ANET (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), 245. 84. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 118. 85. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 86.

of Retenu will not rebel again on another occasion,” and, “We will never again act evilly against Men-kheper-Re (Thutmose III)—who lives forever, our good lord—in our lifetime” (Pritchard, ANET, 238; Hoffmeier, “Memphis and Karnak Stelae,” in Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 16). Since city-states throughout Syro-Palestine were involved in this rebellion, the territory of the kings of Retenu who pledged perpetual loyalty to Thutmose III must have comprised both Syria and Palestine. 92. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119. 93. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 94. Eitienne Drioton and Jacques Vandier, L’Egypte (Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France, 1938), 406, 663. 95. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 120. 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid., 121. 98. Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi,” 71. 99. Pritchard, ANET, 245. 100. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 324. Rainey affirms the activity of later restoration on the Memphis Stele, remarking that its opening lines are difficult to read due to faulty restoration by a later scribe (Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi,” 72). 101. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 325. Shea correctly asserts that “the identification of the campaign of Year 7 is not a scribal error because the campaign of Year 9 is identified as ‘his second campaign of victory’ in the same text” (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46), but he fails to account for the possibility that while the original scribe etched the year of the pharaoh’s first campaign onto the stele correctly, it was subject to damage by alteration and subsequently faulty reparation. 102. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 323, 324. 103. Critics of the two-campaign theory argue that “Takhsi,” a region in Syria already known as such at the time of Thutmose III, does not appear on the Memphis and Karnak Stelae, where another “first campaign” is discussed, thus suggesting a variance in destinations. For one, Shea objects that while the Year-3 campaign identifies Takhsi as the region of the campaigning, this term is never mentioned in the account of the Year-7 campaign, thus implying that these two accounts cannot describe the same campaign (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46), despite both of them documenting a campaign that was waged in Syria. This objection is weak, however, since the purpose of the Amada Stele was not to boast of military exploits, but rather to commemorate the work completed on the Amada temple in Nubia. Its brief allusion to the expedition in Syria is included to note that Amenhotep II captured seven rulers of Takhsi, executed them by his own hand to make an example of them, and had six of them hanged upside down for public exhibition on the walls at Thebes, while the seventh was to be hanged similarly at Napata, just downstream from the Fourth Cataract in Nubia. This graphic display functioned to remind the Nubians that pharaoh was to be revered and obeyed. The Memphis and Karnak Stelae had only one goal in mind: to boast of pharaoh’s military victories in Asia (Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 323–324; Hallo and Simpson, Ancient Near East, 261–262). Since the commissioners of these stelae had no need to mention the capture of the rulers of Takhsi, which was only one of the regions on the campaign’s itinerary, they simply chose not to include the term. 104. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 119–120. 105. Wolfgang Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, no. 18 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956), 1448; Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 324.106. The view that A1 was launched in response to an Asiatic revolt is held by Breasted and most modern Egyptologists (Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. 2, 304; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 163; Grimal, History of Ancient Egypt, 218). 107. Dennis Forbes, “Menkheperre Djehutymes: Thutmose III, A Pharaoh’s Pharaoh,” KMT 9:4 (Win 1998–1999), 65. 108. Breasted, Ancient



Records, vol. 2, 304. Curiously, the universally
Accepted location of Syria as the site of the rebellion is in stark contrast to the opinion of Vandersleyen, who states that “the first campaign, instead of reaching Ugarit and the middle of the Orontes Valley, hardly crossed the latitudinal equivalent of Lake Hula and the city of Tyre; as a result, it was no more significant than the second campaign” (Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 328). On the contrary, A1 was far more significant, especially considering the post-victory celebration, the post-campaign executions at Thebes, and the erecting of the Elephantine Stele in Year 4. Moreover, during A1, the Egyptians passed so far up the Western Levant that they probably reached the border of Mitannian territory, which is known from The Annals of Amenhotep II. Aharoni even infers an unsuccessful Egyptian invasion of Mitanni, relying on the passage, “His majesty, going south, reached Niy (in the Northern Orontes Valley)” (Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, Macmillan Atlas, 34). The Egyptians later encountered a Mitannian spy during the concluding phase of A1, making Aharoni’s conclusion quite believable. When Amenhotep II was passing through the Sharon Plain, a messenger of the King of Mitanni, called the “Prince of Naharin” here, was captured by the Egyptians. This messenger was carrying with him a letter in the form of a clay tablet that hung from his neck like a necklace, which undoubtedly dealt with matters that concerned the Mitanni-inspired rebellion (Ibid.). All of this demonstrates the great importance of this vassal-rebellion, both to Egypt and to Mitanni, as Mitanni was seeking to usurp Egypt’s stranglehold on the prestigious position of the ANE’s dominant super-power. In contrast to all of this international intrigue revolving around A1, A2 was far less significant on an international level and far less illustrious, as will be seen momentarily. 109. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Atlas, 34. 110. Grimal, History of Ancient Egypt, 219. 111. Pritchard, ANET, 246. 112. Examples of campaigns launched in spring are plentiful: (1) Thutmose III’s first Asiatic campaign, as he arrived at his first destination (the border fortress of Tjel) on ca. 20 April 1484 BC; (2) Amenhotep II’s first Asiatic campaign, as he arrived at his first destination (Shamash-Edom) on ca. 15 May 1452 BC; (3) Raamses II and his battalions of infantry and squads of chariotry, who departed for Kadesh in late April of ca. 1274 BC (Kenneth A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II [Warminster, Eng.: Aris & Phillips, 1982], 53); (4) Nabopolassar’s expedition against mountain tribes in the month of Sivan, or ca. May/June of 607 BC (D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961], 65); and (5) Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition to Syria in Sivan of the first full year of his reign, or ca. 604 BC (Ibid., 28, 69). 113. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 59. As proven above, “seventh year” should be correctRosetta Stone Arabic

Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: Part II

This article was first published in a 4 part series, starting in the Winter 1996 issue of Bible and Spade. Man as the Image of GodClines offers a thorough discussion of “The Image of God in Man,” reviewing the history of interpretation. He concludes that: "Genesis 1:26 is to be translated “Let us make man as our image” or “to be in our image” . . . according to Genesis 1 man does not have the image of God, nor is he made in the image of God, but is himself the image of God" (1968).As for the image itself, Clines observes, with K.H. Bernhardt, that: "in the ancient Near East the primary function of the image was to be the dwelling-place of spirit or fluid which derived from the being whose image it was" (1968: 80–85).He also notes that in the ancient Near East the king is “the image of God,” and "the image of the god is associated very closely with rulerhood. The king as image of the god is his representative. The king has been created by the god to be his image" (1968: 80–85).In her recent treatment of the specification of human sexual distinction, P.A. Bird, like Clines, asserts that the selem ’elōhim ‘image of God’ in Genesis 1 is “a royal designation, the precondition or requisite for rule” (1994:341) and concludes that: "the genius of the formulation in Genesis 1:26 may be seen in its use of a common expression and image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) royal theology to counter a common image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) anthropology, viz., the image of humanity as servant of the gods" (1994:345) 1 Bird suspects a polemical intention also in the blessing of v. 28, “Be fruitful and multiply.” For, since “the power of created life to replenish itself is a power given to each species at its creation,” it is “not dependent upon subsequent rites,” that is to say, the fertility cult, “for its effect.” However, the “word of sexual differentiation [in v. 27] anticipates the blessing” since “sexual constitution is the presupposition of the blessing of increase.” Verse 27 as a whole, she holds, signifies that “unlike God, but like the other creatures, adam is characterized by sexual differentiation.” In other words, “adam is created like (i.e., resembling) God, but as creature, and hence male and female” (1994: 351).Genesis 2-3Adam and AdapaShea lists “principal parallels” between the “Adapa Epic" 2 and the account of Adam in Genesis 2–3: (1) Both subjects underwent a test before the deity, and the test was based upon something they were to consume. (2) Both failed the test and thereby forfeited their opportunity for immortality. (3) As a result of their failure, certain consequences passed upon mankind. (4) Both subjects qualify as members of the first generation of mankind. (5) Their names can be equated linguistically (1977: 39). However, among the differences Shea notes are these: (1) “Adapa was tested with bread and water while Adam and Eve were tested with the fruit.” (2) Though both were sentenced to death and “this sentence is even given in rather similar terms,” these terms have “quite different meanings in their respective contexts.” (3) Adapa’s choice was made in obedience to Ea, but Adam made his own free choice contrary to correct instructions. (4) “Adapa’s offense, in essence, was that he upset the course of nature, while Adam’s offense was moral in nature.” In conclusion, Shea suggests that “it is possible to view these two separate sources as independent witnesses to a common event (1977:28–35, 41). Niels-Erik Andreasen also thinks that “parallels do indeed exist between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the entirely different contexts in which they occur” (1981:192). However, the view that “the name Adapa is a secondary development from Adam” is not conclusive.As for the etymology of the word Adam, recently Sjöberg suggested that the Sumerian a-dam, which refers exclusively to people, is “a ‘Canaanite’, West-Semitic loanword in Sumerian,” since it has no “Sumerian” etymology (1984:223). The nearest cognate of the Hebrew “‘adam is, so far, the Ugaritic adm which appears in an epithet of the god El, i.e., ab adm ‘father of man’” (Hess 1990:1–15; 1993:14–19; Andreasen 1981:181 n. 9).Creation of Man“The most important single witness to Babylonian speculation on the origins and nature of man is,” as Moran says, “the description of his creation in the first tablet of the ‘Atra-Hasis Epic,’ especially lines 192–248” (1970: 48).3 In 1967, Millard first noted that the “Atrahasis Epic is more specific on [the making of man] than any other Babylonian Creation account.” In the Atra-Hasis Epic I 221ff., Man was created from the flesh and blood of a slaughtered god mixed with clay...Man’s earthy constituency is emphasized by both Babylonian and Hebrew (i.e., Gn 2:7) narratives, and his divine part equally...No hint of the use of dead deity or any material part of a living one is found in Genesis (1994:120). In 1969, Lambert and Millard discussed the account of man’s creation in the “Atra-Hasis Epic” in detail. The author used what was the generally accepted view...that man was formed from clay mixed with the blood of a slain god...‘Clay’ in this context is the material substance of the human body. This can be learnt from a number of passages that speak of death as a “returning to clay.” Exactly the same conception is shown in the Hebrew account of man’s creation...(Gn 3:19) (1969:21; see also Lambert 1980:73). As for the “blood,” Lambert and Millard speculate that “in all probability the Babylonians conceived of man as matter (‘clay’) activated by the addition of divine blood,” while on the other hand “the Hebrew account of creation in Genesis 2 explains that God imparted ‘the breath of life’ into man, and so animation began” (1969: 22).Eden StoryFor a long time the Eden story has drawn much scholarly attention4 and has recently been treated thoroughly by Wallace in his monograph (1985). Here, however, I would like to focus on comparative materials with respect to this story.(a) Enki and Ninhursag. The story has been compared with Sumerian myths such as Enki and Ninhursag, a Sumerian paradise story.5 Kramer summarizes it as follows: Dilmun is a land that is “pure,” “clean,” and “bright,” a “land of the living” which knows neither sickness nor death. What is lacking, however, is the fresh water so essential to animal and plant life. The great Sumerian water-god, Enki, therefore orders Utu, the sun-god, to fill it with fresh water brought up from the earth. Dilmun is thus turned into a divine garden, green with fruit-laden fields and meadows (1963:147–48). Kramer thinks that there are “numerous parallels” between this “divine paradise” myth and the Eden story. He suggests that the Biblical paradise, “a garden planted eastward in Eden,” may have “originally” been identical with Dilmun, “a land some where to the east of Sumer.” He also compares the “fresh water brought up from the earth” in Dilmun with the 'ed water in Genesis 2:6. He notes that: the birth of the goddesses without pain or travail illuminates the background of the curse against Eve that it shall be her lot to conceive and bear children in sorrow; Enki’s eating of the eight plants and the curse uttered against him for his misdeed recall the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve and the curses pronounced against each of them for this sinful action (1963: 148–49). Kramer holds that this Sumerian literary background would explain why Eve, “the mother of all living,” was fashioned from the rib of Adam.

If we restrict ourselves to exegetical considerations,

无法查看这则摘要。请 点击此处查看博文。

It is this calendar that provides a date for the एंट्री

into Canaan that is in precise agreement with the 480th-year datum of 1 Kgs 6:1. When Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom is combined with a literal reading of 1 Kgs 6:1, the resulting dates for the exodus and conquest are in perfect accord with the multiple phenomena that have been cited related to the Jubilees and Sabbatical years. All this is explained by a thesis that is the quintessence of simplicity: Israel entered the Promised Land in 1406 bc with the only credible source for the Jubilee and Sabbatical-year legislation that has ever been postulated, the book of Leviticus, in its possession. II. HAWKINS’ ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS 1. First wrong archaeological argument: new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I (1200–1000 bc) signal the arrival of the Israelites. Surface surveys over the last four decades have revealed many new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I, ca. 1200–1000 bc. Hawkins reasons, “The implication seemed clear that a new population group had arrived in the Central Hill-Country during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I.”[46] He believes this to be evidence for the initial arrival of the Israelites in Canaan.[47] The Iron I settlement data, however, undermine Hawkins’s thesis since the material culture of the Iron I settlers exhibits continuity with the previous Late Bronze culture,[48] indicating they were not newcomers at all, but had been in the land for a considerable period of time.[49] This continuity is best seen in the pottery, but includes other material culture items as well. Mazar views the situation as follows: “The settlers had no traditions of their own in the realm of architecture, pottery, crafts, and art. These were adopted from their Canaanite neighbors…Later, when the manufacture of such objects began in the settlement regions themselves, the Canaanite tradition continued to make itself felt in the forms of the tools and vessels.”[50] The evidence indicates a long period of contact between the Iron I settlers and the previous Canaanite culture: The objects of the early Iron Age indicate complete dependence on the culture of the Late Bronze Age. Because the early Iron Age settlement cannot be regarded as an offshoot of the former Canaanite cities, this continuity is best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have already occurred in the Late Bronze Age before the beginning of sedentary life. . . . The results of archaeological research indicate early Iron Age culture was highly dependent upon Late Bronze Age culture and they preclude conquest of the country by new immigrants.[51] These observations accord with the biblical model based on an early exodus. The Israelites arrived in Canaan in 1406 bc and initially continued the lifestyle they had followed the previous forty years, that of semi-nomadic pastoralists: “Your sons shall be shepherds for forty years in the wilderness” (Num 14:33, NASB). After ca. 200 years they became sedentary around 1200 bc, as illustrated by the story of Gideon,[52] possibly due to economic factors.[53] 2. Second wrong archaeological argument: an Iron Age I structure found on Mt. Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–31. In the 1980s a structure was excavated on Mt. Ebal which the excavator, Adam Zertal, believes was the altar of Josh 8:30–31.[54] Hawkins avers, “If Zertal’s Iron I structure on Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–35, there could be important implications for the understanding of Israelite origins.”[55] He then devotes eight pages of his paper to justifying the use of two scarabs to date the earliest phase of the site. This is not the main issue, however, as there is general acceptance of the excavator’s dates for the site.[56] The question is, can the structure excavated by Zertal be associated with the altar of Josh 8:30–31? We shall examine three problems associated with this identification: date, location, and size. a. The chronological problem. There were two phases to the Mt. Ebal complex. Str. II was founded on bedrock, and consisted of fragmentary structures and installations, with evidence of cultic activity (intensive use of fire on the bedrock, ash, and many animal bones). This early phase is dated by the two Egyptian scarabs discussed in detail by Hawkins, and pottery, to 1240–1200 bc, i.e., the very end of the Late Bronze Age. In the early twelfth century, the beginning of the Iron Age I period, a large stone construction, interpreted as an altar, related structures, and a low encircling wall were built over Str. II. This phase, Str. IB, is dated by pottery to 1200–1130 bc. [57] In order to relate Zertal’s altar to Joshua, Hawkins, by necessity, must date the entry of Israel to ca. 1200 bc, the time when the altar was constructed.[58] This is later than most evangelicals who favor a late date would place the event.[59] Hawkins’s dating, in fact, cannot be sustained since Israel was well established in Canaan long before 1200 bc as demonstrated by the Iron I settlement data discussed above, and documented by the Merenptah Stele.[60] Thus, there is a chronological disconnect between the Israelite entry into Canaan and Zertal’s altar. b. The location problem. Prior to crossing the Jordan into Canaan, Moses gave these instructions to the Israelites: So it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall set up on Mount Ebal, these stones, as I am commanding you today, and you shall coat them with lime. Moreover, you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones; you shall not wield an iron tool on them. You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of uncut stones, and you shall offer on it burnt offerings to the Lord your God; and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there, and rejoice before the Lord your God. You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very distinctly. . . . Moses also charged the people on that day, saying, “When you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. For the curse, these shall stand on Mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. The Levites shall then answer and say to all the men of Israel with a loud voice . . .” (Deut 27:4–8, 11–14, NASB). Following the conquest of Jericho and Ai, Joshua carried out the commands of Moses: Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. He wrote there on the stones a copy of the laws of Moses, which he had written, in the presence of the sons of Israel. All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, the stranger as well as the native. Half of them stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had given command at first to bless the people of Israel. Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them (Josh 8:30–35, NASB). It is clear from these passages that the people were gathered in the narrow Shechem pass between Mt. Gerizim on the south and Mt. Ebal on the north for this covenant ceremony, and that they were able to see and hear all that was going on. Joshua constructed the altar Moses commanded on the north side of the pass, at/on Mt. Ebal.[61] Zertal’s altar, on the other hand, is located on the other side of the mountain, 3.2 km map distance north-northeast of the Shechem pass,[62] “on a low, stony ridge,

10 Mar 11 “Just Married” With Fardeen

“Just Married” With FardeenBy: Pawan Kumar .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Two strangers bee panions for life after an arranged marriage and go on a honeymoon in Ooty where they discover the obvious awkwardness that any relatively-not-known-to-each-other couple feels when it es to consummating their marriage.But Meghna Gulzar’s movie Just Married is not about sex. It is about belief, trust, understanding and love between two people who have to share their lives together. Although the movie bears a resemblance to Reema Kagti’s Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. that we saw a few weeks back, Meghna gives her own treatment to the story and its characters.The film has Fardeen Khan and Esha Deol playing a couple (Abhay and Ritika) who are arranged married after just a sole meeting. Thereafter they go on a five-day honeymoon in Ooty. Knowing that they have to consummate their marriage, there is a natural nervousness on the part of Ritika. But Abhay is of understanding nature. He tries to make Ritika fortable.During their honeymoon, Abhay and Ritika meet a number of other couples: a happy, nagging couple married for 40 years (Kiron Kher and Satish Shah), a Muslim couple (Mukul Dev and Sadiya Siddiqui), a bold and passionate couple (Perizaad Zorabian and Bikram Saluja) and a young couple (Tarina Patel and Raj Zutshi).After a gripping half an hour, the movie’s story basically dabbles on little instances in the lives of Abhay-Ritika and other couples. There are tiffs and teasings, fallouts and making-ups, rendezvous and revelations.The movie’s climax is a little amateurish and filmy. The end is predictable.‘Just Married’ is a sweet, mellow film that promises nothing more than some interesting vignettes from the lives of honeymooning couples. Behind the tiffs and arguments there is love blooming gradually. It only needs a moment of realization that es at the movie’s fag end when Ritika realizes that she loves her husband.The movie rests on mendable performances by Fardeen Khan and Esha Deol in the lead roles. Fardeen portrays the myriad emotions of his character with conviction while Esha slips well into the role of a coy, shy and evasive wife.Kiron Kher and Satish Shah stand out among the other couples in the film. Their performance is very natural. Perizaad Zorabian looks stunningly gorgeous and Bikram Saluja plays his part well. The other couples don’t get ample footage.Meghna’s direction is more confident this time than her previous movie ‘Filhaal’. Although the film bees a tad slow in the middle, it picks up pace in the last half hour. The film’s music by Pritam is just about okay. In a nutshell, ‘Just Married’ makes for a timepass watch.REPRINT RIGHTS statement: This article is free for republishing by visitors provided the Author Bio box is retained as usual so that all links are ActiveLinkable with no syntax changes.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryAuthor Pawan Kumar is associated with Fardeen Khan, click here for hot fardeen khan wallpapers.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Pawan KumarRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 of Ratings = 1 Rating = 55 Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Movies Film via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Arts Movies FilmWhy Calibrate your High Definition TV?- By : Robert ShefferSweet Phone - By : Tim Webb.Find out Home Theater Methods! What You have Been Missing in Your TV and Movie Encounter.- By : Joesph MellbergPreparing and Setting up a Home Theater system is Easier Than you Think!- By : Zachariah DivensGrown Ups 2010 Movie In Review- By : Elenor CherryCamera Crew Hire- By : Mark A. WilsonReview of Drive Angry Movie- By : Gursel BatmazReturn Of The Horror Legend: Scream 4- By : Gursel BatmazMovie Review: Clash Of The Titans Leaves Audiences Wanting- By : Elenor CherryRed Riding Hood The Movie- By : Gursel Batmaz Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

5 Mar 11 Internet Affiliate Marketing Can Also Go Offline

Internet Affiliate Marketing Can Also Go OfflineBy: Michael Laleye .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet You own a website and have teamed with many others on the internet through internet affiliate marketing, in hopes of earning sales commissions on products and services the others offer. It only makes sense that the majority of your affiliated sites also offer online transactions since the web surfer is the target of your marketing.However, there is no reason you cannot use internet affiliate marketing to workNHL Shop
with service businesses that conduct their business offline. For example a used car lot may have a website that lists and displays a portion of its inventory and you guide potential customers to the site. The customer then wants to call the dealer to verify the availability of an advertised vehicle. Using affiliate software that that can track calls, you could still get credit for the sale and earn a commission.Additionally, some service companies do not have an online presence, such as hair dressers or even attorneys. Working out an affiliate agreement with them, a small card could be printed out on their home computer with information linking the coupon with your site. By including a map to the business along with other pertinent information, it can be taken to the business and they would know from which site the lead came from for proper affiliate credit.However, the majority of affiliate marketing is conducted through other internet businesses that utilize software tracking, automatically assigning you a tracking number. When a person visits your site, clicks on an affiliate link and makes a purchase from the affiliated site, you receive credit for the sale and earn a commission. Since most buyers are already online, making the transition to another site is simple for them and tracking is automatic.As a business, there are many advantages to joining in the affiliate marketing craze as it can greatly enhance your presence in cyberspace. The key to success for any online business is being able to be found on the internet. Having thousands of other websites posting an ad for your business, for which you pay only if you get results, adds to your traffic and your sales.An advantage to the affiliate websites is that it appears to have advertising on it from other website. Visitors viewing an affiliate site have no way to determine ifMontreal Canadiens jersey
the referrals are paid advertising or not, which can add a degree of credibility to that site as well. You will also receive points from internet search engines for having additional links to your site. Although graphic links do not garner as many points as text links, the more quality links you can obtain, the better.Affiliate marketing programs are a win-win situation for both parties as the site gets additional exposure and traffic and the affiliate can earn money through the commissioned sales.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com Michael Laleye Is A Plug In Profit Site Member As Well As An Authority On Developing Home Based Affiliate Businesses Online. Get more Information On How To Build Your Own Home Based Internet Business. For Internet Business Ideas To Make Money Online, Visit: www.MyAffiliateStarter.comNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Michael LaleyeRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly With Email Marketing - True or False?- By : chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Canadiens jersey
Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

24 Jan 11 South Carolina Gamecocks Alshon Jeffery: The Nation's Best Wide Receiver?

Pumpin' Gas into the USC OffenseKevin C. Cox/Getty ImagesSo much for Lane Kiffin's bold prediction that Alshon Jeffery will be pumping gas after going to South Carolina. More like pumping out touchdowns at the NFL level. While the Gamecock headlines mostly read about freshman sensationDallas Cowboys jersey
Marcus Lattimore, Stephen Garcia, or the never-ending drama with Spurrier and backup Connor Shaw, Alshon Jeffery is quietly putting together one of the finest receiving campaigns in the history of South Carolina football. For those of you that do not know any better, you will say "So what; it is only South Carolina!". South Carolina has had its fair share of great wide receivers. Kenny McKinley (R.I.P.) finished third in the SEC for all-time receptions and owns almost every South Carolina receiving record. Sidney Rice is a bona fide NFL star and is GREATLY missed by Brett Favre. Troy Williamson made a mockery of opposing defenses when he played, emerging as the NCAA's biggest deep threat for years, and Sterling Sharpe is an NFL legend. Alshon is currently a true sophomore, which make his statistics even more amazing. He is also playing on a team that runs more than it passes and is suffering a seemingly never ending QB controversy. (On a side note, Stephen Garcia is currently 19th in college football in passing efficiency Denver Broncos jersey
and has thrown five touchdowns to two interceptions, while completing a high percentage of his passes. Not sure WHY there is a controversy, but that is a story for another day.)Look at these stats, and think about the situation he is in. He has 27 catches for 492 yards and two touchdowns. He averages 18.5 yards per catch and 124.5 yards per game. His touchdowns are lower because the Gamecocks hand the ball to Lattimore when they get close, but the rest of his stats are truly amazing. He leads college football in receiving yards, and is third in yards per game. He does this on a running team. It is truly amazing. Currently, his career stats are 73 receptions for 1,261 yards and eight touchdowns. This is through roughly 17 games. Five of those games were spent as a backup. So in a technicality, he has only fully played in 12 games as a starter. His 6'4", 233 pound frame screams NFL. He has also destroyed most corners. While he is no blazer, his hands and size make him potentially the most dangerous wide receiving threat in college football. He has been compared to the likes of Terrell Owens and Randy Moss minus the attitude. He is always the last one out of practice and always stays to catch extra balls from the coaches. He claims that since it worked for him in high school, it will work for him in Detroit Lions
college. He has never been in any sort of trouble while at the university. Those who have seen him play have come to respect him. Auburn fans (even though South Carolina lost) were amazed at his ability. Comments from fans were along the lines of, "You guys have a beast out there at wide receiver." The argument could be made that he is the best in college football. I would buy that.