Adam was told he would die twice.
A "day" can be defined as a thousand years.
Jesus was on the cross for six hours.
I take this to indicate a thousand years for each hour.
In other words, six millennial days of salvation.
Things To Know
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
Adam was told he would die twice.
A "day" can be defined as a thousand years.
Jesus was on the cross for six hours.
I take this to indicate a thousand years for each hour.
In other words, six millennial days of salvation.
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Why Cain Was Rejected
● Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.
Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.
● Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.
There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).
Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 8:20 and Gen 22:2.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.
I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?
"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)
It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)
● Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.
The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only issue: Cain himself was an issue too.
Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.
Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.
The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?
Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was actually impious. (1John 3:12)
In what way was he impious? Well, my first guess would be friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.
"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)
● Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the holy days of obligation. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.
Bottom line is: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.
● 1John 1:5-6 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth
/
-
Why Cain Was Rejected
● Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.
Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.
● Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.
There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).
Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 8:20 and Gen 22:2.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.
I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?
"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)
It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)
● Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.
The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only issue: Cain himself was an issue too.
Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.
Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.
The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?
Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was actually impious. (1John 3:12)
In what way was he impious? Well, my first guess would be friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.
"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)
● Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the holy days of obligation. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.
Bottom line is: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.
● 1John 1:5-6 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth
/
Do you mean such as Sunday observance?
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Why God Didn't Execute Cain For Murder
● Gen 4:12-13 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth. Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!
Cain's punishment was relatively lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is that fair?
Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?
A: Murder is intrinsically wrong, yes; and it's intrinsically a sin, yes; however; it hasn't always been a capital sin. According to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is precisely why God didn't have to execute Cain for murder.
/
-
Why God Didn't Execute Cain For Murder
● Gen 4:12-13 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth. Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!
Cain's punishment was relatively lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is that fair?
Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?
A: Murder is intrinsically wrong, yes; and it's intrinsically a sin, yes; however; it hasn't always been a capital sin. According to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is precisely why God didn't have to execute Cain for murder.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
From Whence Cain Got A Wife
Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life, rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.
After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped the work and has been on a creation sabbatical every since.
According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.
● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life descend from a solo specimen.
● Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.
The Greek word for "nation of men" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to racial diversity.
Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.
An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's children all married amongst themselves.
● Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.
Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930, and Noah to 950.
Now as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; God doesn't enforce His laws ex post facto: viz: they are not retroactive. So then, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to prosecute pre-historic people for incest because it wasn't prohibited in their day; and wouldn't be until later in Moses'.
/
-
From Whence Cain Got A Wife
Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life, rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.
After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped the work and has been on a creation sabbatical every since.
According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.
● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life descend from a solo specimen.
● Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.
The Greek word for "nation of men" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to racial diversity.
Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.
An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's children all married amongst themselves.
● Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.
Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930, and Noah to 950.
Now as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; God doesn't enforce His laws ex post facto: viz: they are not retroactive. So then, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to prosecute pre-historic people for incest because it wasn't prohibited in their day; and wouldn't be until later in Moses'.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
How The Critters Got To Noah
● Gen 6:3 . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)
The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.
● Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark
● Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.
● Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.
Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.
A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4 years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450 miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do, but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time for the Folly's maiden voyage.
If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and fifteen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many species that live to see 120 years of age.
But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.
Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form mountain ranges and hill country.
"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)
That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's diggings.
This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the Great Lakes region.
The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac. Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.
The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.
Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit different in the ancient past.
Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway, although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.
Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.
/
-
How The Critters Got To Noah
● Gen 6:3 . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)
The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.
● Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark
● Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.
● Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.
Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.
A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4 years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450 miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do, but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time for the Folly's maiden voyage.
If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and fifteen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many species that live to see 120 years of age.
But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.
Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form mountain ranges and hill country.
"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)
That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's diggings.
This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the Great Lakes region.
The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac. Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.
The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.
Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit different in the ancient past.
Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway, although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.
Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark
● Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.
"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke 1:39-40)
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of one; it's just located up on high ground.
The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?
When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early 1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a specific peak by the same name.
So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together cabins, sheds, fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.
I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires. Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs. There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape and should have been preserved for many years to come.
/
-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark
● Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.
"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke 1:39-40)
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of one; it's just located up on high ground.
The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?
When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early 1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a specific peak by the same name.
So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together cabins, sheds, fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.
I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires. Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs. There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape and should have been preserved for many years to come.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Eating Meat
● Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat meat, but He didn't say they had to.
● Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.
According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to manufacture all but K and D.
That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old, but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7 8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in Abraham's.
Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.
People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat some people end up eating bugs.
/
-
Eating Meat
● Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat meat, but He didn't say they had to.
● Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.
According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to manufacture all but K and D.
That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old, but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7 8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in Abraham's.
Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.
People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat some people end up eating bugs.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Abraham And Hagar
● Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.
The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.
The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.
● Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy.
NOTE: The "boy" at this moment in time was near 18 years old if he was circumcised at fourteen and Isaac was weaned at three. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5, Gen 21:8)
The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that speaks of divorce as well as the emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest son.
Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as the patriarch's only son.
● Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.
● Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.
Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when the old boy emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be understood.
/
-
Abraham And Hagar
● Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.
The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.
The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.
● Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy.
NOTE: The "boy" at this moment in time was near 18 years old if he was circumcised at fourteen and Isaac was weaned at three. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5, Gen 21:8)
The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that speaks of divorce as well as the emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest son.
Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as the patriarch's only son.
● Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.
● Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.
Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when the old boy emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be understood.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
● Gen 26:5 . . Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.
Some construe God's statement to indicate that Abraham was included in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But Moses' statement below excludes him.
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today." (Deut 5:2-3)
Were Abraham included in the Jews' covenant; God would have placed Himself in a serious dilemma.
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17)
Under the terms and conditions of the Jews' covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
"Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter." (Deut 27:22)
Well; were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return.
"The one who curses you I will curse" (Gen 12:3)
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
Abraham complied with God's requirements; His commands, His decrees and His laws voluntarily rather than by compulsion because he wasn't in a covenant with God that demanded him to do so like his posterity would be in the days of Moses. (Deut 5:2-3)
The promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/
-
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
● Gen 26:5 . . Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.
Some construe God's statement to indicate that Abraham was included in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But Moses' statement below excludes him.
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today." (Deut 5:2-3)
Were Abraham included in the Jews' covenant; God would have placed Himself in a serious dilemma.
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17)
Under the terms and conditions of the Jews' covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
"Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter." (Deut 27:22)
Well; were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return.
"The one who curses you I will curse" (Gen 12:3)
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
Abraham complied with God's requirements; His commands, His decrees and His laws voluntarily rather than by compulsion because he wasn't in a covenant with God that demanded him to do so like his posterity would be in the days of Moses. (Deut 5:2-3)
The promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Leaven
● Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.
In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for example:
"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)
If there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is an old wine and a new wine.
Old leaven can refer to a batch of dough that's going bad, i.e. fermenting; which, given time, dough will do on its own without the addition of yeast because all flour, no matter how carefully it's milled and packaged, contains a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi. New leaven, then, would refer to a time in the life of the dough before the flour's naturally-occurring fungi has time to spoil the product; for example:
● Ex 12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.
That gives an idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after slaying all the firstborn. They had made bread with unfermented dough for that night's meal in accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of Exodus.
Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made with fresh dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting around for a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we know that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have been a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests unleavened bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people your best, rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of them.
/
-
Leaven
● Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.
In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for example:
"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)
If there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is an old wine and a new wine.
Old leaven can refer to a batch of dough that's going bad, i.e. fermenting; which, given time, dough will do on its own without the addition of yeast because all flour, no matter how carefully it's milled and packaged, contains a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi. New leaven, then, would refer to a time in the life of the dough before the flour's naturally-occurring fungi has time to spoil the product; for example:
● Ex 12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.
That gives an idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after slaying all the firstborn. They had made bread with unfermented dough for that night's meal in accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of Exodus.
Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made with fresh dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting around for a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we know that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have been a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests unleavened bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people your best, rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of them.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is
● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be acquitted by faith.
The koiné Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos') which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially defines a servant whose responsibility it was to get their master's children to school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.
The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant, it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for example:
● Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty, henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.
● Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.
So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed entrance to the holy city.
● Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it
● Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.
The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away dead.
● Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty-- we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy" just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch-22.
Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?
A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.
● Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.
That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie, and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them and will eventually have its way with them.
Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how we're all natural-born liars?
A: Nobody can, it's impossible.
● Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.
● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be acquitted by faith.
The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for all kinds of sin, including dishonesty. That right there should make liars breathe a little easier in respect to the sum of all fears.
● 1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
● Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.
FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done about this.
/
-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is
● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be acquitted by faith.
The koiné Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos') which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially defines a servant whose responsibility it was to get their master's children to school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.
The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant, it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for example:
● Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty, henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.
● Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.
So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed entrance to the holy city.
● Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it
● Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.
The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away dead.
● Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty-- we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy" just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch-22.
Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?
A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.
● Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.
That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie, and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them and will eventually have its way with them.
Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how we're all natural-born liars?
A: Nobody can, it's impossible.
● Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.
● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be acquitted by faith.
The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for all kinds of sin, including dishonesty. That right there should make liars breathe a little easier in respect to the sum of all fears.
● 1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
● Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.
FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done about this.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Erotic Fantasies
● Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
● Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own. (cf. 1Kgs 21:1-20)
● Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
As an illustration: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a religious man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
● Rom 14:14 . .To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly normal men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion instilling within them a guilt complex related to their God-given attraction to women.
● Gen 1:28 . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law; especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not Gen 1:28. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
Q: Why then do people feel so guilty about their libido if it's God-given?
A: In the beginning, that wasn't so.
● Gen 2:25 . .They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Then Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, and one of its side effects made him sensitive about his midlands.
● Gen 3:7 . . Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The Hebrew word for "coverings" indicates aprons; i.e. they made themselves loin cloths. Apparently Eve was comfortable topless at first, but not bottomless; which suggests to me that they were compelled to cover up their midlands right away due to a newly-acquired sense of decency brought on by something in the chemistry of that fruit.
However, their newly-acquired sense of decency wasn't God-given; it was man-made; viz: humanistic rather than divine; i.e. of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.
/
-
Erotic Fantasies
● Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
● Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own. (cf. 1Kgs 21:1-20)
● Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
As an illustration: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a religious man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
● Rom 14:14 . .To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
● Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly normal men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion instilling within them a guilt complex related to their God-given attraction to women.
● Gen 1:28 . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law; especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not Gen 1:28. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
Q: Why then do people feel so guilty about their libido if it's God-given?
A: In the beginning, that wasn't so.
● Gen 2:25 . .They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Then Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, and one of its side effects made him sensitive about his midlands.
● Gen 3:7 . . Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The Hebrew word for "coverings" indicates aprons; i.e. they made themselves loin cloths. Apparently Eve was comfortable topless at first, but not bottomless; which suggests to me that they were compelled to cover up their midlands right away due to a newly-acquired sense of decency brought on by something in the chemistry of that fruit.
However, their newly-acquired sense of decency wasn't God-given; it was man-made; viz: humanistic rather than divine; i.e. of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.
/
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
The Brazen Serpent
● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.
In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.
After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.
The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.
In other words then: Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion for the sins of the worlds as the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears are already on the docket to face it.
● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.
/
-
The Brazen Serpent
● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.
In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.
After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.
The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.
In other words then: Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion for the sins of the worlds as the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears are already on the docket to face it.
● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
The Sin Nature
The term "sin nature" found in some versions of the Bible, is actually an interpretation rather than a translation. I suspect somebody coined it as a substitute for the flesh that Paul often spoke of in his letters.
● Rom 8:8 . .They that are in the flesh cannot please God.
The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within humanity's bony little skulls sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that difficult to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.
The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1) the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people, and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans.
Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very" good (Gen 1:31). In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.
When people do something contrary to their better judgment; it's very common to hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well; the thing that came over them was their own body exerting its fundamental dispositions and traits; viz: the human body literally has a mind of its own; it constantly, and perpetually, competes with its host for control of their thoughts, their speech, and their conduct, and more often than not wins.
When I was a growing boy my dad was always telling me that I was my own worst enemy. I think that maybe the apostle Paul would have agreed with my dad because he too was his own worst enemy.
● Rom 7:18 . . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
● Rom 7:24 . .What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
/
-
The Sin Nature
The term "sin nature" found in some versions of the Bible, is actually an interpretation rather than a translation. I suspect somebody coined it as a substitute for the flesh that Paul often spoke of in his letters.
● Rom 8:8 . .They that are in the flesh cannot please God.
The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within humanity's bony little skulls sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that difficult to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.
The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1) the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people, and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans.
Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very" good (Gen 1:31). In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.
When people do something contrary to their better judgment; it's very common to hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well; the thing that came over them was their own body exerting its fundamental dispositions and traits; viz: the human body literally has a mind of its own; it constantly, and perpetually, competes with its host for control of their thoughts, their speech, and their conduct, and more often than not wins.
When I was a growing boy my dad was always telling me that I was my own worst enemy. I think that maybe the apostle Paul would have agreed with my dad because he too was his own worst enemy.
● Rom 7:18 . . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
● Rom 7:24 . .What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
/
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Eternal Life
Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.
Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.
Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they obtain immortality.
For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality till he rose from the dead.
Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here (John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't obtain immortality until their resurrections.
So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.
The properties of eternal life are a little easier to understand when juxtaposed with human life.
Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.
Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.
/
-
Eternal Life
Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.
Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.
Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they obtain immortality.
For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality till he rose from the dead.
Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here (John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't obtain immortality until their resurrections.
So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.
The properties of eternal life are a little easier to understand when juxtaposed with human life.
Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.
Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
When People Obtain Eternal Life
In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs. They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.
● John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life
● John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
● John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from Death into Life.
● 1John 5:13 . .I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's testimony, as an expert witness; people currently lacking eternal life are also lacking His son; i.e. they are currently quite christless.
● 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.
I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in grave danger of the sum of all fears.
● Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world --currently consists of approximately 1.226 billion followers who all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those 1.226 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's expert testimony they are currently quite christless. And you can safely apply that rule to any, and all, denominations insisting that nobody obtains eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.
FYI: Failure to accept God's testimony is all the same as insinuating that He's a dishonest person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth. (1John 5:9-10)
/
-
When People Obtain Eternal Life
In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs. They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.
● John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life
● John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
● John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from Death into Life.
● 1John 5:13 . .I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's testimony, as an expert witness; people currently lacking eternal life are also lacking His son; i.e. they are currently quite christless.
● 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.
I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in grave danger of the sum of all fears.
● Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world --currently consists of approximately 1.226 billion followers who all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those 1.226 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's expert testimony they are currently quite christless. And you can safely apply that rule to any, and all, denominations insisting that nobody obtains eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.
FYI: Failure to accept God's testimony is all the same as insinuating that He's a dishonest person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth. (1John 5:9-10)
/
WeberHome
New member
Re: Things To Know
-
Jesus Christ's Human Origin
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".
● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how it should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam's body included a portion of his flesh, which is notable; here's why.
God constructed Adam's body from the Earth's dust, and then breathed into it the breath of life. He did neither of those two things with Eve. Her body was constructed from Adam's body, and she got her breath of life from his breath of life. In other words: human life is a transferrable kind of life that can be, and is, passed on to succeeding generations.
The result is: none of us are discreet creations; everybody that biologically descends from Adam is just simply more Adam; viz: reproductions, i.e. our body is his body, and our breath of life is his breath of life. This is very important in regards to Jesus Christ's human origin.
There are people, even a number of Christians, who desperately want to biologically disconnect Jesus Christ from Adam; their case relies heavily upon Jesus' virgin conception, which is a losing case seeing as how the flesh and bone of Mary's parents biologically descended from Eve's flesh and bone; and from thence Adam's flesh and bone; ergo: Mary's flesh and bone were Adam's.
Opponents have even attempted to biologically disconnect Christ from Adam by insisting that his conception was an implant, i.e. Mary was Jesus' surrogate mother rather than his biological mother. But that idea is not only a theory concocted right out of thin air and a fertile imagination, but it's also spurious and unbiblical.
● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will." Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's seed according to the flesh sans Mary sleeping with a man, she had to be one of David's biological granddaughters or else her child would not have been David's actual progeny, and the angel's announcement would've been untrue.
● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
I can think of no sensible argument that would successfully break Christ's biological lineage to David, nor of one that would successfully break David's biological lineage to Eve.
So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male ancestors; the final one of course being Mary's biological father.
NOTE: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of male flesh and bone; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a woman's flesh and bone.
And seeing as how every woman's flesh and bone descends from Adam's flesh and bone, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from a woman's flesh and bone would essentially be Adam's Y chromosome seeing as how Eve's flesh and bone were Adam's to begin with.
Q: But doesn't 1Cor 15:45-47 say that Christ is a second Adam rather than a reproduction of the first?
A: I'm going to deliberately misquote a portion of that passage so's to bring out a point.
** And so it is written; "The first man Adam was made a living soul"; the last Adam was made a life-giving man. **
According to the actual language, the last Adam isn't only a human being, he's also a spirit being. Also, the first Adam was a creature brought to life; whereas the last Adam isn't only a creature brought to life; he's also a creator who brings creatures to life. When 1Cor 15:45-47 is considered along with John 1:1-4, it becomes readily apparent that the last Adam is not only human, but also divine.
/
-
Jesus Christ's Human Origin
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".
● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how it should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam's body included a portion of his flesh, which is notable; here's why.
God constructed Adam's body from the Earth's dust, and then breathed into it the breath of life. He did neither of those two things with Eve. Her body was constructed from Adam's body, and she got her breath of life from his breath of life. In other words: human life is a transferrable kind of life that can be, and is, passed on to succeeding generations.
The result is: none of us are discreet creations; everybody that biologically descends from Adam is just simply more Adam; viz: reproductions, i.e. our body is his body, and our breath of life is his breath of life. This is very important in regards to Jesus Christ's human origin.
There are people, even a number of Christians, who desperately want to biologically disconnect Jesus Christ from Adam; their case relies heavily upon Jesus' virgin conception, which is a losing case seeing as how the flesh and bone of Mary's parents biologically descended from Eve's flesh and bone; and from thence Adam's flesh and bone; ergo: Mary's flesh and bone were Adam's.
Opponents have even attempted to biologically disconnect Christ from Adam by insisting that his conception was an implant, i.e. Mary was Jesus' surrogate mother rather than his biological mother. But that idea is not only a theory concocted right out of thin air and a fertile imagination, but it's also spurious and unbiblical.
● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will." Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's seed according to the flesh sans Mary sleeping with a man, she had to be one of David's biological granddaughters or else her child would not have been David's actual progeny, and the angel's announcement would've been untrue.
● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
I can think of no sensible argument that would successfully break Christ's biological lineage to David, nor of one that would successfully break David's biological lineage to Eve.
So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male ancestors; the final one of course being Mary's biological father.
NOTE: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of male flesh and bone; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a woman's flesh and bone.
And seeing as how every woman's flesh and bone descends from Adam's flesh and bone, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from a woman's flesh and bone would essentially be Adam's Y chromosome seeing as how Eve's flesh and bone were Adam's to begin with.
Q: But doesn't 1Cor 15:45-47 say that Christ is a second Adam rather than a reproduction of the first?
A: I'm going to deliberately misquote a portion of that passage so's to bring out a point.
** And so it is written; "The first man Adam was made a living soul"; the last Adam was made a life-giving man. **
According to the actual language, the last Adam isn't only a human being, he's also a spirit being. Also, the first Adam was a creature brought to life; whereas the last Adam isn't only a creature brought to life; he's also a creator who brings creatures to life. When 1Cor 15:45-47 is considered along with John 1:1-4, it becomes readily apparent that the last Adam is not only human, but also divine.
/
Last edited: