What if Jesus's prabale of ten virgins is more literal. Surely He would have a feeling for how many would be ready. He could have chosen 1/10 or 2/10 but He chose 5/10.
Hell's Population Clock
- Thread starter Webers_Home
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What about threads that get locked that we find interesting?Dodo_David said:
ie: the Nelson Mandela one where you asked if anybody thought he was a christian .... it morphed into whether a person could be a christian and a marxist .... I found that an interesting subject to pursue
What about Raining asking if the earth has a soul .... I do not know if he is a christian but he will not learn anything if we cut short the threads.
There are only about a dozen people who remain here for any length of time and at least 7 are moderators .... whats with that ???
Should the rest of us refrain from posting ???? Is that what this forum wants ??
Thank you.
Nah. Just start new threads when a different subject is to be discussed.Arnie Manitoba said:
I'll tell you what I'll do. I can split a new topic into a different discussion thread when the situation calls for it. That way the new topic and old topic can be discussed separately.
I am not trying to be difficult .... but splitting threads often loses the original focus and both topics go dead ... for example if you started a thread ..."can a Marxist be a christian" would not likely get as many responses as the Mandella one .... which morphed into a marxist vs christian topic .... but it still was based somewhat on MandellaDodo_David said:
.
Criticism: Your Christian view on atonement does not in the least represent
how present-day Jews regard atonement for sin.
Response: Present-day Judaism's beliefs and practices aren't 100%
scriptural: they're rabbinical. The only version of Judaism that matters to
God is the scriptural version since it's a grave offense to tamper with it.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that the Lord your God has enjoined upon you
†. Deut 26:16-18 . .The Lord your God commands you this day to follow
these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with
all your soul.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this
Teaching and observe them.
†. Num 15:30-31 . . But 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.
Pop Clock Update: 641 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,306,536 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Criticism: Your Christian view on atonement does not in the least represent
how present-day Jews regard atonement for sin.
Response: Present-day Judaism's beliefs and practices aren't 100%
scriptural: they're rabbinical. The only version of Judaism that matters to
God is the scriptural version since it's a grave offense to tamper with it.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that the Lord your God has enjoined upon you
†. Deut 26:16-18 . .The Lord your God commands you this day to follow
these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with
all your soul.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this
Teaching and observe them.
†. Num 15:30-31 . . But 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.
Pop Clock Update: 641 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,306,536 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Webers home
.... I have a nit-picking question .... maybe you know the answer .... you quoted some OT warnings from God not to be disobedient .... that's fine .... but I do not recall threats of hell in the OT .... hell seems to be a NT teaching started by Jesus ..... does that sound right ??
.... I have a nit-picking question .... maybe you know the answer .... you quoted some OT warnings from God not to be disobedient .... that's fine .... but I do not recall threats of hell in the OT .... hell seems to be a NT teaching started by Jesus ..... does that sound right ??
Quick search result in an AV Bible, results for 'hell' - looks like about 50% in OT, and 50% in NT
I read that many 'cut versions' of new 'interpretations' have lost 1000's of words in the last 400 years, so that might bring people to the conclusion that Jesus talked more about it than the prophets. What is not true, they even estimated the size:
Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
I read that many 'cut versions' of new 'interpretations' have lost 1000's of words in the last 400 years, so that might bring people to the conclusion that Jesus talked more about it than the prophets. What is not true, they even estimated the size:
Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
The expression "AV" is meaningless unless one states who is authorizing it for whom. Also, the KJV is not the standard for comparison.
What matters is what is written in the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts and what is written in the Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Guess what? The word Hell isn't in the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts, and it isn't in the Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Why? Because the word Hell is of Germanic origin. The word comes from a language that the biblical writers didn't use.
The Hebrew OT manuscripts speak of Sheol.
The Greek NT manuscripts speak of Gehenna and Hades, with the verb Tartaro ("throw to Tartarus") used once in 2 Peter 2:4.
Granted, the modern-day concept of Hell closely matches the concept of Gehenna, which is why the former is used as a translation of the latter.
However, the concept of Hell isn't the same as the concepts of Sheol or Hades, which is why modern English versions of the Bible don't translate the latter two as Hell. Such a translation is inaccurate.
Isaiah 5:14 (Complete Jewish Bible): "Therefore Sh’ol has enlarged itself
and opened its limitless jaws —
and down go their nobles and masses,
along with their noise and revels."
Isaiah 5:14 (Orthodox Jewish Bible): " Therefore Sheol hath enlarged herself ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh): "Assuredly, Sheol has opened wide its gullet ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (HCSB): "Therefore Sheol enlarges its throat ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (NRSV): "Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (NASB): "Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat ..."
What matters is what is written in the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts and what is written in the Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Guess what? The word Hell isn't in the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts, and it isn't in the Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Why? Because the word Hell is of Germanic origin. The word comes from a language that the biblical writers didn't use.
The Hebrew OT manuscripts speak of Sheol.
The Greek NT manuscripts speak of Gehenna and Hades, with the verb Tartaro ("throw to Tartarus") used once in 2 Peter 2:4.
Granted, the modern-day concept of Hell closely matches the concept of Gehenna, which is why the former is used as a translation of the latter.
However, the concept of Hell isn't the same as the concepts of Sheol or Hades, which is why modern English versions of the Bible don't translate the latter two as Hell. Such a translation is inaccurate.
Isaiah 5:14 (Complete Jewish Bible): "Therefore Sh’ol has enlarged itself
and opened its limitless jaws —
and down go their nobles and masses,
along with their noise and revels."
Isaiah 5:14 (Orthodox Jewish Bible): " Therefore Sheol hath enlarged herself ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh): "Assuredly, Sheol has opened wide its gullet ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (HCSB): "Therefore Sheol enlarges its throat ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (NRSV): "Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite ..."
Isaiah 5:14 (NASB): "Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat ..."
†. Mark 9:47-48 . . If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It is better toArnie Manitoba said:
enter the kingdom of God half blind than to have two eyes and be thrown
into hell; where the worm never dies and the fire never goes out.
Jesus' statement about the fire and worms didn't reveal anything new.
Similar information had already been released to the public by an Old
Testament prophet roughly 700 years before Christ was born.
†. Isa 66:22-24 . . All humanity will come to worship me from week to week
and from month to month. And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies
of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will
never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by
will view them with utter horror.
Buen Camino
/
In Mark 9:42-48, the Greek word that English versions translate as "Hell" is the word Gehenna.
As I said earlier, the word Hell comes from a language that the biblical writers did not use.
As I said earlier, the word Hell comes from a language that the biblical writers did not use.
RE: Isa 66:22-24 - Yes the consistency itself (prophets --> Jesus) is already all the proof anyone can ask for. The context explains what hell means, not the word in an original language itself.
As for the term AV, it was authorized by God that gives authority to Kings. God does not authorize scribes that come in their own authority. Romans 13 talks about being subject to "higher powers" and of course the highest power in that equation is God himself.
I do not want to talk about the difference of the underlying text streams and manuscripts, that is too much work in contrast to the possible outcome. This should be a private study, it's too late already to even go into basic things like that, we now live in a time where a new Bible interpretation comes on the market every year, to "correct" any 'hot social issues' as for example gender related identifications of people in the scriptures. We the people are now writing scripture. God have mercy on those that find the audacity to inject their vision of the 'brave new world' into God's word.
As for the term AV, it was authorized by God that gives authority to Kings. God does not authorize scribes that come in their own authority. Romans 13 talks about being subject to "higher powers" and of course the highest power in that equation is God himself.
I do not want to talk about the difference of the underlying text streams and manuscripts, that is too much work in contrast to the possible outcome. This should be a private study, it's too late already to even go into basic things like that, we now live in a time where a new Bible interpretation comes on the market every year, to "correct" any 'hot social issues' as for example gender related identifications of people in the scriptures. We the people are now writing scripture. God have mercy on those that find the audacity to inject their vision of the 'brave new world' into God's word.
:huh: "Authorized Version" means that the ruling monarch of England has authorized that particular version for use within the Church of England.Tropical Islander said:
Although it is now in the public domain, the KJV was originally the property of the Crown of England.
Dodo_David said:
Zactly !!! .... and sometimes "Sheol" .... and sometimes "Death" ... I do not pretend to know the proper translations (words) for hell .... I am just pretty sure I will not end up there
.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this
Teaching and observe them.
One thing that must be emphasized is that the curse is irrevocable; so it's
very important to come to grips with it; and the sooner the better.
†. Matt 5:18 . . For assuredly, I say to you: till heaven and earth pass away,
not one jot or one tittle will by any means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled.
Fortunately, God himself has invented a way for interested parties to fulfill
that curse, and to escape it, both at the same time.
†. Matt 5:17 . . Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In order for Christ to totally "fulfill" the law, it was necessary for him to
accept its curse-- not for himself; but on behalf of others.
†. Rom 8:3-4 . . For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
flesh, God did: sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement
of the Law might be fulfilled in us
The "requirement of the Law" of course being the curse of Deut 27:26.
So then, by means of Christ's crucifixion, cursed sinners are afforded a
fulfillment of their curse, and an escape from it both at the same time.
†. Isa 53:6 . . We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
†. Gal 3:13 . . Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us
About the simplest means of getting in on Christ's crucifixion is by means of
the brief prayer below:
"Lord; I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death."
Or if one wishes; they could forego the prayer and believe their way in.
†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
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.
†. Eph 1:13 . . In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the
gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in him with
the Holy Spirit.
However, just to be on the safe side, I highly recommend both believing and
praying. (Rom 10:11-13)
Pop Clock Update: 645 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,536,920 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this
Teaching and observe them.
One thing that must be emphasized is that the curse is irrevocable; so it's
very important to come to grips with it; and the sooner the better.
†. Matt 5:18 . . For assuredly, I say to you: till heaven and earth pass away,
not one jot or one tittle will by any means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled.
Fortunately, God himself has invented a way for interested parties to fulfill
that curse, and to escape it, both at the same time.
†. Matt 5:17 . . Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In order for Christ to totally "fulfill" the law, it was necessary for him to
accept its curse-- not for himself; but on behalf of others.
†. Rom 8:3-4 . . For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
flesh, God did: sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement
of the Law might be fulfilled in us
The "requirement of the Law" of course being the curse of Deut 27:26.
So then, by means of Christ's crucifixion, cursed sinners are afforded a
fulfillment of their curse, and an escape from it both at the same time.
†. Isa 53:6 . . We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
†. Gal 3:13 . . Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us
About the simplest means of getting in on Christ's crucifixion is by means of
the brief prayer below:
"Lord; I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death."
Or if one wishes; they could forego the prayer and believe their way in.
†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
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.
†. Eph 1:13 . . In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the
gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in him with
the Holy Spirit.
However, just to be on the safe side, I highly recommend both believing and
praying. (Rom 10:11-13)
Pop Clock Update: 645 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,536,920 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
Common Objection: The Bible says that God has never actually desired
sacrifices and offerings. For example:
"In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an
open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." (Psalm
40:6)
"For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in
burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart-- these, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 51:16-17)
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings."(Hos 6:6)
The objection's interpretation of those passage effectively invalidates the
entire God-given book of Leviticus; and also makes Jesus look pretty stupid
because it was his belief that not one jot nor one tittle of Israel's covenanted
law would pass away until all is fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19)
The point is: God prefers that men not sin; but rather conduct themselves in
a manner that needs no atonement. In other words: atonements are a
contingency rather than the ideal.
Ps 51:16-17 requires an explanation because it's a special case. David
penned it as a result of his tryst with Bathsheba and his engineering of the
death of her husband Uriah. God allows no atonements for those two sins:
both are unforgivable death offenses under the terms and conditions of
Israel's covenanted law.
†. Ex 21:13-14 . . If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, you
shall take him away from my very altar and put him to death.
†. Num 35:31 . . Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who
deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
†. Lev 20:10 . . If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-- with
the wife of his neighbor --both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put
to death.
†. Deut 22:22 . . If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die-- both the man that lay with the
woman, and the woman --so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
In other words: were God accepting an atonement back in that day for those
crimes; then David would have offered it; but he knew better than to try.
Pop Clock Update: 648 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,702,208 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Common Objection: The Bible says that God has never actually desired
sacrifices and offerings. For example:
"In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an
open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." (Psalm
40:6)
"For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in
burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart-- these, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 51:16-17)
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings."(Hos 6:6)
The objection's interpretation of those passage effectively invalidates the
entire God-given book of Leviticus; and also makes Jesus look pretty stupid
because it was his belief that not one jot nor one tittle of Israel's covenanted
law would pass away until all is fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19)
The point is: God prefers that men not sin; but rather conduct themselves in
a manner that needs no atonement. In other words: atonements are a
contingency rather than the ideal.
Ps 51:16-17 requires an explanation because it's a special case. David
penned it as a result of his tryst with Bathsheba and his engineering of the
death of her husband Uriah. God allows no atonements for those two sins:
both are unforgivable death offenses under the terms and conditions of
Israel's covenanted law.
†. Ex 21:13-14 . . If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, you
shall take him away from my very altar and put him to death.
†. Num 35:31 . . Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who
deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
†. Lev 20:10 . . If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-- with
the wife of his neighbor --both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put
to death.
†. Deut 22:22 . . If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die-- both the man that lay with the
woman, and the woman --so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
In other words: were God accepting an atonement back in that day for those
crimes; then David would have offered it; but he knew better than to try.
Pop Clock Update: 648 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,702,208 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
Common Objection: The Old Testament's Yhvh abhors human sacrifices.
Therefore, He couldn't possibly approve of the New Testament's cross; for
example:
"They have turned their backs to me, not their faces; though I have taught
them persistently, they would not listen and accept correction. They set up
their abominations in the house that bears my name, and defiled it. They
built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up
their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor
did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah
to sin. (Jer 32:33-35)
"Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the
Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons
and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." (Deut 12:31)
When all else fails: read the fine print.
Though the Old Testament's Yhvh normally frowns upon sacrificing one's
underage children-- e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:10, cf.
2Kgs 16:3, 2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps 106:34, Ezk 20:31, Ezk
23:37, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:4, Jer 32:35 --to my knowledge He has never openly
frowned upon sacrificing a consenting adult. Actually, the primary reason
adult human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the old
covenant is simply because they aren't stipulated; and it's illegal to amend
the covenant to include them. (Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30)
But Christ wasn't sacrificed as an old covenant atonement; rather, the new.
†. 1Cor 11:25-26 . . He took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the
new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of me.
Note: the Old Testament predicted human sacrifice; with Yhvh's full
approval no less.
†. Isa 53:6 . . Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
†. Isa 53:10 . . It was Yhvh's will to crush him, and cause him to suffer . . .
Yhvh makes his life a guilt offering
Pop Clock Update: 651 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,867,496 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Common Objection: The Old Testament's Yhvh abhors human sacrifices.
Therefore, He couldn't possibly approve of the New Testament's cross; for
example:
"They have turned their backs to me, not their faces; though I have taught
them persistently, they would not listen and accept correction. They set up
their abominations in the house that bears my name, and defiled it. They
built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up
their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor
did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah
to sin. (Jer 32:33-35)
"Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the
Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons
and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." (Deut 12:31)
When all else fails: read the fine print.
Though the Old Testament's Yhvh normally frowns upon sacrificing one's
underage children-- e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:10, cf.
2Kgs 16:3, 2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps 106:34, Ezk 20:31, Ezk
23:37, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:4, Jer 32:35 --to my knowledge He has never openly
frowned upon sacrificing a consenting adult. Actually, the primary reason
adult human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the old
covenant is simply because they aren't stipulated; and it's illegal to amend
the covenant to include them. (Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30)
But Christ wasn't sacrificed as an old covenant atonement; rather, the new.
†. 1Cor 11:25-26 . . He took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the
new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of me.
Note: the Old Testament predicted human sacrifice; with Yhvh's full
approval no less.
†. Isa 53:6 . . Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
†. Isa 53:10 . . It was Yhvh's will to crush him, and cause him to suffer . . .
Yhvh makes his life a guilt offering
Pop Clock Update: 651 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 35,867,496 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
Common Objection: The Bible says that God has never actually desired
sacrifices and offerings. For example:
"In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an
open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." (Psalm
40:6)
"For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in
burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart-- these, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 51:16-17)
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings." (Hos 6:6)
A: The objection's interpretation of those passage effectively invalidates the
entire God-given book of Leviticus; and also makes Jesus look pretty stupid
because it was his belief that not one jot nor one tittle of Israel's covenanted
law would pass away until all is fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19)
The point is: God prefers that men not sin; but rather conduct themselves in
a manner that needs no atonement. In other words: atonements are a
contingency rather than the ideal.
Ps 51:16-17 requires an explanation because it's a special case. David
penned it as a result of his tryst with Bathsheba and his engineering of the
death of her husband Uriah. God allows no atonements for those two sins:
both are unforgivable death offenses under the terms and conditions of
Israel's covenanted law.
†. Ex 21:13-14 . . If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, you
shall take him away from my very altar and put him to death.
†. Num 35:31 . . Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who
deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
†. Lev 20:10 . . If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-- with
the wife of his neighbor --both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put
to death.
†. Deut 22:22 . . If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die-- both the man that lay with the
woman, and the woman --so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
In other words: were God accepting an atonement back in that day for those
crimes; then David would have offered it; but he knew better than to try.
Pop Clock Update: 656 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,142,976 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Common Objection: The Bible says that God has never actually desired
sacrifices and offerings. For example:
"In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an
open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." (Psalm
40:6)
"For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in
burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart-- these, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 51:16-17)
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings." (Hos 6:6)
A: The objection's interpretation of those passage effectively invalidates the
entire God-given book of Leviticus; and also makes Jesus look pretty stupid
because it was his belief that not one jot nor one tittle of Israel's covenanted
law would pass away until all is fulfilled. (Matt 5:17-19)
The point is: God prefers that men not sin; but rather conduct themselves in
a manner that needs no atonement. In other words: atonements are a
contingency rather than the ideal.
Ps 51:16-17 requires an explanation because it's a special case. David
penned it as a result of his tryst with Bathsheba and his engineering of the
death of her husband Uriah. God allows no atonements for those two sins:
both are unforgivable death offenses under the terms and conditions of
Israel's covenanted law.
†. Ex 21:13-14 . . If a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, you
shall take him away from my very altar and put him to death.
†. Num 35:31 . . Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who
deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
†. Lev 20:10 . . If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-- with
the wife of his neighbor --both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put
to death.
†. Deut 22:22 . . If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die-- both the man that lay with the
woman, and the woman --so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
In other words: were God accepting an atonement back in that day for those
crimes; then David would have offered it; but he knew better than to try.
Pop Clock Update: 656 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,142,976 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
Q: Can you cite an Old Testament example where God approved sacrificing a
consenting adult?
A: Abraham lived a pretty good number of years before Israel's covenanted
law was instituted. Therefore, he wasn't obligated to comply with it because
biblical law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction; viz: it isn't retroactive.
(Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)
So then, Abraham was in a position to offer a human sacrifice without
incurring guilt; which he did.
†. Gen 22:1-2 . . Now it came about after these things, that God tested
Abraham, and said to him: Abraham! And he said: Here I am. And He said:
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.
Did Abraham slay Isaac? No, but did Abraham offer Isaac? Yes.
†. Gen 22:9 . .Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And
Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound
Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
You see, once a gift dedicated to God is placed on an altar, it's a done deal--
whether the offering is dead or alive makes no difference. In point of fact,
the letter to Hebrews credits Abraham with offering his son in obedience to
God's command.
†. Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac,
and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son
So then, the next question is: was Isaac a consenting adult?
Well; according to Gen 22:6-7, Isaac was old enough to shoulder a load of
wood; so he wasn't a little boy like so many people like to think he was.
Plus, he was mature enough to understand the particulars of a burnt
offering.
†. Gen 22:8b . . And the two of them walked on together.
What do you suppose they talked about on their way up the hill? Well; it's
not too difficult to figure out. I think it was right about then that Abraham
and Isaac took time-out for a heart to heart. And I don't think it was
pleasant. Abraham informed his son of their real purpose there that day and
of what God required. Isaac must have been shocked and terrified. How
could he not be?
It must have taken quite a bit of salesmanship to convince Isaac that taking
his life was the right thing to do. He was much younger and could easily
outrun his dad. So if this was going to work, it would require his son's
whole-hearted consent because there was no one there to assist Abraham in
the event that Isaac chickened out. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole
affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder.
The servants were behind, guarding the burro. And God could not interfere
because offerings are worship; and worship is supposed to be voluntary
rather than at the point of a gun. So all in all, the success of this entire
event hinged upon the free will of just two people that day: Abraham and
Isaac; a father and his son.
If you were Abraham, how would you approach Isaac to convince him to let
you slit his throat and incinerate his body to ashes?
Fortunately, Abraham was a man of God who walked with God. So his
influence with Isaac was fully functional and effective. If there was one thing
about his dad that Isaac knew was definitely not artificial, it was his
relationship with Yhvh. If his dad said that God wanted Abraham's boy for a
burnt offering, then by thunder that is what God said. I believe Isaac was
confident his dad would never lie about such a thing. He might lie about
other things, but not about that one especially since Isaac was a son whom
Abraham dearly loved.
Isaac is quite the hero among instructed Jews. To this day; a prayer included
in the additional service for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, culminates
with these words: "Remember today the Binding Of Isaac with mercy to his
descendants."
Ancient rabbis attested that the final resurrection of the dead would take
place "through the merits of Isaac, who offered himself upon the altar."
(Pesikta deRav Kahana, 32)
In other words: the closing prayer of Rosh Hashanah, and Pesikta deRav
Kahana, 32 assume that Isaac was not only offered; but also consenting;
which indeed he was; no doubt about it.
Q: But God stopped Abraham from cutting his son with the knife. Doesn't
that prove God abhors human sacrifice?
A: See above in regards to the status of offerings laid upon an altar.
Pop Clock Update: 659 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,308,264 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Q: Can you cite an Old Testament example where God approved sacrificing a
consenting adult?
A: Abraham lived a pretty good number of years before Israel's covenanted
law was instituted. Therefore, he wasn't obligated to comply with it because
biblical law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction; viz: it isn't retroactive.
(Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)
So then, Abraham was in a position to offer a human sacrifice without
incurring guilt; which he did.
†. Gen 22:1-2 . . Now it came about after these things, that God tested
Abraham, and said to him: Abraham! And he said: Here I am. And He said:
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.
Did Abraham slay Isaac? No, but did Abraham offer Isaac? Yes.
†. Gen 22:9 . .Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And
Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound
Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
You see, once a gift dedicated to God is placed on an altar, it's a done deal--
whether the offering is dead or alive makes no difference. In point of fact,
the letter to Hebrews credits Abraham with offering his son in obedience to
God's command.
†. Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac,
and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son
So then, the next question is: was Isaac a consenting adult?
Well; according to Gen 22:6-7, Isaac was old enough to shoulder a load of
wood; so he wasn't a little boy like so many people like to think he was.
Plus, he was mature enough to understand the particulars of a burnt
offering.
†. Gen 22:8b . . And the two of them walked on together.
What do you suppose they talked about on their way up the hill? Well; it's
not too difficult to figure out. I think it was right about then that Abraham
and Isaac took time-out for a heart to heart. And I don't think it was
pleasant. Abraham informed his son of their real purpose there that day and
of what God required. Isaac must have been shocked and terrified. How
could he not be?
It must have taken quite a bit of salesmanship to convince Isaac that taking
his life was the right thing to do. He was much younger and could easily
outrun his dad. So if this was going to work, it would require his son's
whole-hearted consent because there was no one there to assist Abraham in
the event that Isaac chickened out. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole
affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder.
The servants were behind, guarding the burro. And God could not interfere
because offerings are worship; and worship is supposed to be voluntary
rather than at the point of a gun. So all in all, the success of this entire
event hinged upon the free will of just two people that day: Abraham and
Isaac; a father and his son.
If you were Abraham, how would you approach Isaac to convince him to let
you slit his throat and incinerate his body to ashes?
Fortunately, Abraham was a man of God who walked with God. So his
influence with Isaac was fully functional and effective. If there was one thing
about his dad that Isaac knew was definitely not artificial, it was his
relationship with Yhvh. If his dad said that God wanted Abraham's boy for a
burnt offering, then by thunder that is what God said. I believe Isaac was
confident his dad would never lie about such a thing. He might lie about
other things, but not about that one especially since Isaac was a son whom
Abraham dearly loved.
Isaac is quite the hero among instructed Jews. To this day; a prayer included
in the additional service for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, culminates
with these words: "Remember today the Binding Of Isaac with mercy to his
descendants."
Ancient rabbis attested that the final resurrection of the dead would take
place "through the merits of Isaac, who offered himself upon the altar."
(Pesikta deRav Kahana, 32)
In other words: the closing prayer of Rosh Hashanah, and Pesikta deRav
Kahana, 32 assume that Isaac was not only offered; but also consenting;
which indeed he was; no doubt about it.
Q: But God stopped Abraham from cutting his son with the knife. Doesn't
that prove God abhors human sacrifice?
A: See above in regards to the status of offerings laid upon an altar.
Pop Clock Update: 659 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,308,264 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
Q: If humanity was created in the image and likeness of God as per Gen
1:26-27; then why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that another birth as per John
3:3-8 is a must instead of an option? I should think that the image and
likeness of God is about as good as it gets; so then why the necessity of a
do-over?
A: Because the Bible says that the Lord saw that the wickedness of man
was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on
the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen 6:5-6)
Q: God loathes His own image and likeness?
A: At the conclusion of six days; the inventor, architect, engineer, and
manufacturer of the cosmos-- with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy
--graded it not just good, but very good (Gen 1:31). So I would have to say
that the wickedness of man didn't become great in the earth, nor every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart become only evil continually; until
after the forbidden fruit incident.
In other words: though humanity was originally manufactured in the image
and likeness of God, it lost that image and likeness as the result of
disobeying a direct order. Consequently; post-Eden humanity now bears its
own image and likeness (Gen 3:22, Gen 5:3).
So then the thoughts and imaginations of those whose hearts are only evil
continually, are not wicked because humanity's manufacturer made them that
way. No; they're wicked because Adam and his wife defied God and tasted that
fruit knowing full well that it was off-limits; viz: they were informed of both the
ban, and the consequence of ignoring the ban. So their disobedience wasn't an
innocent mistake. No, it was an act of willful defiance; and from thence they,
and their posterity, have had to live with it ever since.
†. John 3:3 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.
†. John 3:7 . . Do not be astonished that I said to you: You must be born
again.
Pop Clock Update: 662 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,473,552 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Q: If humanity was created in the image and likeness of God as per Gen
1:26-27; then why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that another birth as per John
3:3-8 is a must instead of an option? I should think that the image and
likeness of God is about as good as it gets; so then why the necessity of a
do-over?
A: Because the Bible says that the Lord saw that the wickedness of man
was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on
the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen 6:5-6)
Q: God loathes His own image and likeness?
A: At the conclusion of six days; the inventor, architect, engineer, and
manufacturer of the cosmos-- with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy
--graded it not just good, but very good (Gen 1:31). So I would have to say
that the wickedness of man didn't become great in the earth, nor every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart become only evil continually; until
after the forbidden fruit incident.
In other words: though humanity was originally manufactured in the image
and likeness of God, it lost that image and likeness as the result of
disobeying a direct order. Consequently; post-Eden humanity now bears its
own image and likeness (Gen 3:22, Gen 5:3).
So then the thoughts and imaginations of those whose hearts are only evil
continually, are not wicked because humanity's manufacturer made them that
way. No; they're wicked because Adam and his wife defied God and tasted that
fruit knowing full well that it was off-limits; viz: they were informed of both the
ban, and the consequence of ignoring the ban. So their disobedience wasn't an
innocent mistake. No, it was an act of willful defiance; and from thence they,
and their posterity, have had to live with it ever since.
†. John 3:3 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.
†. John 3:7 . . Do not be astonished that I said to you: You must be born
again.
Pop Clock Update: 662 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,473,552 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
.
†. Ex 20:5 . . I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those
who hate Me.
Q: how is that fair? holding children responsible for what their parents do?
A: Ex 20:5-- along with Ex 34:7, Num 14:18, and Deut 5:9 --is often
construed to mean that children are held responsible for their parents' sins;
but that isn't it. What we're looking at here is collateral damage. For
example: in moving against Pharaoh in the book of Exodus; God moved
against not only the man himself; but also against everything that pertained
to him in Egypt; e.g. his citizens, his natural resources, and his family.
Another good example of the principle of collateral damage is the Flood.
Another is Sodom and Gomorrah; another is Ninevah, and yet another is
located at Num 16:25-34. In point of fact, the principle of collateral damage
is evident throughout the Old Testament where the lives of innocent children
were terminated not for their parents' sins; but because of their parents'
sins.
There are times when God chooses to judge people by going after not only
themselves; but also the things that pertain to them; including, but not
limited to, their progeny. I don't quite understand the logic of that kind of
justice; but then again: I don't try; I just go along with it; primarily because
it's futile to find fault with God.
Pop Clock Update: 667 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,749,032 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
†. Ex 20:5 . . I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those
who hate Me.
Q: how is that fair? holding children responsible for what their parents do?
A: Ex 20:5-- along with Ex 34:7, Num 14:18, and Deut 5:9 --is often
construed to mean that children are held responsible for their parents' sins;
but that isn't it. What we're looking at here is collateral damage. For
example: in moving against Pharaoh in the book of Exodus; God moved
against not only the man himself; but also against everything that pertained
to him in Egypt; e.g. his citizens, his natural resources, and his family.
Another good example of the principle of collateral damage is the Flood.
Another is Sodom and Gomorrah; another is Ninevah, and yet another is
located at Num 16:25-34. In point of fact, the principle of collateral damage
is evident throughout the Old Testament where the lives of innocent children
were terminated not for their parents' sins; but because of their parents'
sins.
There are times when God chooses to judge people by going after not only
themselves; but also the things that pertain to them; including, but not
limited to, their progeny. I don't quite understand the logic of that kind of
justice; but then again: I don't try; I just go along with it; primarily because
it's futile to find fault with God.
Pop Clock Update: 667 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the
figures in post #1 are within reason, then something like 36,749,032 new
arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 12, 2012.
Buen Camino
/
Similar threads
