Why did God love and forgive David so?

[Dcopymope]

i would say that it is the iniquity that is shown to be hated, i don't see any "hate" of Adam walking naked with God for instance, but maybe you do.

Adam being naked wasn't a problem until after the fall.

ha the only Scripture you got is the Lex lol, your "plainly stated" stuff amounts to biased opinions imo. Read that way you will embrace Easter, and Holy Bible, and God Hates ppl imo. And prolly Bible is Word too. "PLainly stated in Script that a ten year old can get" sure doesn't seem to reflect our reality

I tend to get irritated when people takes something that is so plainly stated and make it seem like it's rocket science. Its another reason why many consider the faith to be a joke.

 

[bbyrd009]

Adam being naked wasn't a problem until after the fall.

that is when i am talking about though, see; after this "fall" you propose, that i do not find written
Adam being naked obv was not a prob for God even then, see

 

[bbyrd009]

I tend to get irritated when people takes something that is so plainly stated and make it seem like it's rocket science.

ha i feel ya, drives me nuts when ppl say "this translation is the Bible, and who needs a Lex" lol. i mean, after all, a translation, any translation, is just a guy taking something that is "plainly stated" in another language and translating it for you, right. That is how the (plainly stated) "Easter" gets derived from the (plainly stated) "Passover," right. Everything is "plainly stated" alright

Its another reason why many consider the faith to be a joke.

ya, or maybe the reason is right above here

 

[Dcopymope]

that is when i am talking about though, see; after this "fall" you propose, that i do not find written
Adam being naked obv was not a prob for God even then, see

The word fall doesn't have to be there when the sin they committed is plainly stated throughout the book as the fall, just like the word homosexual doesn't have to be in the book to be referring to it as a sin, an abomination.

ha i feel ya, drives me nuts when ppl say "this translation is the Bible, and who needs a Lex" lol

The Bible has already been translated for me, so I don't need a Lexicon to tell me something that is already clearly stated in the book itself. I leave the word games, the semantics to those who don't want to let the Bible speak for itself.

 

[bbyrd009]

The word fall doesn't have to be there

it actually denies the perspective of "they have become like gods" if you ask me; "Fall of Man" is a perspective that is assumed, not validated that i can tell. Not denying that separation is sin, though, understand. See if you "fell," a mistake is implied, that God does not seem to be aware of @ "Who told you this?" whereas if you "ate of the tree of knowledge" and your eyes were opened, a birth is implied, not a mistake. A birth, hmm, that might not be the best characterization, i'd have to go look, there at "they have become" but it will be a lot closer to a birth than a death, too, in a manner of speaking, see.

Again, not denying that "dying you will die" is what happens from one pov, but that that is not the whole story, as the requirement to "fall to the ground and die" again makes more clear. A "Fall" is perceived, iow, in the same manner that

 

[bbyrd009]

...oh, a person newly promoted to a position of responsibility might be perceived to be "drunk on authority," perhaps.
Could they be? Sure. Will they be? Quite likely, yes. Are they? That is up to them, right, but at the same time you do not go ask them if they are drunk lol, you perceive that they are drunk.

consider perhaps the implications of
"if you eat this, you will die."
"who told you that you were naked? did you eat that?"

see how we have gone from commandments or declarations of truth by God, to suddenly questions now, where we might assume that judgements would more correctly fit the situation, see, bc that's what we do; these "judgements" by God are even assumed by us @ "Adam," and even other places, which you "quoted," right, only no one can quote them from the Lex, see, w/o a scribe helping them anyway

So iow i agree, the word "fall" does not have to be in There, for it to be perceived, Just like Holy Bible, Bible is Word, Easter is Passover, are all perfectly valid perceptions to many people, also. Whether they are true or not is a different matter though

 

[bbyrd009]

The Bible has already been translated for me, so I don't need a Lexicon

thus becomes revealed as the opposite of

those who don't want to let the Bible speak for itself.

when you just insert "real Bible, Lexicon" in there, see

 

[bbyrd009]

The Bible has already been translated for me

lol, by a likely Gay King with a plainly (even proudly) stated Hegelian Dialectic against the RCC, yes
a winner was being sought iow, not a coexistence

 

[Dcopymope]

it actually denies the perspective of "they have become like gods" if you ask me; "Fall of Man" is a perspective that is assumed, not validated that i can tell. Not denying that separation is sin, though, understand. See if you "fell," a mistake is implied, that God does not seem to be aware of @ "Who told you this?" whereas if you "ate of the tree of knowledge" and your eyes were opened, a birth is implied, not a mistake. A birth, hmm, that might not be the best characterization, i'd have to go look, there at "they have become" but it will be a lot closer to a birth than a death, too, in a manner of speaking, see.

God wasn't making a mistake when he decided to put the tree in the garden to begin with. He knew exactly what he was doing and what was going to happen. He gave humanity a choice, to either obey God, or follow in the footsteps of Satan who fell into temptation before them. It was done to illustrate mans weakness, that there is no one in heaven or earth that is righteous or ever will be except God. What happened in the garden was meant to happen because as far as God is concerned, it was going to happen regardless just like it happened in heaven, tree or no tree.

This is not an assumption, God not putting the tree in the garden would have only postponed the inevitable downfall, or "birth" of sin as you prefer to call it, which henceforth only postpones the inevitable need for an atonement. There is a reason why there is no such tree in the new heaven and earth, because it served its purpose at that point. The mistake you are making, is in making it about whether or not they were naked and such. That is not important, what's important is realizing that the Bible from beginning to end is all about Jesus Christ.

 

[amadeus]

God came to me where i was at, in hell, so imo yes

Yes, I was there too when He found me.

ha of course, bc "miss the boat" is just a characterization, right, a judgement of others basically, we all miss the boat lol, that is how every single one of us gets started, by missing the boat imo

If I had not missed the boat so many times, I would probably already be there.

 

[amadeus]

then they are in the right place, i guess

Well it is the place they have chosen to be. In their minds it may be OK but to me it seems to be their own hell. Hell is perhaps their case where the heart is.

hmm, i can't recall that v in that context, wadr, Noah waiting for a better world? In fact it was Noah released the raven back into the world, so he must be considered as releasing evil back into the new world too imo

I went back and reread what I posted and could not recapture the thought that instigated the writing of that phrase. Sorry, my bad.

As for the raven. He was only one of the all the unclean beasts in the ark. All of them would be released into that newly cleansed world after a while. The world was cleansed of much but man still had to deal with beasts, unclean as well as clean ones. All of the meanings found here are still not found.

 

[amadeus]

@bbyrd009

Amadeus said: God is here all of the time, but where are we?

bbyrd009 said: yea, though i walk through the valley
of the shadow of death

When we are not in the Spirit, we are the walking dead... zombies. There is no reality without the Spirit for we really dead in the eyes of God even though we continue to walk around and interact with other dead people.

 

[amadeus]

@bbyrd009

Amadeus said: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

And Jesus did leave the world:

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:11

bbyrd009 said: and "I will never leave you or forsake you," in a diff context

But he also said
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:16-17

We were not left alone or comfortless. When do we seem to be alone and comfortless what has happened? Solomon wrote about this situation. Was it a carnal reality or a spiritual lacking?

"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." Ecc 4:1

Would Jesus leave us and/or forsake us so that were again in our empty carnality?

 

[Richard_oti]

mine are lol, lemme know if i am not being disagreeable enough
pretty hard with you guys, but i'm still tryin!
ya, i got it bad altright lol

<chuckle> You're gonna have ta try much much harder!

 

[Richard_oti]

"Shadow"

Which could be in the sense of shelter / protection ... Or: in the sense of as to be dark [of skin].

even though in another sense there def was, right? Law is given for hardness of heart iow

Nor do we know what was "known / written" prior to Moses [assuming Genesis by Moses as commonly taught, though I am not inclined to agree]. That there was "knowledge", is a given, for that is clear within the Genesis account. We just do not know to what extent / degree.

As for "hardness of heart", in the case of Jacob, law was given regarding sisters as wives after the fact, but not with regard to "wives". In reflection of "hardness of heart" though, provision was made for the first wife, that her "adornment", food and marital rights not be diminished. But again, not with regard to "wives".

Again in reflection of "hardness of heart", when Judah instructed Onan to go unto his brother's wife, he was slain for his "hardness of heart", and due to such, provision was made in haTorah Mosheh to allow the brother to "opt out". And again, not with regard to "wives".

Which, I have found such to be interesting.

What my wife and I shared was wonderful. However, I truly can't imagine trying to live with two [or more] women under one roof in this day and age. Which brings to mind the immortal words of Curly: "Are you married or happy?"

 

[bbyrd009]

making it about whether or not they were naked and such. That is not important, what's important is realizing that the Bible from beginning to end is all about Jesus Christ.

i would not disagree; Christ is our covering for that, yes. But Christ is not manifest by obeisance, which is what we have turned the word Worship into imo. When two (2) "Greeks" came to worship Jesus, He hid from them, see

 

[bbyrd009]

If I had not missed the boat so many times, I would probably already be there.

ya, we do this to ourselves as a rule, huh. Rather than as an exception to it. And as men, as the idea guys of creation, this is a much harder lesson than for women imo, who are not attacked in the same way, and are free to...mess up along the path to manifesting a spirit without fear of reprisal or condemnation, right, mom prolly makes 100 "mistakes" manifesting Christmas for her family, for example, but who cares about that, at least after they have spent their first Christmas without mom, right.

Neverminding that Xmas is pagan, and celebrating the wrong thing, that is irrelevant; that is on us guys lol. The point for the moment is "Mom makes Christmas." What "there" do you imagine being not "at" yet? Or what is preventing you from man...from being There right now? Lost my dang meme dangit but if a caterpillar has a butterfly in its future, and an acorn has a tree in its future, what is in your future?

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord, right.
But that is not how mom gets Christmas created every year, see

 

[bbyrd009]

Well it is the place they have chosen to be. In their minds it may be OK but to me it seems to be their own hell. Hell is perhaps their case where the heart is.

learning the law is tough anyway, period, and after all who would choose to be an adolescent twice, right.
pretty much everyone around them suffers with them, i guess
even though they are fine

 

[bbyrd009]

I went back and reread what I posted and could not recapture the thought that instigated the writing of that phrase. Sorry, my bad.

ha, God is so good, a little serendipity-doo-daa for us, i guess. This concept should also be embedded in the story of Esau, guess i'll have to go read it in the Lex, never have. The trannies seem lacking to me, i guess bc i'm still too wise lol

Noah waiting for a better world connects with
i would prolly already be there
see

 

[bbyrd009]

As for the raven. He was only one of the all the unclean beasts in the ark.

true, but his symbology is different imo, no one eats ravens see