1. 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!

Quickies

Discussion in 'Christian Newbies' started by Webers_Home, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Hello; and welcome to a collection of odds and ends from the Bible that come in
    handy now and then for just about everybody that's just starting out.

    The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

    This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made instead of
    God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite useful.

    In a nutshell:

    1• The simplest difference is chronological, i.e. the Old Testament focuses upon the
    Jews' religious history prior to Christ's birth, while the New focuses upon the world's
    introduction to Christianity in connection with Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.

    2• "Old Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God
    as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    3• "New Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people will eventually agree
    upon with God as per Jeremiah 31:31-34.

    /
     
  2. Sword

    Sword Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    200
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    The old is Christ conceled
    The new is Christ revealed. Andso much more than what you said here.
     
    "ByGrace" likes this.
  3. "ByGrace"

    "ByGrace" Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    496
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    To me...it is the history, and the future of a Love story....the Groom wooing His Bride.
    (I even believe that our initial salvation is when our inner ear is opened, and we finally hear His voice calling us..His potential Bride...and we are drawn by The Father ..and from there on..He reveals His Son, as the Son too..is the revelation of The Father to us! )
    As David said so well :- Ps 42 "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." /
    A Love Story. ✟
     
  4. Sword

    Sword Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    200
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I get David panting after God. But we dont pant in the same way after God. David is panting after a God who does not dwell in him or with him.
    Today God is with us and dwelling in us. So to pant after God is to say, Hes not with me. God says to us. I will never leave you or forsake you. So that is permanant. God can live anywhere He chooses. He chosse to swell in us :) Now thats a love story
     
  5. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    The Everlasting Gospel

    This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.

    Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the
    everlasting gospel to preach to the people who dwell on the earth-- to every
    nation, tribe, language, and people.

    . . . Fear God! he shouted. Give glory to Him! For the time has come when
    He will sit as judge. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea, and
    all the springs of water!

    It's easy to mistake the everlasting gospel for the gospel of Christ but
    neither Christ's name nor his crucifixion and resurrection are anywhere in
    the angel's message.

    The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:

    1• There is a supreme being.

    2• He deserves respect.

    3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and

    4• The cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product
    of intelligent design.

    /
     
  6. "ByGrace"

    "ByGrace" Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    496
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Well I am fifty fifty on that :)
    We see and probably live our faith differently.

    Yes indeed, God indwells us by His Spirit. ..and here comes the 'BUT '..
    I still very much "run after God", I am a God-chaser. I love dwelling in His Presence.
    Yes, God is with us, God is within us..but He also, still comes "upon" us.
    My heart still longs for more and more of Him and His 'felt' presence. . He is my Home , my House, I still go "in and out" of dwelling continually in His presence ..I am yet carnal..the old man is not dead- enough ...yet.
    In this , we seem to be somewhat different in the way we walk along this Pathway toward Home.




     
  7. Stranger

    Stranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    238
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    No, you don't get David. You're too busy being 'great after God'. You're too busy casting out demons and healing people as you walk down the street...watching those limbs grow back out. Sure. You don't get David at all.

    David was a sinner and knew it. And God knew it. But David was a man after God's own heart. And that is God speaking...not David. You're so called relationship with God is nothing but verbosity. A facade. Every king after David was judged by Davids reign. As being good like David or being evil unlike David.

    And you have the gall to see yourself as greater than David. What a joke.

    Stranger
     
  8. pia

    pia Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    288
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    He doesn't go away from us when we turn to the flesh, we merely turn our backs to Him, but as I was told :" If they would but say My Name, there we would be face to face again." and also:" Remember, I am always here whether you can see me or not." and when He said ' or not ' He disappeared from my sight, but I still heard Him, from the same position in the room. He showed me with His body and face ( facing me the whole time while His body moved ) that we sometimes turn a little away from Him, sometimes a lot and sometimes we turn the whole way around facing away from Him. He didn't swing His body back the front for that one lol, He turned back to face me, body and face, and then He used His hands to show a rotating motion. He truly does NEVER leave us nor forsake us. I often don't manage to immerse myself in His presence,( which seems to please the enemy who then tries and sometimes succeeds at making me feel guilty and unworthy ), but I also know that I am the one somehow preventing it, the fault can never lie with Him, and as I already said, and you know also, He truly never leaves us nor forsakes us. He is with us always, even till the end of the world. Hallelujah, praise His glorious Name and Person. He is perfect, we are not ( yet )......Pia
     
  9. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Light

    Gen 1:3 . . God said: Let there be light: and there was light.

    The creation of light was an intricate process. First God had to create
    particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific properties,
    including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to govern how
    matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of, other kinds of
    matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

    Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths
    and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though
    light has no mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite invisible. For
    example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can see the
    Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's light is
    visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't matter; it's
    energy.

    The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic
    radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice,
    soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy,
    gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction,
    reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure,
    force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light
    was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

    Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
    surface of the deep

    That statement reveals the planet's condition prior to the creation of light;
    and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
    possible, the earth's particulate matter would never have coalesced into
    something coherent.

    2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
    order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
    radiated out of the cosmos from inside— from itself —indicating that the
    cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
    interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
    the Higgs Boson.

    You know it's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily
    conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g.
    the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars,
    aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

    But when it comes to light they choke; finding it impossible within
    themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description
    of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why
    wouldn't light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet
    Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

    /
     
  10. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    The Length Of A Creation Day

    Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

    According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
    sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
    create land animals but the sixth.

    Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
    days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
    dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
    estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
    indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

    That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

    "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
    created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

    The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
    same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
    Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
    calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
    were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
    and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

    Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
    sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
    exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
    is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
    occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
    algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
    available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
    have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

    The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves
    that the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one
    time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow
    band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made
    from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions
    of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in an ocean. The tectonic forces
    that pushed the Himalayans up from below sea level to their current height
    work very slowly and require untold eons to accomplish their task.

    So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
    they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning"

    The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
    the fourth day when the Sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
    that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
    indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

    Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
    everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
    of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
    when trying to figure out how to cope with the estimated 4.5 billion-year age
    of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
    Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

    It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
    ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
    ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
    appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
    men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

    Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
    two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
    religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
    doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
    viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
    religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
    some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

    /
     
  11. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    To Infinity And Beyond

    Gen 1:16 . . He also made the stars.

    Celestial objects require some special consideration because of their apparent
    distances and the apparent time it takes for their light to reach the Earth.

    For example: last decade, an analysis of the light that Hubble telescope detected
    coming from a distant galaxy named A1689-zD1 suggested it's apparent distance at
    approximately 12.8 billion light years.

    Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He began
    constructing the stars; which indicates that as a physical structure, the Earth should be
    older than A1689-zD1. But geologists have pretty good reason to believe the Earth to
    be only something like 4.5 billion years old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum
    12.8 billion years old.

    So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is Earth's senior by at least
    8.3 billion years. But there's a rub. Light's journey through space is complicated by
    some curious mysteries.

    1• The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all directions. And not
    only is it expanding; but the velocity of its expansion isn't steady, nor is it slowing down
    as might be expected; but rather, contrary to common sense and Newton's standard
    laws of gravity; the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating due to a
    mysterious force which, for convenience sake, has been labeled dark energy.

    Plus, the expansion isn't uniform. Galaxies farthest from our own appear to be moving
    away faster than those closer in; which means of course that viewed from those farthest
    galaxies; our own would appear to be moving away faster than those closer in because
    the expansion is moving the Milky Way too.

    Ergo: many of the galaxies seen by powerful telescopes are quite a bit more spread out
    now than when they were born. How much more I don't know; but if the age of the Earth
    is really and truly 4.5 billion years, then it's my guess the difference is significant.

    2• Light has no detectable mass, yet is effected by gravity; so that light's path through
    the cosmos is not always the shortest distance between two points; which suggests to
    me that A1689-zD1 is nearer than its estimated 12.8 billion light years.

    3• Although the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the void is a bit more
    complicated due to the fact that it's state isn't steady. There are forces in space
    influencing not only light's path, but also its velocity. There was a time when scientists
    sincerely believed that although light could be slowed down, it could not be sped up;
    now they're not so sure.

    4• Light doesn't decay. In other words: there is no detectable difference in age between
    the cosmos' first light, and the light emitted by the screen of an iPhone.

    5• The more that scientists study the cosmos, the more things they discover about it that
    cause them to question what they believed in the past. Today's scientific truth is only
    valid until another truth comes along to void it.

    All the above suggests to me that A1689-zD1's apparent distance has no bearing upon
    its age; viz: the estimated age of the cosmos is only loosely theoretical rather than
    actual. In other words: current dating methods are unreliable and subject to revision. It's
    very possibly true that the Earth really did precede the stars just as the Bible says.

    Now; a consideration that shouldn't be overlooked is that Gen 1:16 refers only to stars
    visible to the author's naked eye, which would limit the category to those of the Milky
    Way. In point of fact, as recent as the beginning of the last century, most astronomers
    sincerely believed that the Milky Way contained the sum total of all the stars in the
    universe; up until Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way is just one of many
    galaxies-- now estimated to number as many as 200 billion in the observable universe.

    God challenged Abraham to count the stars (Gen 15:5). But of course without optical
    assistance, Abraham was limited to the stars of the Milky Way; whose apparent
    diameter is estimated to be a mere 100-150,000 light years.

    The final say of course is the Bible. According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the earth
    on the day that God made them, which was prior to His creation of humanity. In other
    words: it's not unreasonable to believe that God didn't wait till starlight reached the earth
    on its own, but punched it straight through in order to begin illuminating the earth
    immediately.

    But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for one thing,
    they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty. Celestial objects decorate
    the night sky like the ornamentation people put up during holidays. The night sky would
    sure be a bore if it was totally black. Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a
    beautiful tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel.

    "The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork." (Ps 19:2)

    Stars makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning for them. I
    believe the universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as intriguing, if not more
    so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and da Vinci
    --testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist without peer.

    "For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to
    them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and
    divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made." (Rom
    1:19-20)

    /
     
  12. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Day And Night

    Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
    light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

    Day and Night simply label two distinct, and opposite, conditions-- the
    absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Defining those conditions
    may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing the chronology of
    Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, it's essential to keep days and nights
    separate. When people attempt to define "day" as a twenty-four hour
    amalgam of light and darkness, they invariably come up with some rather
    convoluted interpretations of Matt 12:40.

    Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
    distinguish Day from Night

    On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
    as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
    life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.

    These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
    memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
    thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for civil calendars but can
    lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules,
    predictions, and/or chronologies.

    Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to
    dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.
    And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to
    dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

    That passage not only defines "day" as when the sun is up, and "night" as
    when the sun is down; but it further defines night as when the stars are out;
    and yet people still don't think God means it.

    Christ defined Day and Night as they were practiced in his day.

    John 11:9 . . Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours in the day? A
    man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.

    "this world's light" is the sun; which Christ defined as "by day". So if Christ's
    "day" was defined as when the sun was up; then Christ's "night" had to be
    defined as when the sun was down.

    So then, when Christ predicted his death to last for three days and three
    nights, he obviously meant the hours of daytime and nighttime as they were
    understood when he was here rather than some other era otherwise the people
    in his own time wouldn't have known when to expect his crucified body to come
    back to life.


    NOTE: Daytimes divided into twelve divisions were regulated by what's
    known as temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time
    of year. There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when daytime
    consists of less than 12 normal hours of sunlight, and sometimes more; but
    when Christ was here; the official number of daytime hours was always 12
    regardless.

    I don't know exactly why the Jews of that era divided their daytimes into
    twelve divisions regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it was just a
    convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil affairs;
    including the Temple's activities (e.g. the daily morning and evening
    sacrifices)

    /
     
  13. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    The Image And Likeness Of God

    Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our
    likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
    over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
    along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of
    God he created him; male and female he created them.

    Gen 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but
    because humanity was created in the image of God.

    Jas 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally wrong;
    but because humanity was created in the image of God.

    I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was
    created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no
    more value than a gerbil or a garden slug.

    The image and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity
    over and above the animal kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness
    of God, people could go on safari and hunt each other for sport, like human
    wildlife, and mount their heads on walls and mantles.

    Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness"
    is reproduction. However, if God were to reproduce, He would reproduce
    more of himself just as when humans reproduce, they produce more of
    themselves; viz: humans beget humanity, and were God to reproduce, He
    would beget divinity. But humans most certainly are not divine.

    For one thing; according to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according to
    Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.

    Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.


    NOTE: According to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6, there is only one
    true god. Seeing as how that's the case, then the "gods" of Ps 82:6 are, by
    default, false gods; in other words: they aren't really divine.

    Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological
    status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the
    dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most
    High by means of the Most High multiplying. Were that the case, humans
    would be spirits. (John 4:24)

    So then; I think it safe to conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a
    natural-born status; but rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and
    likeness of God is conferred rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing
    status it is too seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature can
    get without actually biologically descending from God.

    Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have
    crowned him with glory and honor.

    The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and
    likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not
    because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but
    because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value
    that no other species on Earth can match.

    Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is
    mankind so prone to evil?

    A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip
    off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a
    status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the
    character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically
    related to God, people would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.

    John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
    remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

    Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?

    A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so
    he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that
    according to Gen 2:7 human beings were definitely not made of God, rather,
    made of dust.

    No; Paul simply appealed to the Greek's own poetry to point out to the
    Athenians that if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then
    the father of human beings surely would be made of something other than
    metal and/or stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a
    mite too seriously.

    /
     
  14. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Big Daddy

    The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
    all forms of life back to a singular genetic heritage regardless of species. In
    other words; if you started with a raccoon, and followed it's branch down the
    tree far enough, you'd eventually intersect with another branch that you
    could then trace to mushrooms. The tree is sort of the equivalent of a Big
    Bang of living things.

    The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces
    human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select— no
    matter what their age, race, or gender —if traced back far enough, can
    eventually be linked to a common ancestor; which of course is no surprise to
    Bible students.

    Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
    slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And
    the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,
    and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my
    bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
    taken out of Man.

    The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23
    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"

    In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as
    was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated
    from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her flesh and her life from Adam;
    consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's flesh is Adam's flesh.

    Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother
    of all people everywhere.

    Acts 17:26 . . He made from one man every variety of mankind to live on
    all the face of the earth

    It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
    biologically related to a sole source of human life— the one and only human
    life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

    So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human
    father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his
    mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to
    Adam.

    /
     
  15. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    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 unfermented bread 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.

    /
     
  16. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

    Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
    of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
    Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
    knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
    it, you shall die.

    That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers
    because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
    point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800
    years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

    So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

    Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in
    Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
    his day, rather than death as the Bible thumpers understand it in their day.
    In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die
    normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

    How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
    death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
    make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
    of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

    Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
    the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

    Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It
    can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours' viz;
    the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

    That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
    only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
    creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
    death.

    "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
    way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

    Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The
    day ain't over yet"

    Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
    of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
    seriously.

    /
     
  17. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    Why Everyone Has To Die At Least Once

    Prior to Moses, an official code of divine law didn't exist.

    Rom 5:13-14 . . Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is
    not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned
    from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin
    by breaking a command, as did Adam.

    The answer is: they all had to die not because of breaking an official code of
    divine law; but because of Adam breaking just one rule (Gen 2:16-17). His
    disobedience in the matter of the forbidden fruit effected his entire posterity:
    both the good and the bad; the young and the old.

    This is really difficult for some people to get their heads around.
    Nevertheless, it's very important to accept it whether one understands it or
    not because Paul applies this principle in his effort to explain why it is that
    believers never have to worry about being condemned for their sins. (Rom
    5:12-21)


    NOTE: Opponents are often quick to point out that Ezek 18:20 says that
    children don't share their father's guilt. But hey, which came first? Adam or
    Ezekiel? So then, since Adam's incident came along many years before
    Ezekiel's prophecy, then God was at liberty back then to reckon Adam's
    posterity as joint principals in his act of disobedience.

    Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
    sin; and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

    "all sinned" has no reference to all's own personal sins; just Adam's, i.e. his
    sin became everyone's sin, even everyone yet to be born.

    /
     
  18. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    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

    /
     
  19. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    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.

    /
     
  20. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    44
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    -
    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'.

    /
     
Loading...