Why can't God count?

[FHII]

I agree with your last statement. Which brings me to the question, why is God counting this way?

Stranger

Are you asking or do you have a rival hypothesis? Should we count otherwise? I think not. It seems seasonable to me in that God was speaking of a royal bloodline.

God's royal boodline also passed through David through Solomon and Nathan. But I seem to recall he had other chilren before those two. So what?

Seth's line was the one that counted. Now, is there a point to your objection?

 

[Stranger]

Are you asking or do you have a rival hypothesis? Should we count otherwise? I think not. It seems seasonable to me in that God was speaking of a royal bloodline.

God's royal boodline also passed through David through Solomon and Nathan. But I seem to recall he had other chilren before those two. So what?

Seth's line was the one that counted. Now, is there a point to your objection?

I'm not objecting, just supposing or thinking outloud. As I said, I believe you are correct that Seth's line is the one that counted. Or in other words there is a Godly line that are born with an ungodly line. But it is only those that are of God that God counts. Or, in other words, the others don't count. In tracing Christ's genealogy in (Luke) we are told Adam was a son of God or 'of God'. (3:38) Note in (Gen. 4:16-24) concerning Cains line, that God doesn't even give the years that they lived.

So, when God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth while in their sinless state, I believe He had only those of Him in mind, such as Abel, Seth, etc. Just as Adam was a son of God, or of God, so would these be of God. And, though the fall has now occurred, I think this is still the case. But, in some way another seed was introduced at the fall that produces a race not of God, from birth.

Did not Christ say, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn. 47) And also, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do...." (Jn. 8:44)

Some like to say we who are believers now used to be children of the devil. I don't believe that at all. We were never children of the devil. Children of wrath in a fallen state, yes. But never children of the devil. We were always 'of God'. Always in the count. Lost and going to be saved.

Now, that may bring up another interesting point. Who are lost? If what I have said is true, then the lost are only those in the count. The very idea of lost infers previous ownership. This would mean those of the other line, not of God, of Satan, are not lost as they were never God's in the first place. They are at home in this world. The lost are those of God.

Stranger

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I'm not objecting, just supposing or thinking outloud. As I said, I believe you are correct that Seth's line is the one that counted. Or in other words there is a Godly line that are born with an ungodly line. But it is only those that are of God that God counts. Or, in other words, the others don't count. In tracing Christ's genealogy in (Luke) we are told Adam was a son of God or 'of God'. (3:38) Note in (Gen. 4:16-24) concerning Cains line, that God doesn't even give the years that they lived.

So, when God told Adam and Eve to replenish the earth while in their sinless state, I believe He had only those of Him in mind, such as Abel, Seth, etc. Just as Adam was a son of God, or of God, so would these be of God. And, though the fall has now occurred, I think this is still the case. But, in some way another seed was introduced at the fall that produces a race not of God, from birth.

Did not Christ say, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn. 47) And also, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do...." (Jn. 8:44)

Some like to say we who are believers now used to be children of the devil. I don't believe that at all. We were never children of the devil. Children of wrath in a fallen state, yes. But never children of the devil. We were always 'of God'. Always in the count. Lost and going to be saved.

Now, that may bring up another interesting point. Who are lost? If what I have said is true, then the lost are only those in the count. The very idea of lost infers previous ownership. This would mean those of the other line, not of God, of Satan, are not lost as they were never God's in the first place. They are at home in this world. The lost are those of God.

Stranger, your OP is over my head, but I would like to share a few thoughts. As you said, "I'm not objecting, just supposing or thinking outloud." I am doing the same. I am not saying it is right or wrong or even adds clarity to your topic. It is just something to consider:

Matthew 13 says, "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

We know, just like the compassion of a net cast that draws in fish of all sorts, some baking in the hot sun; fish does not always mean fish, but rather means men. So, a man sowed good seed in his field. Then the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Something to consider, the tares are sown within his field ( kingdom) growing amongst the wheat.

(Genesis 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Satan has a line of corruptible seed, correct?

(Paraphrasing) They asked, "do we go and collect those that are yours(the wheat) now?" "No. Let the tares and wheat grow up together." The Pharisees were told by Jesus that Satan was their father. Were they not tares sown among the wheat?

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I can count. (Jude 14) says the 7th 'from' Adam. That means don't count Adam.

Perhaps that is your answer in how God counts from Adam from how you would count from Adam.

How can Adam not count? He exists and therefore cannot be considered a zero like some people will say, count from zero. When most people count; they say count from one. So Adam is one and Enoch is seventh from that one.

 

[Stranger]

Stranger, your OP is over my head, but I would like to share a few thoughts. As you said, "I'm not objecting, just supposing or thinking outloud." I am doing the same. I am not saying it is right or wrong or even adds clarity to your topic. It is just something to consider:

Matthew 13 says, "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

We know, just like the compassion of a net cast that draws in fish of all sorts, some baking in the hot sun; fish does not always mean fish, but rather means men. So, a man sowed good seed in his field. Then the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Something to consider, the tares are sown within his field ( kingdom) growing amongst the wheat.

(Genesis 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Satan has a line of corruptible seed, correct?

(Paraphrasing) They asked, "do we go and collect those that are yours(the wheat) now?" "No. Let the tares and wheat grow up together." The Pharisees were told by Jesus that Satan was their father. Were they not tares sown among the wheat?

I believe that parable does add to what I have been saying. What the thing is will be determined by the seed it came from. Or, 'of God' and 'not of God'.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Perhaps that is your answer in how God counts from Adam from how you would count from Adam.

How can Adam not count? He exists and therefore cannot be considered a zero like some people will say, count from zero. When most people count; they say count from one. So Adam is one and Enoch is seventh from that one.

First of all, Adam is not from Adam. Adam is from God. (Luke 3:38) The count is 'from Adam'. (Jude 14)

Secondly, if you include Adam then Jude is mistaken. You have to include Abel in this count because all that is being said is that Enoch is the 7th from Adam.(Jude 14) And Abel was of the righteous seed as Seth who replaced him was. (Gen. 4:25)

Stranger

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

First of all, Adam is not from Adam. Adam is from God. (Luke 3:38) The count is 'from Adam'. (Jude 14)

Secondly, if you include Adam then Jude is mistaken. You have to include Abel in this count because all that is being said is that Enoch is the 7th from Adam.(Jude 14) And Abel was of the righteous seed as Seth who replaced him was. (Gen. 4:25)

Stranger

Counting from the lineage, as it is given, Abel is not mentioned, and Adam counts as one. There is no way Adam cannot count at all. Seven is seventh from one or the first one. When you have a list, the seventh item down the list starts from the first item on the list. I see it plainly. I reckon you will have to ask the Lord to see this as well.

 

[Helen]

Quote Stranger:- I agree with your last statement. (FHII )Which brings me to the question, why is God counting this way?

Stranger

The only possible answer can be...because He is God, and He can!!
He Himself said:- "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."
We have to wait until the End for 'the end of the Story'!

 

[Stranger]

Counting from the lineage, as it is given, Abel is not mentioned, and Adam counts as one. There is no way Adam cannot count at all. Seven is seventh from one or the first one. When you have a list, the seventh item down the list starts from the first item on the list. I see it plainly. I reckon you will have to ask the Lord to see this as well.

What do you mean Abel is not mentioned? He is mentioned else you wouldn't know of him.

Again, 'from Adam' does not include Adam. Adam is from God. You are ignoring this. Cain is the first from Adam.

You see nothing plainly because you discard Cain and his lineage. So, how is Enoch the 7th from Adam when Cain is Adams first born?

Stranger

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

What do you mean Abel is not mentioned? He is mentioned else you wouldn't know of him.

Again, 'from Adam' does not include Adam. Adam is from God. You are ignoring this. Cain is the first from Adam.

You see nothing plainly because you discard Cain and his lineage. So, how is Enoch the 7th from Adam when Cain is Adams first born?

Stranger

I was referring to the list in the line of the genealogy by way of Seth from Adam. Cain is not in that line of that genealogy. Yes, Cain had a son named Enoch, but that is the wrong Enoch.

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

That is the Enoch that Jude was referring to; seventh from Adam.

Also, do note that Cainan is not the same as Cain in spelling, thus Cainan is not Cain.

 

[Stranger]

I was referring to the list in the line of the genealogy by way of Seth from Adam. Cain is not in that line of that genealogy. Yes, Cain had a son named Enoch, but that is the wrong Enoch.

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

That is the Enoch that Jude was referring to; seventh from Adam.

Also, do note that Cainan is not the same as Cain in spelling, thus Cainan is not Cain.

Pay attention. (Jude 14) We are not talking about genealogy. We talking about the 7th from Adam.

You're just blowing smoke. Either stay with the discussion or leave. Quit trying to hide your mistakes or ignorance.

Stanger

 

[liafailrock]

Pay attention. (Jude 14) We are not talking about genealogy. We talking about the 7th from Adam.

Stanger

Two points I see in your argument:

1) The definition of "from": have you looked it up in Strong's?
2) Although the word genealogy is not mentioned, how do you know Jude is not talking about a specific lineage in a genealogy by implication? OK, Enoch was the 7th. The 7th what? Since it is not stated we could make (imagine) Enoch all sorts of the seventh place in something.

So then to answer that, look at the context of what Jude was saying. How does that relate to Enoch? Other sources? BTW, I see answers here which are mainly assumption, so I am not siding here -- just getting down to the context.

 

[Stranger]

Two points I see in your argument:

1) The definition of "from": have you looked it up in Strong's?
2) Although the word genealogy is not mentioned, how do you know Jude is not talking about a specific lineage in a genealogy by implication? OK, Enoch was the 7th. The 7th what? Since it is not stated we could make (imagine) Enoch all sorts of the seventh place in something.

So then to answer that, look at the context of what Jude was saying. How does that relate to Enoch? Other sources? BTW, I see answers here which are mainly assumption, so I am not siding here -- just getting down to the context.

Enoch was the 7th from Adam. (Jude 14).

You can imagine all you want concerning what is not said. What is said is that Enoch was the 7th from Adam.

Have fun with your imagination.

Stranger

 

[liafailrock]

I only made one contribution to this thread claiming that we should get to the context of this and you are claiming I'm having fun with my imagination? I only raised questions and made no claims yet. Ya know you really have to watch how you judge people beforehand lest people see that you are indeed the same you are accusing them of.

That said, have you done any research on this? Why do you think this was said? And again I reiterate my previous 2 points hoping this time you won't dismiss them.

 

[Stranger]

I only made one contribution to this thread claiming that we should get to the context of this and you are claiming I'm having fun with my imagination? I only raised questions and made no claims yet. Ya know you really have to watch how you judge people beforehand lest people see that you are indeed the same you are accusing them of.

That said, have you done any research on this? Why do you think this was said? And again I reiterate my previous 2 points hoping this time you won't dismiss them.

You're the one in post #32 that embarked on imagination.

Why do you ask why I think this was said? I have explained my opinion in earlier posts. If you have a different one then say on.

Stranger

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Pay attention. (Jude 14) We are not talking about genealogy. We talking about the 7th from Adam.

You're just blowing smoke. Either stay with the discussion or leave. Quit trying to hide your mistakes or ignorance.

Stanger

Just adding my 2 cents, brother. But, yeah, if you are going to bite and devour, ...sure.. I'll leave the discussion.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

2 Timothy 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Maybe you should take time out and leave the discussion too, and then come back to be led by the Spirit in these discussions?

 

[liafailrock]

You're the one in post #32 that embarked on imagination.

Why do you ask why I think this was said? I have explained my opinion in earlier posts. If you have a different one then say on.

Stranger

Well, the 'seven from Adam' is what Enoch was called. Jude did not actually originate this phrase as if that's the name he gave to Enoch. He's quoting (whether intentionally or not) the book of Enoch. So we can't blame Jude for I don't know what he believed. I would not say by this passage alone God counts this way, either. He left other quoted passages in the Bible so allowance does not presuppose agreement. However. Due to other examples I have no problem if God counted this way.

 

[Stranger]

Well, the 'seven from Adam' is what Enoch was called. Jude did not actually originate this phrase as if that's the name he gave to Enoch. He's quoting (whether intentionally or not) the book of Enoch. So we can't blame Jude for I don't know what he believed. I would not say by this passage alone God counts this way, either. He left other quoted passages in the Bible so allowance does not presuppose agreement. However. Due to other examples I have no problem if God counted this way.

No one is blaming Jude, unless you are. He is not quoting the book of Enoch. If anything, this so called book of Enoch is taking from Jude. If you want to know what Jude believed, then just read his letter.

Well, if you have no problem in God counting this way...good... God counts this way. And that is what the subject here is about. Why?

You offer nothing to prove or disprove. You offer nothing as to why.

Stranger

 

[liafailrock]

You are correct. I did not offer anything except that Jude quoted Enoch, so the seventh from Adam was stated long before Jude said it was my point. And I'm good with God counting this way because otherwise Firstfruits until Pentecost is a larger problem and so are the Jubilee years. First impressions of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of issue with seven.

 

[Stranger]

You are correct. I did not offer anything except that Jude quoted Enoch, so the seventh from Adam was stated long before Jude said it was my point. And I'm good with God counting this way because otherwise Firstfruits until Pentecost is a larger problem and so are the Jubilee years. First impressions of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of issue with seven.

But Jude did not quote the so called book of Enoch. So, you offered nothing.

Stranger