuală”.
Verbul ebraic «bara» ar însemna «separare spirituală»

Cuvintele profesoarei olandeze Ellen van Wolde au şocat, acum câteva zile, lumea teologică şi ştiinţifică. Şi asta, cu atât mai mult, cu cât van Wolde e o specialistă respectată în domeniul interpretării Vechiului Testament. Acum însă, ea pretinde că, după o reanalizare a vechiului text original al Bibliei, scris în ebraică, autorii Cărţii Sfinte nu au vrut, de fapt, să sugereze că Dumnezeu ar fi făcut lumea în întregul ei, pentru că Pământul şi anumite forme de viaţă existau deja în momentul creării oamenilor şi a celorlalte animale.

Ea a ajuns astfel la concluzia că verbul ebraic “bara” nu înseamnă, în contextul biblic, “a crea”, ci “a separa spaţial” ceva de altceva, iar primul verset al Bibliei ar trebui tradus, de fapt, aşa: “La început a separat Dumnezeu Cerul de Pământ”. “Vreau să spun că Dumnezeu a creat omul şi vieţuitoarele, dar nu şi Pământul, în sine. Dumnezeu a apărut mai târziu şi a făcut locuibilă Terra, care deja exista”, a mai precizat omul de ştiinţă.

Raiul era plasat în zona Irakului
În Biblie este localizat geografic Edenul, Raiul, unde au trăit primii oameni, Adam şi Eva. În capitolul al doilea din Facere se spune: “Şi din Eden ieşea un râu, care uda Raiul, iar de acolo se împărţea în patru braţe”. Acestea erau: Fison, care înconjura ţara Havila, Gihon, care înconjura ţara Cuş (considerată a fi Etiopia – n.r.), Tigru, care curgea prin faţa Asiriei, şi Eufrat. Interpretările ulterioare ale textului biblic i-au condus pe unii specialişti la concluzia că Raiul originar s-ar fi aflat la izvorul Tigrului şi Eufratului, în zona Irakului de astăzi.

Rabinul-şef al României:«E o interpretare eronată»
“Multe versete biblice cunosc interpretări diferite, dar în privinţa primului verset, tradiţia iudaică este clară şi fără echivoc. Sensul verbului «bara», care e folosit la timpul trecut, e cel de creaţie. Pentru «separare», care e pomenită în cazul despărţirii luminii de întuneric, de exemplu, se foloseşte cuvântul «lehavdil». Aşadar, din punctul meu de vedere, interpretarea dată de respectiva profesoară nu poate fi decât eronată”, ne-a declarat Sorin Rosen (foto), rabin-şef al Comunităţii evreieşti din România.

Sursa:Libertatea

Stories of Genesis: Creation of the Animals and Creation of Adam by Paolo Uccello about 1424-1425

The Creation Stories in Genesis
In the form it finally attained in exilic and post-exilic times, Genesis 1-11 provides a kind of prologue to the story of Israel’s liberation and election by God. Looking backward from Israel’s experience of God’s action in creating and saving it as a people, and composed from different traditions, it presents God as the utterly transcendent Creator and Lord of the entire cosmos.

The Yahwist tradition, commonly dated about the tenth century B.C.E., is the first to combine Israel’s national epic with mythic stories about primeval history. It has its own particular vocabulary (including the use of the divine name “Yahweh”), a refined literary style and is characterized by well-developed theological reflection.

The Priestly tradition, which dates from about the sixth century B.C.E., is attributed to the priests of Jerusalem. Its style is somewhat clipped, abstract and repetitive in comparison with the Yahwist tradition. It evidences a concern for detail and contains material greatly influenced by the community’s life of worship. Both traditions, however, recognize the source, unity and meaning of the entire cosmos in its relationship with God. The Promise made to Abraham and the later Covenant with Israel are seen as intrinsically related to God’s plan for all humanity. The powerful hand which led Israel out of Egypt is not merely one among many which appears one day, in one land, in the course of time. The power of that outstretched arm encompasses all time and places from the very beginning. It is the same arm which alone stretched out the heavens and made all things (Isaiah 44:24). For Israel, absolutely no dimension of existence lies beyond the creating and liberating activity of God.

On one level, these stories offer explanations for different aspects of the human condition as we experience it, in the same way that the myths of Israel’s neighbors did. But on a more fundamental level, they are concerned with the establishment of relationship. They are not meant to be reports about what actually happened “in the beginning,” in the long ago past. They mean to speak about the God from whom and with whom the world now and always has life and future. This makes speaking about creation and creatureliness very different from speaking simply about existence or contingency.

In fact, the biblical stories about creation are best understood as answers of faith, born of Israel’s experience of God, to the basic and terrifying questions raised by our threatened, contingent existence. It is God and God alone whose hand holds back both Pharaoh’s charioteers and the primal watery chaos, leading God’s creatures to fullness of life and freedom. It is only in relationship with this God that the world and those who dwell in it can find real life, life that lasts:

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Deuteronomy 30: 15-20

God the Creator
If we turn to the opening chapters of Genesis, we find two different creation stories, each with something to say about the meaning of creation and creatureliness. The first is part of the Priestly tradition (from the sixth century B.C.E.) and the second is from the earlier Yahwist tradition (tenth century B.C.E.). According to the Priestly account, creation is understood to be the work of the Spirit/Word of God. God’s Spirit is moving over the deep and God’s mighty Word goes forth to create.

In the Hebrew text, we find the word bara used to denote this unique, divine creative activity. It is used later to refer to God’s creation of a people in the Exodus out of Egypt and the Covenant on Sinai. In both cases we hear how God forms and gives reliability to what is dark, empty and chaotic. The Yahwist describes the Creator as one who planted a garden in Eden and brought forth human creatures to care for it.

The creation stories, therefore, are not talking about an almost magical act by which God makes something from nothing, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat or a bouquet of flowers from thin air. They focus, rather, on the divine power which forms, orders and sustains life.

Unlike many other mythical accounts of creation, Genesis does not offer us a picture of a great cosmic battle. There are no stupendous labors, no Herculean feats. God merely speaks and it is done. Because of the power of God’s Word and because creation is the expression of God’s desire and purpose, we can approach the world with confidence and hope in spite of the darkness and chaos which seem to threaten life. The world is reliable because it comes from God. It has a hope and a future because it is related to God.

It was later theology, appealing to 2 Maccabees 7:28, which said that God created the world “from nothing.” This means that the world receives its entire being and constitutive identity from God, not from itself or from anything other than God. We are utterly dependent upon God. To be is to come to be from and with others, hence the “ex” in existence. Just as I owe my existence to other persons, the cosmos as a whole owes its being and life to an other, God. Moreover, God is not merely the one who started it all going, but the one who at every moment holds it in existence. The most basic dimension of reality is this relationship.

The expression “creation from nothing” points to the mystery of being and of our contingency, which occasionally registers in our feelings of wonder and awe. In the last analysis, there is no reason why there is anything at all, except God’s gracious and free act. The cosmos of which we are a part is intended and desired by God. It is neither necessary nor arbitrary, a product of chance or chaos. The sovereign freedom with which God creates means that life is a gracious gift. I am invited to interpret my own experience of the indebtedness of existence as gift and grace.

But there is a second point which a bit of reflection on the notion of creatio ex nihilo reveals. In understanding reality as related to God in this radical way, Christian faith also believes that there is absolutely nothing in the nature of created reality which could be a constitutive principle of separation from or contradiction to God. While Paul’s words to the Romans were written in another context, they are nonetheless beautifully appropriate here:

For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38fl.

The Goodness of Creation
An attitude of realistic confidence and hope is rooted in the belief that because God created it and sustains it, the finite world is good. For God, and therefore presumably for us, it is good that there is something which is not God. The Priestly account of creation is like a litany. Over and over we hear a refrain which reminds us how good the creatures are found to be by their creator, until finally we read, “And God saw everything God had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Indeed, one of the first major theological tasks which faced the church in the second and third centuries was to defend its belief in the goodness of God’s creation against the gnostics. One thing which the many diverse forms of gnosticism share is the conviction that the created world, precisely as material, could not really be the work of God, who is pure spirit. Whether the result of a primordial battle in the spiritual heavens, or the work of a divine-like demiurge, the world is bad. Redemption is conceived of as liberation from the created world and its evil materiality.

For biblical faith, on the contrary, the world is a good place in which to be. It is precisely where God places us and it is where God wishes to be in relationship with us. God does not wish to save us from the world. God wishes to save the world, and us humans who are a unique part of it, from the sin which threatens to destroy it and for which we are responsible. This is the whole point of the story about the “fall” of the first humans in Genesis 2-3. Faced with the reality of suffering and evil, the Yahwist tells us that human sin, not an evil or indifferent God, is to blame. This is how the Bible introduces us to the real story it has to tell, the story of how God has been at work saving the world.

Totalmente en Español [España-Neutro] a gran calidad

Takeshi Matsu – Prowler	Takeshi Matsu – Happy Guys	Takeshi Matsu – Foreign Toy
Takeshi Matsu – Relación Alumno Profesor	Takeshi Matsu – Entre la Fantasía y la Realidad	Takeshi Matsu – One Plus One Equals
Takeshi Matsu- Lo que ocurrio en Verano	Takeshi Matsu – Shallow Dream	Takeshi Matsu-Perfect Manager Kazuma

In mansa a treia a grupelor Europa League Dinamo a capotat magistral, inca o data, in fata unei echipe gazda care a stiut ce a vrut si careia i-a iesit cam totul in fata unor adversari in cautare de identitate. Scorul de 4-1 spune cam totul, mai ales ca la un moment dat el era chiar 4-0, N’Doye reusind un gol de onoare, inutil dar cat de cat spalator de rusine totala..

Nu cred ca este cazul sa gasim din nou vinovati pentru ca nu este cazul. In momentul de fata aceasta e valoarea lui Dinamo iar rezultatul de joi seara nu a venit intamplator, ci oarecum anuntat de slabele evolutii ale echipei de pana acum. Dinamo a aratat aseara ca e slaba in aparare, neinspirata la mijloc si ineficienta in atac. In aceste conditii e greu sa speri la ceva bun dintr-un meci cu o echipa care cat de cat stie fotbal si e antrenata de un om care stie bine fotbalul.

Cu parere de rau constatam ca avem destule maini moarte in echipa si acestea ne trag in jos. Nu e cazul sa le numesc, or fi ei rai dar sunt de-ai nostri. Dar e greu sa faci fata pe plan international cu improvizatii, cu jucatori iesiti din forma care nu marcheaza nici cand au ocazii clare. Intr-un cuvant, bilantul actual este dezastruos, Pe de alta parte nu putem spera decat ca ne vom reveni, poate printr-o minune, ca cea de la Liberec, sau poate prin munca si seriozitate. Deocamdata insa trebuie sa ne multumim cu eventualele victorii interne si cam atat. Europa, cateodata, pare foarte, foarte departe.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

bereshith bara elohim et hashamayim veet haerets

Kejadian 1:1

bereshit dari kata ba (di dalam, pada) and reshit (awal, permulaan). artinya pada mula pertama, pada saat pertama sekali…
ini menandakan bahwa ciptaan itu benar-benar tidak dimulai dari kekekalan ke kekekalan, ada permulaan dari alam semesta ini, tentu kita langsung diberi ide bahwa suatu saat akan ada akhirnya.

bara, kata kerja ini adalah kata kerja yang khusus hanya diperuntukkan kepada TUHAN. Menciptakan artinya.
Manusia bisa menciptakan, misalnya mobil dan lain-lain, tetapi manusia menciptakan mobil dari suatu bahan menjadi dalam bentuk lain, hakekat bahan itu tetap ada. Nah bara itu sendiri adalah seperti membuat seuatu yang baru sama sekali, dan yang baru itu absolut baru, dari yang tidak ada menjadi ada, ex-nihilo. Bukan pre-materia, tetapi yang immateri, TUHAN, membuat yang materi. Kita langsung teringat akan firman:”Dunia tidak mengenal Kristus, karena Kristus bukan dari dunia ini, kalau Kristus dari dunia tentu dunia akan mengenalNya”.

elohim, adalah bentuk plural dari bentuk tunggal el (Allah) atau eloah (Allah). eloah di dalam Alkitab berbahasa Ibrani ditemukan 57 kali dalam bentuk tunggal (ada 2 di Ulangan dan ada 41 di Ayub), dan sekitar 3000 kali dalam bentuk jamak (ada 17 di Ayub). elah ditemukan 74 kali dalam bentuk tunggal dan 10 jamak. Yang secara literal menjadi, jika menjadi kata benda, Kekal, dan dalam jamak menjadi Kuasa Kekal, sehingga sangat tidak salah lagi elohim adalah TUHAN itu sendiri,elohim adalah Sosok Yang Kuasa itu sendiri, Sosok Yang Maha itu sendiri, TUHAN. Di dalam tradisi Yahudi, elohim selalu dihubungkan dengan Nama TUHAN pada Sang Pencipta atau Sang Hakim.

et , dalam Ibrani את, kita langsung teringat huruf pertama Ibrani adalah א Aleph dan terakhir adalah ת Tav, Yang Awal dan Yang Akhir, sejajar dengan α alpha and ω omega.
Bandingkan Firman TUHAN di
Yesaya 41:4 Siapakah yang melakukan dan mengerjakan semuanya itu? Dia yang dari dahulu memanggil bangkit keturunan-keturunan, Aku, TUHAN, yang terdahulu, dan bagi mereka yang terkemudian Aku tetap Dia juga.
Dengan Firman Tuhan Yesus di
Wahyu 1:8 “Aku adalah Alfa dan Omega, firman Tuhan Allah, yang ada dan yang sudah ada dan yang akan datang, Yang Mahakuasa.”

hashamayim, shamayim sendiri adalah kata jamak, dan ha- adalah artikel definitif. Kalau kita lanjut ke Kejadian 1:6 (Berfirmanlah Allah: “Jadilah cakrawala di tengah segala air untuk memisahkan air dari air.”) maka akan jelas kenapa shamayim jamak yang artinya “lebih dari satu/banyak langit”.

veet haerets, bumi, tanah, TUHAN menciptakan bumi hanya sekali. Dan bumi hanya satu, maka tuhan atau allah yang mengaku menciptakan bumi, pastilah bukan TUHAN yang ini, yang artinya allah/tuhan lain itu adalah pencipta (dari yang sudah ada, bukan bara) dunia. Kita langsung teringat ke 1 Timotius 2:5 Karena Allah itu esa dan esa pula Dia yang menjadi pengantara antara Allah dan manusia, yaitu manusia Kristus Yesus. Karena hanya TUHAN-lah juruselamat (Yesaya 43:11 Aku, Akulah TUHAN dan tidak ada juruselamat selain dari pada-Ku) maka Ia jugalah satu-satunya yang akan turun ke dunia, Dialah Yesus Kristus.

Klockan är över 02 och jag håller på att packa inför avfärden till Berlin. Det går inte så bra. Vad ska man ha med sig egentligen? Det är kallt i Sverige och det borde vara kallare i Tyskland men samtidigt kan det också vara alldeles lagom och behöver inte ha vinterkläderna på sig.
Vi ska vara ute hela dagarna och på kvällarna ska vi äta på restaurang eller gå ut vilket innebär man måste ha med sig olika sorters kläder + alla saker som hygienartiklar, handdukar med mera. Jag vet jag har något för mycket nerpackat men problemet är att jag inte vet vad jag ska ta bort då jag inte kan förutse vädret de närmsta dagarna.

Jag har panik, känner mig deppig, är inte trött och jag vill inte åka till Berlin. Jag behöver 2 dagar till innan jag känner mig redo för just nu vill jag bara bo under mitt täcke!

Bortsett från allt det negativa så måste jag säga att jag haft det helt underbart hos Angelica ute på landet i Bara med korna tillsammans med Denise och Nikita. Nikita växer så snabbt och jag vet inte när vi träffas nästa gång och då kommer hon bara vara ännu större.

Just nu har jag bara en fråga: Vad glor du på?

Vi har 28 månader idag.  Jag älskar dig och vill ha dig hos mig nu!