Was Boaz’ mother Rahab of Jericho?

in my church, last Sunday, the Lady Pastor made a statement which, according to me, was neither factual nor required, which was: BOAZ WAS ABLE TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CONDITION OF RUTH, AS HE HIMSELF HAD FACED A SIMILAR SITUATION AT HOME, AS BOAZ’ MOTHER WAS  THE REFORMED HARLOT RAHAB, OF JERICHO!

Something wasn’t jelling! Boaz’ father’s name is not mentioned clearly except for saying that his mother”s name was Rachab, according to Matthew’s gospel who was married to Salmon.

Just because RUTH is placed before I SAMUEL, does it mean that RUTH chronologically preceded most of the Judges of Israel? If such an arrangement had been contemplated JOB should have been placed much before JUDGES, as it is common supposition that JOB was written by Moses.

Jephtha, one of the judges of Israel asks the aggressors against Israel why they are raking up issues settled through possession after 300 years. Therefore there is evidence that from Joshua, the first judge of Israel till the time of Jephtha, 300 years had elapsed.  To cite from THE BIBLE Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Philistines & Samson, Eli and Samuel had been judges after Jephtha. Therefore from Joshua’s end till the end of Samuel, at least 400 years had elapsed.  David was preceded by Saul though David was a son in law contemporary of Saul.

So working backwards David”s father was Jesse, Jesse’s was Obed, Obed’s was Boaz, and  Salmon was Boaz’ father whose wife was bearing a name called Rahab(Rachab). These four progenitors of David couldn’t have spanned from Joshua’s time, as the harlot Rahab was a contemporary of Joshua for at least the  last 10 years of Joshua, who is reported to have lived for 110 years.  So,  Rahab the harlot at Jericho COULDN’T HAVE BEEN THE SAME RAHAB, who was the mother of Boaz.

Feminist harebrained agenda has permeated even religious preachery and pastors with skeletal understanding of FACTS have started reading their own meanings into situations to advance their hypotheses.

As it is, the biggest tragedy is obliteration and convolution of Facts, to raise it to the pulpit seems demented and wasting the time of the listeners!

James Lovelock on the impending environmental disaster – in THE GUARDIAN 

James Lovelock

James Lovelock. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe

In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and “all sorts of fanciful technological stuff”. When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. “It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business,” he said.

“And of course,” Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, “that’s almost exactly what’s happened.”

Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain’s most respected – if maverick – independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.

For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists – but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language – but its calculations aren’t a million miles away from his.

As with most people, my panic about climate change is equalled only by my confusion over what I ought to do about it. A meeting with Lovelock therefore feels a little like an audience with a prophet. Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we’re trying to do about it is wrong.

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on – all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

“It’s just too late for it,” he says. “Perhaps if we’d gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don’t have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can’t say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do.”

He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. “Carbon offsetting? I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you’re offsetting the carbon? You’re probably making matters worse. You’re far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests.”

Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? “No we don’t. Because we can’t.” And recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”

Somewhat unexpectedly, Lovelock concedes that the Mail’s plastic bag campaign seems, “on the face of it, a good thing”. But it transpires that this is largely a tactical response; he regards it as merely more rearrangement of Titanic deckchairs, “but I’ve learnt there’s no point in causing a quarrel over everything”. He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy. 

“You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”

This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. “I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they’re doing. They want business as usual. They say, ‘Oh yes, there’s going to be a problem up ahead,’ but they don’t want to change anything.”

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. “But this is the real thing.”

Faced with two versions of the future – Kyoto’s preventative action and Lovelock’s apocalypse – who are we to believe? Some critics have suggested Lovelock’s readiness to concede the fight against climate change owes more to old age than science: “People who say that about me haven’t reached my age,” he says laughing.

But when I ask if he attributes the conflicting predictions to differences in scientific understanding or personality, he says: “Personality.” 

There’s more than a hint of the controversialist in his work, and it seems an unlikely coincidence that Lovelock became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004, at the very point when the international consensus was coming round to the need for urgent action. Aren’t his theories at least partly driven by a fondness for heresy?

“Not a bit! Not a bit! All I want is a quiet life! But I can’t help noticing when things happen, when you go out and find something. People don’t like it because it upsets their ideas.”

But the suspicion seems confirmed when I ask if he’s found it rewarding to see many of his climate change warnings endorsed by the IPCC. “Oh no! In fact, I’m writing another book now, I’m about a third of the way into it, to try and take the next steps ahead.”

Interviewers often remark upon the discrepancy between Lovelock’s predictions of doom, and his good humour. “Well I’m cheerful!” he says, smiling. “I’m an optimist. It’s going to happen.” 

Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when “we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn’t know what to do about it”. But once the second world war was under way, “everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday … so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose – that’s what people want.”

At moments I wonder about Lovelock’s credentials as a prophet. Sometimes he seems less clear-eyed with scientific vision than disposed to see the version of the future his prejudices are looking for. A socialist as a young man, he now favours market forces, and it’s not clear whether his politics are the child or the father of his science. His hostility to renewable energy, for example, gets expressed in strikingly Eurosceptic terms of irritation with subsidies and bureaucrats. But then, when he talks about the Earth – or Gaia – it is in the purest scientific terms all. 

“There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that’s just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we’ll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That’s the source of my optimism.”

What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”

Jeroboam & Abijah!

These are two Biblical characters, whose stories are ignored and most of those who are familiar with all the other stories are seldom aware of the history or the implications of their engagement.

Jeroboam was an officer who served under King Solomon and was the head of the Labour force of the tribe of Ephraim, a valiant man. But King Solomon for ressons best known to him, couldn’t handle him. So the king went after him and as any of those surivors in the Old Testsment reached Egypt and resurfaced after King Solomon’s death.

Meanwhile Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascennds the throne. His mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. So against all scriptural warnings a half Jew ascends the throne of the undivided Israel. However, throughout the Old Testament, this is never condemned and even The loss of 10 tribes of Israel by Rehoboam is ascribed to the precipitating cause of Rehoboam’s acceptance of his worthless friends’ advice and the spiritual cause of Solomon having CLUNG TO THOSE ALIEN WOMEN WITH LOVE!

Even Ahaseuerus with all his 127 provinces couldn’t decide to depose his Queen without consulting his nobles, whereas our Solomon, in comparison a mere chieftain, blew away all the resources accumulated by his father King David, on 700 wives and 300 concubines!

Naturally, the taxes were prohibitively exacting and upon the death of Solomon, Rehoboam had to decide either to discontinue with those taxes or alienate himself from people’s favour. Rehoboam makes one of those  grand statements : the girth of my little finger is thicker than my father’s waist and my father chastised you with whips, but I will with scorpions!

According to me he was the worst King to have ever ruled Israel, and continued to live out his tenure in great ignominy. Even Ishboseth, is less pitiable than Rehoboam. A comparable set of characters. Ishboseth loses the trust of Amasa by asking Amasa, if Amasa had sex with Rizpah after the death of Saul. Amasa makes that the reason for abandoning Ishboseth and doesn’t enjoy the fruits of his betrayal, as Joab smites Amasa under his 5th rib, citing avenging Asahael ‘s death!

This Rehoboam, an uterine Ammonite and the other half being a Jew, surrenders 10 tribes to Jeroboam, meek as a lamb, just because some Prophets said all those post facto rationalisations!

But Rehoboam’s son Abijah was made of sterner stuff! A wife whose mother or grandmother was from Absolom’s side and most of all Fortune favoured the brave Abijha.

Jeroboam and Abijha meet at the battlefield and While Abijha was justifying his kingship narrating historical and prophetic utterances, Jeroboam who had twice the number of soldiers, surrounded Abijha in the battlefield.

Voila! Jeroboam is defeated, Bethel and vast Ephraim territories were taken back and integrated to the Judah Benjamin tribes, yet no prophecy of Abijha appears in the whole Old Testament! Worse still is the fact that Abijah’s victory is not given the historical importance, which is due. Judah & Benjamin recapture Bethel and make in roads into the Northern Territory! Jeroboam started his alliance with Egypt against Judah and here Abijah sets the ground for Assyria and Babylon to play against Israel!


But Abijah’s lecture on the battlefield when he was being ambushed by Jeroboam is a delight to read!



sepals & petals floral

encasing slippy almond

mind’s dilated view

disappoints reality!

Ford & God!

One of the jokes which went round while in college was:

Henry Ford dies and goes to heaven. At the gates, an angel
tells Ford, “Well, you’ve been such a good guy and your invention,
the assembly line for the automobile, changed the world. As a
reward, you can hang out with anyone you want to in Heaven.”

Ford thinks about it and says, “I wanna hang out with God,
himself.” The winged fellow at the gate takes Ford to the
Throne Room and introduces him to God. Ford then asks God, “God,
aren’t you the inventor of Woman?”

God says, “Ah, yes.” “Well,”
says Ford, You have some major design flaws in your invention:
l. There’s too much front end protrusion
2. It chatters at high speeds
3. The rear end wobbles too much, and
4. The intake is placed too close to the exhaust.”

God replies , “hold on.” God goes to the Celestial
Supercomputer, types in a few keystrokes, and waits for the result.
The computer prints out a slip of paper and God reads it. “It may
be that my invention is flawed,” God replies to Henry Ford, “but
according to my Computer, more men are riding my invention than yours.”

Actually what God said was: do you know why THE NUMERAL ZERO AND THE LETTER  ‘O’ are placed behind each other in a QWERTY keyboard?

Upon Ford being speechless, God said: When one of the keys doesn’t work, one could substitute the other key and keep it going!



The Constitution of India does not prohibit the eating of beef, likewise, the COI doesn’t prohibit committing MURDER, does it mean that it could be done? NO.

But the question to be raised is: can a law be enacted which prohibits the act of individuals doing a particular thing except for moral, health or order as minimum one reason to PROHIBIT him from eating beef?

If it is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE, then LIBERTY has died in this country!

Secularism & Holidays in India!

kathirikaai muththinaal sandhaikku varanum! (In English it means: if the brinjal ripens, it has to come to the market!)

The above mentioned Thamizh proverb means, if a matter has reached its final stage, it will come for public circulation!

A Justice of the Supreme Court of India  has refused to participate in a meeting of the Chief justices of the High Courts of India, convened by the CJI of the Supreme Court of India, on the grounds that the meeting was scheduled on the day which had been accepted as Good Friday, by majority of Christians and acknowledged by the Government and declared  a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. The Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of India, had written to the CJI, which was responded to by the CJI stating that the August meeting was not being convened for the first time on a National Holiday and that similar meetings had been convened on Independence Day and on Valmiki’s birthday. 

Matters did not end there, it went further and the CJI had mentioned that Institutional responsibilities were to supervene these considerations of one’s religious festivals! 

The Puisne Justice had further escalated matters, by writing to the Prime Minister of India about his inability to participate, reason being the Holy Week!


First is my Self made up of my body, mind, beliefs and existence.

Next is the set of choices which give me my Identity and my aspirations which give a future direction for my identity.

Finally, but equally importantly, my milieu which defines my relationship with the external bodies including other human beings and responsibilities, duties , rights, liabilities and the protection which the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, guarantees. 

Without the first two the third would be irrelevant. For example, if I choose to live in the forests of the Himalayas or the Western Ghats or the chambal valley far away from all civilisation as a sage or even in isolation without my interaction with other members or facilities of the society like Thoreau, the third part doesn’t arise. So with the third element my interaction with the society and other human beings arises. 


(To be continued……)