Boaz,

The author is claiming that a Messiah will come to fulful the Second Coventant with reference to the OT.

Historically, baptism was a means to raise money, some of which went to build palaces for Herod. When the Hedodians were in favour with the Romans, the House of David was allowed to minister to the Gentiles. Jesus was from the House of David.

There is no way to know the validity of John's claims.

Peace.

boaz [your right ,some are blind-sided by the religious texts]

SO lets talk about mens law?

I give you the common wealth of australia ACT
[noting an act isnt a law but a juristictional standing]
those who fall under its en-ACT-meant is usually covered in the first few 'clauses'

thus with our constitution it ALL is subject to the 'pre-amble

to wit 'where as the people'... [a very precice word] 'the people ' meaning those [300,000] who 'rat-if-ied it in the ref-u-r-endumb]...
ie the elite landholders who alone were 'allowed' to vote then....

[IE not the sovereign people of these lands [thus it isnt a decree]
..did so under their supiriour juris-tiction of ...'''humbelly relying on the blessings of the ALMIGHTY GOD.

THat we [...have a-greed [thus chose;collude] ..'to unite as one in one INDISOLVABLE federal common-WEALTH''...

, under the [maritime foreign crown authority of matitime [trade.contract law] juristiction[ie contract LAW via thousands of acts and secret select advantage to us the elite.... under the crown of [their crowns maritime juristiction]..of the united kingdom of great britan [or more specificlly an act issued by its parlement]
..''and [thus]under the [their] constitution hereby established''.

''And where-as it [the british con]is expediant to provide for the admission ....etc

any way the constitution is preceeded with a pre=amble that are conditions ,that are all deemed to rule over any that follows ,being [i forget the term] the statement [and limitation] that auther-ises and validates that [constitutional power ] that follows

i hope by clearly explaining the subject clauses ,that others will lead us to understand god under pins them all ,

[thus we swear on the bible [wrongly] in court [and when we asume office]
note st mathew 23;16-23 ,st john7-24 ,james 5;8-12,19,20 ,1peter 2;11-25 ,issiah 39;10-15 ,41;28-29 ,42 in total

Well, I must say that if you were answering an exam question you would have failed that one Boazy, since I was referring to Page 7, not page 8. But never mind, your interpetation of the passage you chose to talk about is ok, not brilliant, but it's limitations can certainly be seen in the context of the text as read from the start.
Page 8:
<<WHEN we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.>>

Now, from here on and through the chapter it's pretty clear that Darwin is talking about both plants and animals for each statement presented, presenting examples for both, not starting with plants and then using animals to merely further or extend the argument.

Also, he is not trying to find support for the assertion, "living things develop over time" at all. What he is doing is outlining observations that variability exists in all living things, and that under cultivation (later known as artificial selection) this variability can be pushed in directions not found in populations in their natural state.
cont'd...

Later on, of course he is talking about (as yet then) unknown processes, ie where does this variability come from? Embryonic development? Perhaps, but then suggests:
<<But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.>>

Wherein he is talking about what we now know as "genetics", one hundred years before we knew what the structure of DNA or genes were.

This little exercise shows what can happen when:
1) you are looking at the wrong text to start with
2) the that text is taken out of context

And this is from a text that was written a mere 150 years ago, by a man that repeatedly clarified and explained himself, the original texts are archived and he wrote them in English!

Now, you may understand why I don't really hold to too much "interpretation" of ancient translations of 2000+ year old texts, written by anonymous sources. Especially when some interpreters of said texts claim that it tells us exactly how we should live our lives and what supernatural beings really expect from us, when in fact we can be pretty sure that it's the interpeters will that we mostly see.

Boaz states: "It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases.. "

1. Neither I nor Pericles asked for your help.
2. You are, once again, attempting to side step any points on interpretation that other people make.

Furthermore:

3. You claim to have the right interpretation on the bible.
4. You dismiss anyone who holds a different interpretation as wrong.
5. You claim that your interpretation of the Quran is the right one.
6. You claim that your religion is the right one.
7. You claim you are always right.

Boaz can you see a pattern here?

You're such a spoilsport, Bugsy.

Boazy, since your premise for this thread has been effectively blown out of the water, would you mind returning to an unfinished matter?

You've stated elsewhere that your interpretation of the Bible holds that there is something you call the "Creation charter", and this is what causes you to say that women in your church should "ideally" cover their hair at prayer meetings, while men need not.

What is this "Creation charter", and how does it support discrimination against women in your church?