Leaderboard

I would say that if you are going to eat meat, only eat kosher meat. For several reasons, I think it would be more healthy if you are going to eat it. It actually has a much better taste to it, along with being slaughtered in a biblically prescribed manner. For those interested in the slaughter business in the US, read the book "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin. It is a fascinating book in the way animals think and in ways to slaughter animals more humanely. Her theories have revolutionized the slaughter business with more than half of the slaughter houses following her recommendations to prevent animal panic as they proceed to the slaughter.

I think I likely could, mostly because of my nursing. But I can imagine that the average person may not have a clue about such things. Especially when we consider the stuff they use to change the color of meat products to make it look "fresh." If people could see what it looks like without any color like that they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Well, I suppose some would. I better not say the details of a kidney that I sliced up one time for supper when I was a meat eater. I just added extra onions to that one.

I had an uncle that for a period time worker in a slaughter house. One time he was working on a carcass and noticed a large tumor that he removed. The boss came along and noticed it and made him put it back! Sliced in a butchers case, could you tell the difference from healthy flesh and a tumor by just looking at it?!

nothing with eyes or a Mother, eh? I have similar experiences, drifting in and out of vegan or lacto-ovo diets. I am very close to vegan now. In years past I had a job driving semi-trucks and had to make "deliveries" to a large meat-packing plant in Alberta. I also had experience helping a journeyman welder at the same plant, and I could tell some chilling tales of what goes on in those places. I wish I could un-see all that.

I have thru my life been a vegetarian three times divided by two periods of eating meat. I never tasted meat that I remember before the age of 17 when I was tricked into eating a beef taco. I had just arrived in So Cal and never having seen a taco before, it was apparently easy for my brother to trick me! So, it was the start of eating meat for the first time. I was raised a vegetarian because that is what you did if you were a Seventh-day Adventist, at least it was in my family. You could say it was for religious reasons. I eventually gave up meat for health reasons seeing the long term effects of a meat diet. However, eventually I went back to it when in a time when it was difficult to eat well as a vegetarian. Finally, I forever gave up meat when I more became affected by the cruelty to animals displayed by eating them. So, this time it became an ethical issue. I recall EGW writing in Ministry of Healing regarding animals that trust us and we slay them for appetite. A coworker one time was teasing me once about putting silly hats on my dog and taking pictures of them. She said, "That doesn't contribute much to their dignity." I replied, "I contributed to the dignity of animals when I stopped eating them!" Being a vegetarian for reasons of not hurting animals has become the strongest motivation for not eating flesh foods and I have not eaten meat in more than 30 years and have been vegetarian more than 3/4 of my life. I have no issues for those who are forced by circumstances to eat meat. People are more important than animals. Not all parts of the world have the advantage of being able to eat solely a plant based diet. However, when a person is able to do so, the eating of animals then becomes little more than killing animals to satisfy appetite. I would consider non-essential eating of animals a sixth commandment violation. No one will eat meat in heaven and there, animals will be able to trust those humans they come in contact with, even if they do not know them.

Dr. Cottrell was an amazing Bible scholar. Some of his opinions got him crosswise with the Church higher-ups; but to my knowledge he never gave up his SDA faith. I'm confident that some of my opinions would get me crosswise with the Church if I was as influential a person as Dr Cottrell was in the organization.

There are many rules regarding what is kosher and what is not. And for a product to have a kosher label in the US, the plant producing it must be inspected and certified by a rabbi. Most of the kosher rules, I believe are derived from the Torah. However, there are somethings I think are not Torah but in an Orthodox Jewish home are observed. Dishes for meat are kept separate from dishes used for dairy. Dairy and meat will not be present in the same meal. While certain foods such as pepperoni may be used in the preparation of pizza, it would never be kosher. Many restaurants will be either dairy kosher or meat kosher. There actually is a kosher pizza parlor in the Jewish section of Pittsburgh and on Chicagos north side. While in Chicago one time for a convention, we tracked down a kosher pizza place to have some pizza. I liked the Pittsburgh pizza better!

Before bacteria were discovered, the word germ had a much different meaning. Germ definition is - a small mass of living substance capable of developing into an organism or one of its parts. Open up some seeds and you have a tiny plant forming. That also is a germ. I do hope when I sprinkle wheat germ on something that it is not "germs"! However, some do eat stuff loaded with germs for a reason such as probiotics. The following site details how germs can be bacteria, viruses, protozoas, fungis, etc. https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/germs.html I remember studying about the history of the development of germ theory and how in the early days it was not accepted well. Physicians mocking the idea would wipe their scalpels on the bottoms of their shoes during surgery! Of course, hand washing wasn't really the accepted custom of the day either. Physicians would go from patient to patient in the maternity wards without washing hands. It took a while to figure out the cause of childbed fever. Women who gave birth at home were much more likely to survive childbirth than those who went to a hospital.

Kosher is authorized or proper food for Jews like Halal is for Muslims. It is essentially a stamp or guarantee that the food was prepared in accordance with religious law. Slaughtered a certain way, prepared a certain way, certain animals are excluded. Example: Kosher Phad Thai would be prepared minus the oyster sauce. An observant Jew would not eat Phad Thai or many other Thai dishes (at Thai restaurants) because Oyster sauce is a common element in Thai cooking and Oysters are not Kosher.

I have spent some time last night reading that chapter re Israel, it is well done!

well, thats actually a good point. But I guess I didn't really say very clearly what I meant by the question. I was just curious to know if fish was safe to eat anymore? There are quotes I could drum up to show that there will be a time when various foods will not be safe to eat? it was in that context I was wondering about fish.

I knew Elder Cottrell the last few years of his life, out in Loma Linda. He was a frequent speaker and very faithful to the church. While he said that he liked to give the benefit of the doubt towards the Investigative Judgement, he was sympathetic towards Desmond Ford. While I was not too sympathetic towards Ford and had a stronger acceptance of the Investigative Judgement and he was more forensic than I am, we were in agreement with concerns over the growth of fundamentalism in the church, concerns about the Adventist Theological Society, and of course I admire that he wrote that most important chapter in the SDABC "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy". (In our discussions on Ford I was able to turn to some of his writings against his support.)

Fish with both fins and scales.

Converting the soul ? Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

One of the better articles I have read on the topic of Black Lives Matter. You will understand this movement better after reading it. BLM’s Goals, and Police Brutality The goals of Black Lives Matter can be summarized by 3 points. -Communism, including the redistribution of wealth -Support an LGBTQ+ philosophy, along with the disruption of the “nuclear family structure” -Fight against “racist” police brutality in the United States One of BLM's goals is destroying the family. Leftist government policies have been doing that for decades. Garza, and the folks at Black Lives Matter, can fantasize about getting rid of black fathers all day long, but Reality is no respecter of fantasies. The empirical facts have already confirmed what any thinking, rational person with a brain should have already known; destroying fatherhood will destroy a people. Regarding police shootings: In the case of police-bias in shootings, Harvard economist, Dr. Roland Fryer conducted a study that found no evidence of police bias when it came to shootings. The study did find, however, that there was racial bias in non-lethal use of force, which is very important to acknowledge. On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. These findings, of course, run contrary to the core claims of groups like Black Lives Matter. Keep in mind that several of the officers her organization has accused of racist violence against black people are black police officers. Black Lives Matter claims to be about peace on their website. "We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another." Yet their actions prove otherwise. Their three main founders often quote Assata Shakur, a convicted cop-killer, as one of their main inspirations. A "Christian" organization has gotten involved with BLM: InterVarsity “Christian” Fellowship’s Involvement With Black Lives Matter In 2015, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a college ministry with “more than 1000 chapters in over 650 college campuses across the United States,” decided to join hands with Black Lives Matter. https://medium.com/christian-intellectual/the-aftermath-of-black-lives-matter-d8360dd16f39

This is a serious problem throughout the church. My kids would say the same; and yes, I think it best to with hold the reasons. Its a nasty mess and likely always will be.

I think if I had to do it all over again with my kids, I would have home schooled them. One of my kids has flatly informed me that the door of an Adventist church would never be darkened by them related to the way they were treated in church school. I feel fortunate, mostly(!),that I went to church schools, but I guess it is not always a pleasant experience for everyone. I will withhold the reasons for my kids feeling regarding church school, but I can understand their feelings.

There is a lot of research currently into viruses as cancer killers. I recall many years ago reading an article in Reader's Digest, of all places, regarding one oncologist who noted that many of his patients had reported not getting colds for many years. Numerous other articles I have read since have detailed the research. Seems one researcher noted that cancer cells have a surface protein that viruses are drawn to. Other researchers are looking into pairing chemo with viruses. So, whenever I get a cold I just look at it as my annual "tuneup". However, unfortunately not all cancers are the same and it does not follow for all of them that a virus based therapy would work. There is no "magical bullet" to cure all cancers and likely won't be one. But you never know.

Correctly understood in context He is "vindicated in our minds - not that He needs that but we do: If scripture talks about we should too.

Kevin, I find the following to be challenging:

good post, Kevin. I agree 100% with this. I once made a fairly comprehensive list of all of the main scripture texts/passages that refer to the "great controversy," and there are a number of them not even a little bit ambiguous. I'll post that here whenever I can find it. Its buried somewhere in my books and papers. I think we are too often glued to pet theories and denominated "prophecy" not always based upon reality.

Gregory: Usually we are in more agreement. Here I found a couple of points were we are in more disagreement. The first is the original post saying that it will challenge us. No it doesn't. It is just the typical "Daniel is about Antiochus" and "Daniel 8:14 means 1150 days, not 2300." Theories that were developed prior to the rediscovery of the ancient world through archaeology. I can add more to this. But Daniel's errors support being written shortly after his time (by his disciples) and would have more serious errors if it was about Antiochus. The book shows more knowledge of Babylon and early Persia, that would have been forgotten by Antiochus' time and has only been rediscovered by 20th century archaeology. Back when these theories were developed people did not know that Belshazzar was a real person, much less when his third year was. One principle that we tend to over look when study is the principle of exegesis/analogy. The Bible has first a local application, then reapplications by analogy of the principles over history. (A very useful tool is the chapter in the SDABC "The Role of Israel in OT prophecy, which gives a general overview. We can re-write it very specifically to different time periods in both the Bible and history.) In Deuteronomy 4 (and I recently learned of a text in Leviticus but have not memorized yet) teaches that the exile was to have been the last days. It should have ended by a second great exodus lead by the Messiah. Keeping this in mind, if we start with the third year of Belshazzar and add 1150 literal days to it, granted we don't know what day during his third year the vision was given on, but looking at that whole year we have business as usual. But if you take the third year of Belshazzar, and add 2300 literal days, granted we don't know the specific day but you get a year that includes Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, Belshazzar's feast and the early days of the Persian empire. If the Hebrews had spread the gospel to their neighbors this could have been time for the second great exodus lead by the Messiah. Thus if we draw an analogy based on 1150 days we have nothing happening or potentially happening and thus don't have information for a correct analogy. But if we draw it on 2300 evenings-mornings, we have the analogies we can do on the cycles and one of these would point to Yom Kippur 1844 when a sabbatical year ends and a jubilee year starts (based on the early date of the exodus) and the dawning of the age of exegesis and the recent exploration and publication of the exploration of Biblical geography by Robinson. And as for the Great Controversy being in the Bible, yes, reading the Bible from our 21 century culture and Greek thinking mindset it is not that clear. But as we learn more about the ancient culture and ideas that were in the minds of the writers and readers in the ancient world, they had many of the ideas that Mrs. White points out as part of their culture. So we cannot say that it is not in the Bible, it is there in ancient assumptions and we miss it due to our assumptions. Mrs. White fills that gap to get us closer to what the Bible is actually teaching on this point.

In that day ? John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

GREGORY thank you for posting this article===== we need to be praying for all the people that have this disease dgrimm60

As I read the posts that Gustave is making, I am picking up on a theme that I had not previously understood him to be making. I refer to his comments that EGW taught that the Great Controversy theme involved the vindication of God's law. I will not comment on that. The Great Controversy theme, as I understand it, and as I understand others to understand it, differs from what I understand Gustave to be saying. It is not understood to involve a vindication of God's law. Rather it is understood to involve whether or not God had created beings (angels and other intelligent life) with an actual freedom of choice. SDAs generally see a rebellion that took place in heaven in which 1/3 of the angelic beings rebelled against God and joined in following the angel Lucifer. That angel then charged that if God actually gave created, intelligent life, the freedom to chose, those created beings would chose to follow Lucifer. As the next step in this rebellion against God, SDAs disagree on various parts of what happened next. But, the central part of that is that humanity, in the persons of Adam and of Eve could decide whether to follow God or Lucifer (AKA Satan) by their decision whether or not to eat of the so-called tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As to other intelligent life and the relationship of that life to this question of free will, SDAs differ of several aspects of that issue. However, I will state several points on which there is common agreement: * In this solar system, the Earth is the only planet that has intelligent life. * Intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the cosmos. * That intelligent life probably has some relationship to the form of life that was created on Earth in the persons of Adam and Eve. * That intelligent life has some manner of awareness of the rebellion that first occurred in heaven and in some manner the choice that Adam and Eve made to include the plan of Salvation with the consequent death of God in the person of Christ on the Cross. With this common understanding, SDAs would commonly state their beliefs in some different words than Gustave used in his description of how he understood SDA beliefs. But, this is just an argument as to wording. As to where the Bible is as to the above common SDA beliefs: The common SDA beliefs, as I have stated them, are expanded beyond what is clearly stated in the Bible. Therefore, SDAs are not required to believe as I have stated above. It should be noted that I have not included some aspects of belief on which common agreement does not exist.

According to your faith Mat 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. ?

Photodude: Exactly! You got it correct. In my opinion, the drawing, which I saw, throws one off and sends people off in the wrong direction. Folks, let us all acknowledge Photodude for his wisdom is solving the ridedle.

Yes, you are right. I have read things about how cancer might actually be a virus. I seem to recall something in EGW writings that hinted at something similar. But those are fuzzy memories. I do know of one quote because I found it today while looking for something else: I think she uses the word "germ" in a few ways that may hint at "viruses," and related things. I have a short article about it somewhere, but to find it will be a challenge.

In the Bible it discusses deceptions that may deceive even the very elect. EGW prophesied that spiritualism would invade the church in the end times. We are in the end times with numerous signs all around us. And one of those signs is the invasion of the church by spiritualism. These videos by Janet Lundeen Neuman will look at this issue. Every video is markedly different and traces this invasion which reaches even into conference and division offices. By Invitation Only https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1djWKfMe64 Shades of Grey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDnextwvY4 Who Do We Follow? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZS09yPP0M (Technical difficulties may want you to skip to 17:30. Not sure why it was not edited out, but you do not miss any of her talk.) A Church in Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPWCDfTrS3M The emergent church how how it expressed in TheOneProject is looked at. I realize many feel blessed by these events, but feelings should not be your guide to the validity of a movement. I realize these will take an investment in time, but they are a very important message and warning.

You see here is where you are so wrong Henry: And I beheld, and heard a messenger flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound! Rev 8:13 And I saw another messenger fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Rev 14:6 Again, angels do not fly in the midst of the sky! Other versions use the Greek word "aetos," while the KJV used the Greek word “angelos.” The first word is eagle, which still would indicate a cherub or a sephrim. However, you have look at other Scriptures and compare as I stated above. Also, in Rev 14:6 the same exact lines are repeated and here is clearly stated that this was another messenger. This mean a messenger went before this one! So it shows that the other manuscript who they claim were written earlier were not consistent. And when they shall have finished their Testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make w Rev 11:7 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Rev 13:1-4, 12 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,Rev 16:10 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Rev 17:8 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with THE LAMB, and THE LAMB shall overcome them: for HE IS SOVEREIGN of sovereigns, and KING of kings: and they that are with HIM are called, and chosen, and faithful. Rev 17:12- 14 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. Dan 7:11 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against HIM that sat on the Horse, and against HIS army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Rev 19:19, 20 Now, you tell me where in anyone of these Scriptures does it state what you claim by saying: "The virus is about to propagate globally just as the Mark of the Beast is about to arise." I do not read this anywhere and this is your problem! The SDA believes that the beast in Daniel is not the beast in Revelation but it is because in both books, both prophets see that the beast is being burned in the Lake of Fire. What is not understood is that Rev Chapter 13 is a continuation of Daniel. You see seven heads attach to the beast in this chapter but only one head with the ten horns on top. However, during period of time the little horn had became the seventh head. These major five nations are Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia and Greece. Exactly what the angel told John. All of these nations had come in contact with YAHWEH through HIS prophets which included IsraEL. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Elisha , Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the three Hebrew boys, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, Ezekiel and the minor prophets. Then two remain Papal Rome and Roman Catholic Empire only subjagated for a short time. During the 7th head the Roman Catholic Empire, it did wear out the saints and made war with them and overcame them. Until this head was wounded to death but the wound was healed for the final 8 and original head of the beast to materalize. That's the mystery! This head would hate the 7th head that was reduce from an Empire for 1,260 years to a church. She rod him but he left her and instead accepted his power directly from Satan the dragon. The 7th head was not needed anymore and you cannot have two foes. The whore has become a woman and the new 10 horns that arises hate her and they with the beast destroys her! That is what the Bible says! Nothing you state is Biblical and you know it because THERE IS NO SCRIPTURES! Just your twisted words! Peace!

It appears that "the wise" has trouble even just spelling "understand, so yes, Houston, we may have a serious problem here.

Henry: It is not doubting your message that I am telling you that you are wrong. What I tell you is the truth because you are going directly against the Bible. There is no doubt at all. Your information is senseless. It is also irreverence you have taken Daniel 12:1 and blashpheme THE SON of THE LIVING ELOHE! I have no doubt that if you continue you will blashpheme THE HOLY SPIRIT and HE Will leave you. I truly am sad for you, I have known you a long time. I take the WORD of YAHWEH very serious with trembling and awe also humbly and with reverance. When I present anything I pray and research it also, providing Scriptures. This is not a game and I am not being skeptical at all! You are truly scaring me because your life is on the line. Anything I write or present my life is on the line. Many feel like they can say anything and they can't and they don't realize that they are giving account of everything they say and do. We are on trial, judgment is going on as we speak. People names are being blotted out! I want to remain in the Book of Life. Things are happening rapidly, the earth is dying, diseases are spreading like flies and we think we have a lot of years and we don't! People are angry, violence is out of control and I have never in my life seen hatred like we have today. Parties are fighting each other and taking sides, immoral acts are getting worst. People want to do what they want. People who claim to know THE MOST HIGH are accepting any and everything for power. Prejudice is at an all time high, lovers of your ownself is everywhere. False doctrines are being accepted and dilusion is everywhere. Why? Because we refuse to reconize who THE ALMIGHTY ONES ARE! To me that is sad! Do I feel something is going to happen this year, I truly do! What is going to happen is not about the papacy remarks on the Sabbath or your statements either. Nor other comments others have made! It is going to be unexpected and not prepare for. I will pray because we are in a mess and things and unrest is about explode. Pray, get right with THE MESSIAH and obey and keep YAHWEH'S Law and HIS WORD! Concern with hope!

absolutely nothing to do with it

Didn't you know he was making fun of your prophetic views? Everyones knows that you are far off from the truth and it is getting worse!

You are completely wrong on all accounts and you need prayer! I am glad that the Bible of truth will stand the test because people like you have become so blind it is unbelievable!

Well, can I simply ask you if I don't understand, wouldn't it just be nice to say it with kindness. You responded back to what I stated and my subject was on the Hebrew word shabat versus the noun Sabbath! I am truly sorry if we had a mix communication! Blessings!

Daniel, Red Skelton, and Pelosi all "stood up" Dan 12:5 Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. All THREE said "the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished." (Dan 12:7)

Actually, now that I think of it, and had some lunch, I am going to change my mind - just like you do, and I would now have to say that Red Skelton has already "stood for his people," so you have totally missed the boat!

makes more sense than Pence!

Using this same "hermeneutic" I say that Nancy Pelosi is going to "stand" for HER people!

well, seems like "tiny bubbles" got into the water. I was talking about Sabbath Rest being "rest in Christ." I said nothing about EGW or "original" [so called] Hebrew words. Good night and good bye.

As I said a virus is a disease organism that needs a host. Man has done more disruptive measure to control what they can't and cause it to mutate. YAHWEH knew exactly what we would do and made it prepared if tampered with that the mutation would be worst! It is and there you have it. If you thing America is not going to recieve mutated diseases then I am a ghost! I know I am not because that word is a lie! So, there you have it. It was said I should have been a scientist, it does not take a scientist to know if you play around with fire or viruses you get burn or mutation. If so, you will die and cause it to spread so others will die! YAHWEH knew it, HE created it to destroy sinful beings! End of story!

Really in the Bible, it is not. When you take a Hebrew word that means to desist, cease or stop; then it does not mean rest! Simple! People have changed the words, EGW in Early Writing declared it yet, this is not accepted to be true. How long do we play with the writings of this person. I believe that she had visions and they all came from YAHSHUA! I do not believe she was a prophet because she and the Bible said so! We are so quick to believe things added without any investigation and that is sad! Your choice! Blessings!

I know that you would not accept what I said. You like many people tried to limit THE MOST HIGH! HE does not have to make it with a nuclecus. It was made to reproduce with a host cell because it a disease making organism. For about 100 years, the scientific community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are. First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life. It is easy to see why viruses have been difficult to pigeonhole. They seem to vary with each lens applied to examine them. The initial interest in viruses stemmed from their association with diseases—the word “virus” has its roots in the Latin term for “poison.” In the late 19th century researchers realized that certain diseases, including rabies and foot-and-mouth, were caused by particles that seemed to behave like bacteria but were much smaller. Because they were clearly biological themselves and could be spread from one victim to another with obvious biological effects, viruses were then thought to be the simplest of all living, gene-bearing life-forms. Their demotion to inert chemicals came after 1935, when Wendell M. Stanley and his colleagues, at what is now the Rockefeller University in New York City, crystallized a virus— tobacco mosaic virus—for the first time. They saw that it consisted of a package of complex biochemicals. But it lacked essential systems necessary for metabolic functions, the biochemical activity of life. Stanley shared the 1946 Nobel Prize— in chemistry, not in physiology or medicine—for this work. Further research by Stanley and others established that a virus consists of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein coat that may also shelter viral proteins involved in infection. By that description, a virus seems more like a chemistry set than an organism. But when a virus enters a cell (called a host after infection), it is far from inactive. It sheds its coat, bares its genes and induces the cell’s own replication machinery to reproduce the intruder’s DNA or RNA and manufacture more viral protein based on the instructions in the viral nucleic acid. The newly created viral bits assemble and, voilà, more virus arises, which also may infect other cells. These behaviors are what led many to think of viruses as existing at the border between chemistry and life. More poetically, virologists Marc H. V. van Regenmortel of the University of Strasbourg in France and Brian W. J. Mahy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently said that with their dependence on host cells, viruses lead “a kind of borrowed life.” Interestingly, even though biologists long favored the view that viruses were mere boxes of chemicals, they took advantage of viral activity in host cells to determine how nucleic acids code for proteins: indeed, modern molecular biology rests on a foundation of information gained through viruses. Molecular biologists went on to crystallize most of the essential components of cells and are today accustomed to thinking about cellular constituents—for example, ribosomes, mitochondria, membranes, DNA and proteins—as either chemical machinery or the stuff that the machinery uses or produces. This exposure to multiple complex chemical structures that carry out the processes of life is probably a reason that most molecular biologists do not spend a lot of time puzzling over whether viruses are alive. For them, that exercise might seem equivalent to pondering whether those individual subcellular constituents are alive on their own. This myopic view allows them to see only how viruses co-opt cells or cause disease. The more sweeping question of viral contributions to the history of life on earth, which I will address shortly, remains for the most part unanswered and even unasked. The seemingly simple question of whether or not viruses are alive, which my students often ask, has probably defi ed a simple answer all these years because it raises a fundamental issue: What exactly defi nes “life?” A precise scientific definition of life is an elusive thing, but most observers would agree that life includes certain qualities in addition to an ability to replicate. For example, a living entity is in a state bounded by birth and death. Living organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism. This level of autonomy is essential to most definitions. Viruses, however, parasitize essentially all biomolecular aspects of life. That is, they depend on the host cell for the raw materials and energy necessary for nucleic acid synthesis, protein synthesis, processing and transport, and all other biochemical activities that allow the virus to multiply and spread. One might then conclude that even though these processes come under viral direction, viruses are simply nonliving parasites of living metabolic systems. But a spectrum may exist between what is certainly alive and what is not. A rock is not alive. A metabolically active sack, devoid of genetic material and the potential for propagation, is also not alive. A bacterium, though, is alive. Although it is a single cell, it can generate energy and the molecules needed to sustain itself, and it can reproduce. But what about a seed? A seed might not be considered alive. Yet it has a potential for life, and it may be destroyed. In this regard, viruses resemble seeds more than they do live cells. They have a certain potential, which can be snuffed out, but they do not attain the more autonomous state of life. Are Viruses Alive? Scientific American You see flesh Beings think they know more than THE MOST HIGH! The antediluvian world did accept their was going to be rain. Why? It never rain before. Yet, we want to believe scientists like they know more than YAHWEH! Now, they want to compare a virus to a seed which is a living organism! They don't know or refuse to understand that HIS WAY are not our ways, HIS THOUGHT are not our thoughts! We can not conceive how anything is actually made! If they knew exactly how a virus is made they would know how to destroy them and they can't! Why? Again, I say they are a organism that attaches to a specific host to cause the host cells to become diseased. But it is sad, we rather believe men who can't wrap their mind around the virus to know if it is alive. Nothing dead attacks the body only something that is alive and was created specifically to do so! I wanted you to know that man cannot create or make anything that is a living organism which include the rocks and the earth-period! But I can't make you believe, that's what THE HOLY SPIRIT does! Again, I just present and leaves it up to you and HIM! Maybe you should learned how to be kind and read your Bible more! Always, hate when I try to share something with you! I wonder why? Does it matter if I know history or science, the most important is knowing and honoring YAHWEH! And loving you inspite the things you say! Be blessed!