Popular Questions

[River Jordan]

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.

So did Koala bears pack eucalyptus for the journey? Panda's packed their own bamboo? <_<

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.

Not within a hundred, or even tens of thousands of years. To do so would require so much energy as to boil off the oceans and atmosphere.

Normal geological processes take thousands of years to accomplish, but
when you factor in the creator's participation in the Flood event, it's no
problem at all for the cosmos' creator, who has absolute power over
everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of
nature's processes too.

Then why try to cite natural geological processes at all? Just say "God did it" and be done with it.

 

[StanJ]

So can you cite one of their published papers and identify the errors you think it contains? And who said anything about their work being infallible?

Most people who cite them do, however erroneously. I don't need to know them intimately to know God's word disagrees with their findings.
I have debated enough evolutionists to know it is a lost cause to try and make any one them go against their beliefs. In some ways they have more faith than Christians do but blindly so.

Ignorance is a powerful management tool. For example; the Roman Church
taught generations of trusting folk that the universe was geo-centric. In
other words: like a colossal snow globe with Earth right in the middle of
everything. And then along came guys like Christian Huygens and Galileo
Galilei and began discovering, and proving, that the Earth wasn't even at the
center of the solar system, let alone the entire universe.
Well; the Church did not react very well to that. Long story short, they
labeled those men's finds heresy; and I'm sure you can understand why.
Their discoveries made the Church look like it was being captained by
charlatans; which, at the time, it was.

Yes it is, but taking advantage of that ignorance is just as manipulative.

The Bible teaches what the earth and the universe was like, and the fact that the people you itemize never really studied or knew the Bible does not mean it was not right. It just wasn't understood, and mostly because of so-called scientists, NOT theologians. Let's try to not muddy the waters by past failures. Let's deal with facts and realities that exist today.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Did Abraham Actually "Evict" Hagar; Or What Else Maybe?

†. Gen 21:10-11 . . 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 matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of
his own.

†. Gen 21:12 . . But God said to Abraham: Don't be distressed over the boy
or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through
Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you.

How does a good and decent man like Abraham disown his own flesh and
blood? If Ishmael were a gang-banger, a drug addict, an Islamic terrorist,
or a career criminal it would be different. But he was really a pretty good
kid and Abraham totally loved him. Being the lad's biological father, I'm
sure Abraham felt very responsible for Ishmael's welfare. He and Ishmael
had been a team together for seventeen or eighteen years. You just don't
dissolve a bond like that as if giving away old clothes to Good Will.

The phrase "cast out" implies cruelty; and leaves a wrong impression. Sarah
(and God too) wanted her own flesh and blood to follow in Abraham's footsteps
instead of Hagar's boy Ishmael; and, in the case of slave mothers, there was a
perfectly humane way to do it.

The Code Of Hammurabi, and of the still earlier laws of Lipit-Ishtar, implicitly
made inheritance rights a legal consequence of the father's acceptance of an
infant boy as his legitimate son; so then, the laws of Abraham's day entitled
Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate. However, there was a
clause in the law stipulating that if the slave's 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.

However; Abraham couldn't just sell Hagar; no, he had to emancipate her
for the law to take effect. Sarah, in saying "cast out that slave-woman and
her son" is actually encouraging her husband to grant Hagar's freedom;
which would then have the effect of legally disowning Ishmael and elevating
Isaac to the status of not just the firstborn son, but of the only son. (Gen
22:2)

I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose
because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more.
No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future for Isaac. Even if
Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, God was very likely
on the verge of suggesting it Himself.

†. Gen 21:14a . . Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin
of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder,
together with the child, and sent her away.

The Hebrew word for "bread" is lechem (lekh'-em) which just simply means
food (for man or beast), which therefore includes not only grain but other
stuff too commonly eaten in that region in that day. So Abraham didn't
necessarily send the poor woman out on her own with a ration of bread and
water like some sort of ex felon on parole; but very likely provisioned Hagar
and his son Ishmael with enough camper-grade food stuffs to keep them
going for a while.

But it's puzzling why Abraham didn't provide them with an escort; at least
until they reached the safety of a village or a town. That suggests to me that
Abraham fully believed God's promise to make a nation of Ishmael (Gen
21:13) which implies that God Himself would look out for them from here on
in.

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves.

I would have hated to observe that scene. Abraham didn't dispatch a servant
or a butler to equip Hagar. He did it himself. And he didn't just bring the
provisions out to her and set it down at her feet. No. He put them up on her
shoulder himself. You have to stand close to someone to do that; close
enough to look them right in the eyes.

There's no record of ever any ill will between Hagar and Abraham, nor any
between him and his boy Ishmael either. Those three were truly family in
every sense of the word-- mom, dad, and child. There couldn't have been
a dry eye nor a cheerful face at any time during this excruciating farewell.
If you've ever experienced something so upsetting as to make you nauseous
and lead-bellied, then you know what I'm talking about. Anybody who can
read their story without feeling the slightest twinge of compassion for any
one of those three; has got to be the most insensitive clod on earth.

=====================================

 

[River Jordan]

Most people who cite them do, however erroneously. I don't need to know them intimately to know God's word disagrees with their findings.
I have debated enough evolutionists to know it is a lost cause to try and make any one them go against their beliefs. In some ways they have more faith than Christians do but blindly so.

No, your interpretation of scripture disagrees with their findings. But then, you're not infallible are you?

 

[StanJ]

No, your interpretation of scripture disagrees with their findings. But then, you're not infallible are you?

I don't interpret scripture, I read and agree with it. God said seven days and I believe it. The scientists don't, but that's their problem not mine, or anyone who believes and is committed to the accuracy of God's Word. I am NOT infallible, but can read and understand the basic of the English translation of God's Word.

 

[River Jordan]

How do you read Matthew 4:8?

"Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

How can you see all of the world from a mountain if the earth is a sphere?

 

[Webers_Home]

Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him
all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. How can you see all of the
world from a mountain if the earth is a sphere?

Luke says the showing was done in a moment of time. The koiné Greek word
for "moment" is stigme (stig-may') which means: a point of time; viz: an
instant.

When some people have a too-close call with death, they sometimes say
their whole life passed before them in a moment. I don't know if that's true
because I've had several close calls with death and that was never my
experience.

But apparently, Jesus' mind was super fast and capable of coping with quite a
bit of rapid-fire visual data all at once because obviously the Devil didn't take
Jesus on a grand tour; but instead showed him an extremely rapid succession
of visuals, or maybe even a whole sky full of them all at once plastered from
horizon to horizon and overhead too like one of those spherical movie screens.
How Jesus' mind was able to process all that data so fast I don't know; but it's
one of his unsung miracles that gets like zero attention these days.

But if Jesus can process visual data that fast; he must also be able to
process audio data equally as fast. I mean, countless prayers come his way
24-7-52 and he is able to process them all. Pritt-tee remarkable.


Buen Camino
/

 

[StanJ]

How do you read Matthew 4:8?

"Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

How can you see all of the world from a mountain if the earth is a sphere?

This was not a physical encounter, it was a spiritual one and the devil does not have the power to transport people to various places. This was not much different than what John experienced when Jesus gave him His last Revelation. John did NOT physically go to these places.

 

[River Jordan]

This was not a physical encounter, it was a spiritual one and the devil does not have the power to transport people to various places. This was not much different than what John experienced when Jesus gave him His last Revelation. John did NOT physically go to these places.

Funny....the text doesn't say any of that at all. All it says is that the devil took Him to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world.

Looks like you do interpret scripture.

 

[StanJ]

Funny....the text doesn't say any of that at all. All it says is that the devil took Him to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world.

Looks like you do interpret scripture.

So then you must also believe that the devil actually took Him to the highest point in the temple, v5, a place where not even one man could stand?

Apparently you don't know how to identify what terms are being used here, or you deliberately equivocate?

 

[Webers_Home]

So then you must also believe that the devil actually took Him to the highest
point in the temple, v5, a place where not even one man could stand?

Can even one man stand on water?


Buen Camino
/

 

[Trekson]

Hi Weber, Your words: "Ignorance is a powerful management tool."

You missed the whole point. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a step of faith to leave some things in the hand of God. Does it really matter how God performed the act of creation? Are we striving to be as "gods" ourselves by attaining this knowledge? We know we'll find out the truth eventually so a little patience may be required.

Your words: "If the ark were to launch in 2014, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1894-- nine years before the Wright Brothers historical flight
--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."

Here's a fine example of trying to use science to explain the spiritual. (which can't be done by the way) Do you have a problem with the literal interpretation of the bible or are you and RJ "cynical" enough to believe that if "science" can't explain it than it mustn't be true? I think the answer to how all the animals got to the ark even from great distances can be explained with just one bible passage.

Acts 8:39-40 - "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."

God could have easily done the same thing with any of the sets of animals he chose. Remember you're speaking of a God to whom our most advanced areas of research and technology are eqivalent to, at best, baby rattles.

 

[StanJ]

Can even one man stand on water?


Buen Camino
/

No offence Weber, but when you start addressing my questions about your posts, I'll do likewise.

 

[River Jordan]

So then you must also believe that the devil actually took Him to the highest point in the temple, v5, a place where not even one man could stand?

Apparently you don't know how to identify what terms are being used here, or you deliberately equivocate?

No. I'm just wondering if you're deliberately avoiding the point, or just not getting it. You claimed you don't interpret scripture, and that you just read it and take it for what it says. Yet when asked about the temptation of Christ passages, you suddenly invoke a whole lot of interpretive concepts. Thus, there's a fundamental contradiction in what you say you do, and what you actually do.

 

[Webers_Home]

Can even one man stand on water?

The answer to that question is of course YES because Jesus not only stood
on water, but walked on it. So then, in my opinion, standing on a pinnacle
wouldn't really be much of a challenge for somebody like him.

I think the answer to how all the animals got to the ark even from great
distances can be explained with just one bible passage.

Acts 8:39-40 - "And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more:
and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at
Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to
Caesarea."

God could have easily done the same thing with any of the sets of animals
he chose.

Nice theory; except that Genesis doesn't say that the critters would be
brought to Noah. No; on the contrary; Genesis 6:20 says that they would
come to Noah; and according to Genesis 7:9, that's what they did.


Buen Camino
/

 

[Trekson]

Hi Weber, Your words: 'Nice theory; except that Genesis doesn't say that the critters would be
brought to Noah. No; on the contrary; Genesis 6:20 says that they would
come to Noah; and according to Genesis 7:9, that's what they did."

Gen. 6:20 doesn't imply in what manner they would come to Noah. This was just pointing out to Noah that he wouldn't have to out and 'round them up". Gen. 7:9 doesn't imply anything about the method of "how" they got there. Theory still holds true, try again.

 

[StanJ]

No. I'm just wondering if you're deliberately avoiding the point, or just not getting it. You claimed you don't interpret scripture, and that you just read it and take it for what it says. Yet when asked about the temptation of Christ passages, you suddenly invoke a whole lot of interpretive concepts. Thus, there's a fundamental contradiction in what you say you do, and what you actually do.

As I said, it's already interpreted, and I just read the interpretation. If you honestly believe the devil took Jesus to these places then you don't know how to read the Bible. That has nothing to do with interpretation or concepts. It has to do with understanding the context.

The answer to that question is of course YES because Jesus not only stood
on water, but walked on it. So then, in my opinion, standing on a pinnacle
wouldn't really be much of a challenge for somebody like him.

That's fine, but the issue is not what Jesus could or can do, but what the devil could and can do. Do you believe the scripture in question actually physically happened or spiritually/metaphorically happened?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Who/What Is The Firstborn?

†. Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.

Some belief systems use that verse to prove that God's beloved son was
the first thing that God ever created. However "firstborn" is ambiguous; viz:
it can indicate a birth order and/or a hierarchical rank. In the case of a
hierarchical rank, the position of the firstborn is transferable to a younger
sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) from Reuben to Joseph (Gen
49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14).

†. Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose
son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how
does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit
at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then
calls Him "Lord" how is He his son?

Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words
for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second
is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to
simply designate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12)
Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his
brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

So then; we could paraphrase Psalm 110:1 like this:

Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool.

Well; let me tell you something: anybody who knew the Old Testament in
Jesus' day knew good and well from Ps 89:27 that David is supposed to hold
the rank of God's firstborn and that no king on earth is David's superior
other than God. So Psalm 110:1 is saying that David's position of God's
firstborn has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to one of
his own posterity; which up to that time was not only unheard of; but just
wasn't done.

†. Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

Well; no surprise there. They were utterly baffled. This was something not
only strange to their way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in
black and white in their own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to
catch its significance until Jesus drew their attention to it.

=====================================

That's fine, but the issue is not what Jesus could or can do, but what the
devil could and can do. Do you believe the scripture in question actually
physically happened or spiritually/metaphorically happened?

I'm sorry StanJ; it's nothing personal but I can't talk with a bloke whose
thought processes work like yours do. We're just not on the same wave
length nor even in the same solar system.

Buen Camino
/

 

[StanJ]

I'm sorry StanJ; it's nothing personal but I can't talk with a bloke whose
thought processes work like yours do. We're just not on the same wave
length nor even in the same solar system.

That's to funny....nothing personal and then you make it personal. Are you referring to someone who asks questions or makes you accountable for your statements?
That's the thing with public forums Weber...if you're going to post you should be willing to defend your POV or at least try.
I'm human and Christian so unless you are neither, we should have no problem communicating about what the Bible does and doesn't say.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Why David's Little Boy?

Long story short: David committed the capital crimes of premeditated
murder and adultery (2Sam 11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two crimes
are; what really rattled heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an
embarrassment.

†. 2Sam 12:14-18 . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall
surely die . . .The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so
that he was very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child
died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to get back at David. His little boy was just collateral damage as per the law
below that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15.

†. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed:
Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern. For example: Ham's punishment
for humiliating Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan. And during Moses'
face-off with Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with
all those of his subjects. But the capper is the 70,000 Jews who went to their
deaths through no fault of their own because just one lone individual, king
David, breached the Sinai covenant by taking a census.

Why were so many Jews caught up in the Holocaust? Well; it's not all that
difficult to figure out. The covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God
as per Deut 29:9-15 obligates Him to protect them from misfortune when
they're compliant with the covenant; but at the same time also obligates
Him to lower the boom on them with the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut
27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 when they breach the covenant.

Now the scary part is: according to Ex 34:6-7 it wasn't necessary for
Europe's Jews to breach the covenant themselves in order to be taken by
the Holocaust. It was only necessary that their ancestors breach it. In other
words; it is my personal conviction that Europe's Jews taken in the
Holocaust were collateral damage just as David's son, just as Ham's son,
just as Egypt's sons, and just as the 70,000. And I really have to wonder
what terrible misfortunes that the world's Jews of today are heaping upon
the world's Jews of tomorrow by their current breaches of the covenant;
especially seeing as how more than 50% of the Jews living in the modern
State of Israel consider themselves hiloni (secular).

Interesting isn't it? There are times when divine judgment seems to come
out of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of
the past.

=====================================