Is Australopithecus Afarensis Evidence of Hominid Evolution?

Australopithecus afarensis. There is no consensus among paleoanthropologists as to whether or not A. afarensis had ability to do knuckle-walking, or even if A. afarensis was largely bipedal. There is still an on-going tug of war between 2 schools of thought as to how fossils alleged to be afarensis should be interpreted for whatever abilities/physical features are allegedly evidenced by any particular skeletal reconstruction involving certain fossils.

It is said that afarensis' femur angles in toward the knee from the hip, and that is said to be a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion; however, it is also said that along with humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature.

Also questionable is whether Australopithecus foot bones indicate the Laetoli footprints were even made by Australopithecus. "Many scientists also doubt the suggestion of bipedalism, and argue that even if Australopithecus really did walk on two legs, it did not walk in the same way as humans . . . The shoulder joint is also oriented much more cranially (i.e. towards the skull) than that in modern humans but similar to that in the present day apes. Combined with the relatively long arms A. afarensis is thought to have had, this is thought by many to be reflective of a heightened ability to use the arm above the head in climbing behaviour. Furthermore, scans of the skulls reveal a canal and bony labyrinth morphology, which is not supportive to proper bipedal locomotion."

Also is this admission: "In particular the morphology of scapula appears to be ape-like and very different from modern humans. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is suggestive of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb."

Also disputed is whether or not all the fossils labeled A. afarensis belong just to that one species, but that there is a mix in the Hadar site's fossils, representing more than one species.

Also, there is this as reviewed in Science 26 October 2012: "Scapular morphology is predictive of locomotor adaptations among primates, but this skeletal element is scarce in the hominin fossil record. Notably, both scapulae of the juvenile Australopithecus afarensis skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia, have been recovered. These scapulae display several traits characteristic of suspensory apes, as do the few known fragmentary adult australopith representatives. Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny, but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike. Additionally, changes in other scapular traits throughout African ape development are associated with shifts in locomotor behavior. This affirms the functional relevance of those characteristics, and their presence in australopith fossils supports the hypothesis that their locomotor repertoire included a substantial amount of climbing."

Also, Susman and Stern said: "She [afarensis] probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys."

Also, Charles Oxnard performed a multivariate analysis on afarensis and concluded that it is truly unique: "The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other."

Also, about "[an] exceptionally well-preserved skeleton of an A. afarensis child from Dikika, Ethiopia, discovered in 2000 by Dr. Alemseged . . . further preparation and extensive analyses of these rare bones showed them to be quite apelike, suggesting that this species was adapted to climbing trees in addition to walking bipedally when on the ground. "The question as to whether Australopithecus afarensis was strictly bipedal or if they also climbed trees has been intensely debated for more than thirty years," said Dr. Green. These remarkable fossils provide strong evidence that these individuals were still climbing at this stage in human evolution." The new findings are published in the October 26 issue of the journal Science.

Mexican Fossilized Impressions - 20,000 Years Old; or 40,000 Years Old; or 1,300,000 Years Old?

Ancient Human Footprints Found in Mexico | Science/AAAS. Geochronological analyses assign wildly divergent dates (20 kyr-1myr) to the fossilized impression. Why? Need there be more fossilized impressions uncovered in rocky outcrops there -- undisturbed by modern-day vehicular traffic -- before science can resolve the disputed claims? Is there an even playing field for studies of the Mexican and African fossils?

There is dispute not only as to the age of the impressions, but also as to whether or not the fossilized impressions are even human footprints. What are alleged to be human footprints occur in what appears to be a pattern for bipedal locomotion, and occur among a plethora of other animal footprints. The dates assigned the fossilized footprints range from 20,000 years old to 1,300,000 years old ! Tim White, who has used the Berkeley lab for dating African fossils, has no doubt that the Berkeley lab has given correct date of about 1.3 million years old; accordingly, he must dispute the human identification that other scientists give the maker of the fossilized impressions. See
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/30_fp.shtml

François Sarre Asks, 'Will an Exemplar of Obligate Bipedalism in Those Hominoids That Bequeathed It Only to Hominid Species Stand Up . . . Please? Where Is Bigfoot Hiding Himself Out?'

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/desarre.htm

François Sarre is no shrinking violet when it comes to his acceptance of hominid evolution; he accepts the theory. His little pictograph (see below) humorously sums up his belief about what the major fossil specimens salient to the paleoanthropologists' theories of hominid evolution -- as the fossil specimens relate to what he alleges was retention of obligate bipedalism only in the hominid species --, would teach us, if we would but view those fossils specimens as he views them. He uses a pictograph that begins with an upright, obligate bipedal (human) that seemingly descends into creatures that have lost obligate bipedalism. It is a simplistic pictograph, because it does not represent in him a belief that chimpanzees and the great apes are descended from humans, but rather that those species are our cousin descendants, descended from certain hominoids whereby 'in that descent of our cousin species from bipedal hominoids there gradually became the loss of obligate bipedalism -- though it was once present in certain hominoid ancestors (and may yet be represented by certain of those species that have survived into historical times here on earth, and maybe still do).' The theory here has it that there was an ancestor common to humans and the great apes who was an obligate bipedal creature, but that in the lines that branched off from him, 'the obligate bipedalism he owned came to be lost in some branches of his descendants, it being retained, in fact, only in the branch that became, in time, according to François de Sarre's theory, homo sapiens.'

It's a wild, wild West out there when it comes to paleoanthropologists' theories. Who among them wields the fastest spade for remarkably finding and digging out other fossil specimens just right for added support of some alternative theory he trumpets?




© François de Sarre
Published in Animals & Men, Issue Six

 

Distance-responsive genes found in dancing honey bees

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2010.00622.x/full

Distance-responsive genes found in dancing honey bees

The link above is to an article that its authors would hardly acknowledge does the following thing in their discussion of the honey bee genome: in effect, the article shows that there is descriptive modeling of genetically programmed honey bee behaviors that are mathematically sensible/presentable, but the authors apparently do not agree that we may argue that the modeling they present shows forth God's wisdom. The concluding paragraph states, "Results indicate that the responsiveness of the genome to social information extends to inputs that require the formation of quantitative representations in the brain . . . One challenge in [deterministic] behavioral genomics is to elucidate how brain genomic responses lead to adaptive behavior. Distance measurement joins a growing number of naturally occurring and experimentally accessible traits [-- well, after all, probably all are agreed that the traits are not traits 'acquired through "dint of free will" intrinsic to honey bee Mind (self awareness-driven mentational properties in honey bees)' --] that will help us to solve this important problem." (Emphases are mine, Al Kidd's.)

Ah, Yes! "Important problem" indeed! for the evolutionists' theory that these behaviors in honey bees are result of something other than the ordaining will and creative power belonging to the owner of a Mind pre-existing the honey bee's existence itself ought to be seen by materialists as a theory fatally driven through by Karl Popper's "sword" (i.e., evolution is not a falsifiable theory), but is a theory shot through with incredible naiveté as we can see evidenced when evolutionists assert that the honey bee's behavioral genomics is not evidence of intelligent design, but that the challenge for them "is to elucidate how brain genomic responses [can blindly pursue and successfully] lead to adaptive behavior." Their naiveté is borne of their wish to resist the logical implication of the necessity of Mind (the Creator, God) reflected in creation.

The introductory and, again, the concluding paragraphs are presented below without my commentary.

"We report that regions of the honey bee brain involved in visual processing and learning and memory show a specific genomic response to distance information. These results were obtained with an established method that separates effects of perceived distance from effects of actual distance flown. Individuals forced to shift from a short to perceived long distance to reach a feeding site showed gene expression differences in the optic lobes and mushroom bodies relative to individuals that continued to perceive a short distance, even though they all flew the same distance. Bioinformatic analyses suggest that the genomic response to distance information involves learning and memory systems associated with well-known signaling pathways, synaptic remodeling, transcription factors and protein metabolism. By showing distance-sensitive brain gene expression, our findings also significantly extend the emerging paradigm of the genome as a dynamic regulator of behavior, that is particularly responsive to stimuli important in social life....

"Our results indicate that the responsiveness of the genome to social information extends to inputs that require the formation of quantitative representations in the brain . . . One challenge in behavioral genomics is to elucidate how brain genomic responses lead to adaptive behavior. Distance measurement joins a growing number of naturally occurring and experimentally accessible behavioral traits that will help us solve this important problem."

The “Place” Called Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Called Hades in the Greek Scriptures

Is Sheol a place of immateriality, a place for departed souls where soul is, contrary to the Bible, thought by many religionists to be defined as the immaterial essence of personhood that allegedly survives the death of a person’s body? No, it is not a spiritual realm. It is actually mankind’s common, earthen grave; it is gravedom, or we may write it as “the Grave.” It has no particular geography or literal boundaries, though it may be distinguished from the sea that has received beneath its waves countless dead persons. So, when we read Revelation 20:13, we are no more to think of the dead in Hades (Sheol) as being alive than would we as respects those dead in the sea; the condition of the dead in Hades is no different than it is for the dead in the sea. We must not allow ourselves to be duped by certain religionists whose arguments they unwittingly let devolve to the point where we can only say that they would make the Bible to contradict itself. They do, in fact, themselves contradict the Bible’s statement in Ecclesiastes 9:10 that ‘the dead are unconscious; the dead do not think.’ Moreover, even though those religionists do not appreciate their error, it amounts to the doctrine that planet Earth has two immaterial realms, one somewhere below the surface of the ground, and another one somewhere beneath the waves of the sea. They should agree that such a doctrine is part and parcel of their errors, or they should admit that they are using two different definitions for the two uses of the phrase “the dead” at Revelation 20:13.

What things are in Sheol (Hades)? Dead bodies are, generally speaking, though there was an occasion (see Numbers 16:26-35) where living persons – not dead persons – went down into Sheol; yes, they went down alive into Sheol, they and all their possessions when the ground opened up beneath them and their tents. Men, women, children and all that was theirs went down into Sheol; they had not become dead persons before going down into Sheol, but they soon enough became the kind of persons we normally associate with Sheol; they became dead persons in Sheol when the earth closed back over the top of them. How far down need they to have fallen in order that we may say that they were in Sheol? Did they have to fall miles and miles deep below the surface of the ground? No! They needed to have fallen no more deeply than what should allow the fissure to become shut back over the top of them, so that they should not be seen by others, and that they should be either crushed or suffocated to death. When it happened, then that shut fissure had become a grave for the rebels, and had become part of that wider collection of graves that we normally, by abstraction, present to our mind’s eye when we say “Sheol,” or "the land down below" (Ezekiel 31:14, 18, 32:18, 24). We have here no picture of an immaterial realm under the label “Sheol.” Nor do we have it anywhere else in the Bible as respects actual persons who have died.

True, Sheol was, in the book of Ezekiel, spoken about in a context involving a figurative reference to slain, uncircumcised warriors whose corpses had, unsurprisingly, come to be buried in the earth; hence, we may also say that they had come to share a “place” in Sheol with their weapons of war alongside them, with swords under the heads of the many slain ones who were buried in the earth with their weaponry. We read nothing unusual in just those words that discuss Sheol; Sheol is not presented as the abode of departed, immaterial souls. (See Ezekiel 32:27.) What is unusual, however, is that Sheol is figuratively presented as the scene where the slain, uncircumcised corpses of warriors ‘are speaking from the depths of Sheol’ (see Ezekiel 32:21). It is macabre theater; it is not description of any event that has ever literally (actually) taken place in a grave, no, nor between two graves, nor among any number of the graves that we see collectively referenced in the Bible as Sheol. Accordingly, then, we see Ezekiel's convenient employment of a figurative (fictitious, non-literal) geography for Sheol such that it was pictured as having also a certain collection or arrangement of the graves of the nations' slain, uncircumcised warrior-rulers, where such graves were conveniently pictured as being in such close proximity to one another that the corpses of the slain, warrior-rulers could, from their graves, figuratively "speak to [Pharaoh] and his helpers"; see Ezekiel 32:21ff.). Hades is, in the New Testament, the Greek language word that is equivalent to Sheol; both words refer to mankind's common earthen grave. We may translate Sheol and Hades into English with the phrase “the Grave.”

Does God Approve the Homosexual Lifestyle?

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 let us know that Jehovah God views any act of sexual intercourse between two men as something detestable and unnatural. Leviticus 18:22 New World Translation (NW) states, “And you must not lie down with a male the same as you would lie down with a woman”; Leviticus 20:13 NW states, “And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. They have committed a violation of what is natural. Their own blood is upon them.”  The texts here speak only to the act of sexual intercourse itself; therefore, effort to place the prohibition as something that applies only to certain kinds of exploitative homosexual activity (e.g., the lustful, greedy behavior of male temple prostitutes; homosexual rape; and pederasty) is effort that ignores the fact that the texts focus on the unnaturalness of the intercourse itself, it being sexual intercourse not between a man and a woman, but between two men.  If any person feels inclined towards homosexual intercourse, then he should know that the God of the Bible, Jehovah, has not left Himself without witness that He sees any and all homosexual intercourse to be both unnatural and detestable. One will search the Bible in vain for any indication that the Father of all persons does not categorically condemn sexual intercourse between two men. The Bible is without any ambiguity as respects any of its texts that deal with the subject.

 

The Bible also shows us that it is not only that sexual intercourse between two men which is unnatural and detestable, but it also shows us that sexual intercourse between two women is unnatural.  The Law of Moses does not address lesbianism, although it, too, is unnatural.  Lesbianism evidently was a very rare phenomenon in ancient Israelite culture, a culture in which women were kept safe through child bearing (cf. 1 Timothy 2:15); therefore, there was no more urgency to prohibit lesbianism explicitly than there was for the Lawgiver, Jehovah, to feel urgent need to explicitly prohibit elective abortions among Israelite women, or explicitly to prohibit necrophilia.  Any women ever discovered in an act of sexual intercourse between them were guilty of an unnatural sex act; it surely made them liable to execution. The God of the Bible does not change His moral standards; therefore, if He reveals to us Christians that He views sexual intercourse between two females to be unnatural behavior that provokes His wrath, then the same thing was true of Him when He was in covenant relationship with fleshly Israel.  So, has Jehovah revealed explicitly to us Christians how He feels about sexual intercourse between two females?  Romans 1:26, 27 NW answers; there we read as follows: “That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.” God ordained a proper use of one’s genitals, that such take place only in a marital union; therefore, that which is contrary to what God has ordained is idolatry. Homosexual intercourse, then, is idolatrous because it spurns God’s clear witness that He has given both in nature and in the Bible as respects what shall be lawful sexual intercourse.  Really, those who offend against prohibition of fornication in any manifestation fornication takes (e.g., erotic use of one’s genitals with a person of the opposite gender where the man and the woman are not married to each other, nor is either one married to some other person, and which constitutes illicit heterosexual intercourse between them; adultery; bestiality; and erotic use of one’s genitals with a person of the same gender, which constitutes the abominable/detestable act of homosexual intercourse between them) have allowed greed and lust to motivate them to care more for their own feelings rather than for the feelings of their Creator whom they have spurned. Such greed is idolatry, just as Ephesians 5:3-5, 12 NW states, where we read as follows: “Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort not even be mentioned among you, just as it befits holy people; neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting, things which are unbecoming, but rather the giving of thanks.  For you know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person – which means being an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God…. For the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate.”

As Christians, we do not ridicule or revile anybody. We Jehovah’s Witnesses welcome into our community of faith those who have repented and turned around from practicing “works of the flesh”; therefore, the way is open for men and women who have desisted the homosexual lifestyle to become our brothers and sisters in the Lord. Does this mean that those Jehovah’s Witnesses who were, formerly, practicing the homosexual lifestyle must be free of same-sex attraction? No, but it means that, if they have same-sex attraction, they must keep on depending on help by holy spirit to keep on resisting temptation to return to homosexual behavior. Resisting temptation to engage in any kind of porneia (the Greek term for "fornication," any kind of illicit sexual activity) is something all of us must do: whether we experience heterosexual attraction, or whether we experience homosexual attraction, we can, by God's undeserved kindness, be holy in all our conduct/behavior.

Is it really established scientific fact that homosexuality is genetically determined? No. Consider an excerpt from an article titled Are People Really 'born gay'? Can someone really be "born gay"? Is there a "gay gene"? Does biology equal destiny? by Caleb H. Price (formerly a research analyst for Focus on the Family). He writes:

“Even more recently in 2007, a landmark study was published by Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse which concluded that it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and that such efforts to bring about change do not appear to be psychologically harmful. Entitled Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, this groundbreaking research has been hailed by experts from both sides of the debate as being the most methodologically rigorous to date.” [See Endnote 11.]

Endnote note 11: “Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 2007.”

Does "Breaking Bread" at Acts 20:7 Refer to a Commemorative Supper?

Dear Nick,

We read the following at the web site

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/emor/gel.html

" . . . the Karaites do not leave their houses on the Sabbath except to go to their synagogues or attend to absolutely essential matters; nor do they carry objects, for they do not acknowledge the concept of an eruv. Breaking bread on the Sabbath is forbidden by them . . . (Ex. 34:21 )." [End of my excerpt from the web site listed above]

If the Jews of the first century generally had this practice of refraining from breaking bread on the Sabbath, then Jewish Christians, living amidst Jewish unbelievers, may have refrained from inviting guests to travel any appreciable distances to each others' homes on a Sabbath day when and where they might have prepared and shared a meal on that day of the week. In the event that they did so refrain, then this would be out of deference to the unbelieving (non-Christian) Jews' sensibilities so as not to stumble them needlessly. `Breaking bread' (having a meal prepared/cooked), as well as inviting fellow Christians into their homes for that meal, could be done on some day other than the Sabbath (e.g., on the first day after the Sabbath), this so that unbelieving Jews might not have (yet another baseless) reason for their being hypercritical of Jewish Christians.

Is it reading too much into the record (that Luke gives us of Paul's movements after his Ephesian ministry) if we think that we see strong evidence in Acts that, beginning with Jewish Christians, a custom soon enough arose among the believers for them not to hold any of their own meetings – that is to say, not to hold meetings peculiarly Christian -- on a Sabbath day in a city where Jews lived, but to hold them on some other day of the week? (I know Seventh Day Adventists would holler "Sacrilege" at the suggestion.) The last record we have of Paul's use of a synagogue was at Ephesus (Acts 19:8). We have no record that Paul used a synagogue at Troas on his return trip to Jerusalem, this despite the fact that a Sabbath had come and gone while he was at Troas (Acts 20:7, 8), and it was not until the next day after the Sabbath before Paul gathered with, evidently, all the disciples to give them a discourse, and "to break bread" with them (for an evening meal, though Paul's prolonged discourse delayed the meal – i.e., delayed that aforementioned meal -- until after midnight; it was after midnight that Paul `broke the [aforementioned] bread and ate food' -- Acts 20:11), and then resumed that discourse that he had begun earlier in the evening (Acts 20:7b, 11b). Also, later, on this return trip to Jerusalem, Paul spent another seven days with disciples (the disciples in Tyre), during which time a Sabbath had to have occurred; however, we do not read that Paul availed himself of a Jewish synagogue in Tyre on a Sabbath. No, but after the seven days – though not necessarily the first day after a Sabbath --, Paul and his traveling companions were with all the Tyrian disciples, and "they all, together with the women and children, conducted [them] as far as outside the city," where, "kneeling down on the beach [they] had prayer" before the Tyrian disciples "returned to their homes" (Acts 21:4-6). Though we have record of a meal that Paul evidently shared with all the disciples in Troas (where the young man Eutychus, who had fallen asleep while seated in a window, fell from that window three stories down to the ground to his death), yet we have no record of a meal – no record of any breaking of bread -- that Paul shared with all the disciples in Tyre.

_____________________________________________

Dear Nick,

As an addendum to my earlier post in your thread, I should like to add the following:

It is not necessary to think the unlikely thing that Paul and companions were in the habit of putting out to sea on vessels (cargo boats) operated either by Jews or by Christians. They were simply at the mercy of shipping schedules used by the pagan operators of those vessels, and had to choose one that, on the occasion of Paul's return to Jerusalem, would allow Paul to accomplish as much ministering to the disciples' spiritual needs as possible in a port city, as well as for a scheduled departure that would not unnecessarily delay them on the return voyage. (I don't think that I am moving heaven and earth here, but I am certainly reviewing, I think, the scenario that allowed Paul and fellow travelers themselves to be moved, to be moved expeditiously upon the sea after Paul's ministering to the spiritual needs of the disciples in Troas for the maximum amount of time as might be practically afforded him, while also not offending the religious sensibilities of Sabbath-observing Jews.)

At Troas, Paul and his companions were able to book passage on a cargo boat, one that happened not to be setting sail on a Sabbath, but rather as soon as practically possible after the Sabbath, actually, after daybreak on a Sunday morning (Acts 20:7, 11), if Luke is using a Jewish calendar. Might Paul just as easily have scheduled a Friday evening meal and discourse, or a Saturday meeting, and a meal to follow, during Saturday's daylight hours? If there were no cargo boats scheduled to leave either on a Saturday morning or on a Saturday afternoon, then physically Paul might have done so; he might have felt inducement to so schedule a meeting, but he did not so schedule the fellowship, nor did he board a cargo vessel that might have been available during Sabbath's daylight hours -- and apparently would not have done so even had there been available such a departure date on a Sabbath.  As to scheduling a meeting on the Sabbath, he might have chosen a more relaxed schedule, one affording spiritual fellowship, and for a meal thereafter, by scheduling the events on a Sabbath.  Apparently, though, it was Paul's desire not only to board a cargo boat only after Sabbath, but also for ministering to the spiritual needs of the disciples in Troas only after that Sabbath, too. Those strictures meant a Sunday morning departure, at the earliest, if we are using a Jewish calendar. But the schedule he chose certainly raises the question "Why after Sabbath for those events? Why push so hard up against the daylight hours of the day on which he actually did depart?" Apparently, Paul wanted the shortest, practical interim to transpire between when he would last be with the disciples in Troas for spiritual fellowship, and for his departure in order to continue his journey to Jerusalem. Part of those practical, pragmatic considerations may well have included not only his taking into consideration a practical sailing schedule, but also into consideration the religious sensibilities of Sabbath-observing Jews in Troas so as not to offend them needlessly (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Even if so – as appears reasonable to me --, still, owing to the way events actually did transpire, it turned out that there was hardly a practical interim that transpired from after the end of spiritual fellowship, which fellowship did not itself begin until after Sabbath, until departure from Troas.

_________________________________________

Dear Chuck,

I like the way you reason on the sequence of events. So, the earliest that a time to begin the fellowship could have occurred would have been in an hour sufficiently after Saturday sundown, time sufficient enough for allowing Christians in Troas to travel a distance from their homes to a fellow Christian's home after Sabbath, which, for some of them, may well have meant a distance that exceeded the distance of an eruv. In this way, they could make plans to travel to the place for this special meeting with Paul, and, after the meeting, to partake a nourishing meal together with Paul and his traveling companions. All that activity could take place without the Christians needlessly offending Sabbath-observing, unbelieving Jews, who also did not light fires for cooking meals on a Sabbath day out of their allegiance to Mosaic Law.

Your brother,

Al

--- In [a private, Witnesses-only forum],  > chuck*****@***> wrote:
>
> Since they gathered together on the "first day of the
> week", and the new "day" started at sundown, it was
> probably around 6:00 p.m. or so, that they gathered
> together. Some translations even say that they
> gathered together on "Saturday evening". By that time
> of night, they were hungry and ready to eat. Since
> Paul kept them there until past midnight when did they
> eat, if they weren't having a meal together as the
> Scripture suggests by "breaking bread," [then they]
> would have REALLY been hungry by the close of their
> gathering had they not had a meal. It's interesting to
> me how some try to connect this meeting with a
> "weekly" (or even "daily") ceremony of "communion",
> calling it as the footnote in The Catholic Study Bible
> (NAB) "the celebration of the liturgy of the Eucharist..."
> The CEV agrees in their footnote which says: they
> "celebrated the Lord's Supper."
> . . . . It's interesting how some "Christians" grab for
> straws to keep their unscriptural practices afloat.
> (i.e. liturgy of the Eucharist).
>
> Chuck