Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_01 @ USER SET UP INSTRUCTIONS @ RandyP comments: If you haven't set up a frequent contributor's profile page (ex= RandyP ) and would like to, send me your profile bio and picture via email.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: This is now the second re-population of Genesis, first being the more controversial from Adam and Eve. Critics often ask "where did Cain and Seth get their wives"? The answer most likely is that they were sisters, but it doesn't have to stop there. Genesis was written not as an overall history as much as it was of all redemptive history (the details that would be important to our understanding of God's redemption). Seth and Cain's brothers and sisters are unnamed and unnumbered. Over the course of nine hundred plus years Eve surely bore Adam many. Those children married and had children. Those children bore many children. It could be that Cain and Seth married nieces or even grand nieces. While Cain was the first child, neither Able nor Seth necessarily have to be second and third if we are to look at the narrative as a redemptive history. In this passage we are back down to eight persons starting all over again. In both passages we can see how quickly the multiplication of being fruitful adds up.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: It is a marvel to think that any one could listen to Jesus shore-side or later read His parables in Mark's gospel and assume that just anybody could easily understand them as they are meant; yet that is how most people approach it. They rather understand them as they want to understand them, that His words say what they themselves want them to say. It is even more of a marvel that they largely disagree with what they want them to say and somehow feel superior to believers having seen through the myth or obvious contradictions. Or else they minimize the meaning that they are willing to take from it to such an extent that it is nothing more than what good advice anybody else could have come up with. It serves the purposes of man's deceitful heart to do this so. Why would Jesus hide His meaning from all but a select few? Because few have the heart to hear it as is truly meant. Most are too busy listening to their own thoughts about they are hearing Him say rather than the actual words themselves within their meaningful context.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Genesis:23 @ RandyP comments: Many believe that back at the time of Noah that God officially limited our life spans to no more than 125 years. I once heard a retelling of an alleged news report that a god fearing faithful elderly woman discontinued with her life long devotion to God because she lived to exceed this 125 year limit.; her bible could no longer be true because of this obvious contradiction. I have heard the story repeated more than once; I believe it to be a widely spread urban legend. Sarah here lives to be 127, Abraham her elder later took another wife and lived to be 175. The 125 year limitation has to be either referring to 125 years from the date of God's decree to make an end of all flesh till the first raindrop of the flood or else a general guideline of life spans and not a hard set rule. It is important not to jump to any irrational conclusions when encountering scriptural difficulties. It is important not to believe everything that you hear; urban legends of all sorts are everywhere true as they might sound.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:35 @ RandyP comments: "Then God (Eloheem) went up from him in the place where He talked with him". The Apostle John quotes Jesus twice that "no man has seen God" and mentions it a third time in his first letter, yet there are multiple mentions of filter:OT LORD+AND+appeared in the Old Testament. Of interest we also have indication as here stated of the LORD going up afterwards, else coming down or just leaving. There seems to be no doubt nor unfamiliarity as to whom it is appearing in man's presence; no proof has to be given. Even when other angelic beings are beside Him His identity is obvious. There are a couple ways possible for us to interpret how this apparent contradiction can be resolved. The most prominent idea is that these are Christophanies (appearances of Christ before becoming human flesh); Christ is God but in viewable form. The second is what we see is as much of HIMSELF as God can show us without posing a danger to the lives of those HE is appearing to; a projection into our finite dimension or else avatar within a presentable form. Third HIS appearance is a vision HE plants within our mind. Fourth, we have the idea that an angel is making a substitutionary appearence for God. Some appearances are identified specifically as visions, others leave the impression that He is there (and is eating for instance), others are not as clear. These appearances are to be differentiated from the times when we are simply told that God or the LORD spoke saying... By all evidence God has been quite vocal and quite visable in these testaments.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Genesis:37 @ RandyP comments: I think we should spend a moment in this new developing storyline of Joseph discussing the obvious dangers of polygamy. We have seen this danger with sons of different women Isaac and Ishmael. We have seen it now with the twelve sons of Jacob. We sense it heightened now that Rachel is not there to fend for her two sons especially the elder Joseph. In part Jacob's love for Joseph comes out of his love and mourning for Rachel. Jacob you'll remember was tricked by Laban into this polygamy it was Rachel that he wanted only and first. The problem we can observe is rooted in who the man loves more. This is true among the wives. This is true among the children. It puts the man in an impossible spot being that he may or may not have any leaning of affection one way or the other, if he does it may or may not be anything his heart has any control over. Though he might do all that he sees possible to make things equal there is little that he can do to alter the perceptions of the others once those perceptions have rooted. Many a polygamist man is trapped into a life of saying what he doesn't mean, expressing what he doesn't rightly feel, and making apology for it at every twisting bend. If that becomes true for the man of the house, think what that means to the wife or child that is perceived to be his favored object. Think how the other wives/siblings amongst themselves can work their unfettered perceptions into a greasy and consuming froth. Polygamy has been tolerated in the past by God, but it has never HIS sanctioned preference.

CR18Day_23 @ nkjv@Mark:16 @ RandyP comments: "...but they did not believe them either". Shown clearly here is the natural tendency of man to be critical of what he has not yet seen for himself. No doubt the reports coming to the disciples from many sources are describing something never before witnessed as true. I think it significant to us as later believers that Jesus did not first appear to the eleven disciples, that we see that they too were of doubt. Not everyone of every generation will be privy to witnessing this resurrection in person, logistically that would just be impossible. The majority are going to have to simply take it on another person's word. Thankfully we do have their word. We also have the witness of how their lives proceeded following this, the impact of having seen this, the witness of just how true they believed this to be. The fact is that people that knew these people believed these peoples testimony and in turn their lives also were greatly effected. The chain of justifiable evidence like this continues even into our day where a great many are just as convinced in their minds as if they themselves had personally witnessed this first hand. The disciples later did see Jesus physically. Again I think it important that we see that even for them belief became a process, then there could be no doubt. Having been told by Jesus that HE was going to do this and believing it to have been physically accomplished is after all contrary to most rational and critical tendencies.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: The sin observed in Babel runs throughout children of men (son's of Adam). Essentially it is this 1. The make a name for himself 2. To make himself secure by his own doing both in direct rebellion to God. The command of God is to "go" fill the entire earth. With it comes frontier type individualism, non-centralized control, reliance upon God. With rebellion comes gathering into cluster, centralized power and control, socialization, many men working towards one cause the object of which is whatsoever the few in control task them to do. That whatsoever is the thing that most concerns God for the heart and intents of man toward God are only rebellion. Nimrod intends to have a tower built that reaches to the heaven. The tower is a symbol of man made religion for the masses to look up to, for the idols way up and authorities in the middle to look down from. It is such a minute and pitiful sight sight from heaven that the omnipresent God mockingly has to come way down from heaven even to see it. By confusing the one current language into many, God effectively partitions mankind against each other and thus partitions man from there being one central world government drunken on the blood of the godly as we the see in the end with the Whore of Babylon after God loosens HIS current restraint.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: The idea of there being one core language (say Hebrew) from which all other languages have descended from is a very controversial idea. Modern linguists have struggled to boil it all down to four root tongues. The singular base idea is not necessary to the key scriptural understanding however, it is something perhaps better stated as being propagated by one group (say the Hebrews). When God confused the original language it could just as easily be that HE confused them all equally, that there is no longer that essential core in evidence. This would explain why it is linguists can only strain out four bases. Without the original to compare the four (if that's the number) to, we are left with no identifiable link between them. I have the suspicion that their are actually more than four roots at this point however, that we are mis-identifying commonalities in the search of proving the one. Had there remained the one core (say Hebrew) the other languages would have attempted to go back to it to circumvent the divisive confusion. All the "sons of men" were said to be doing this rebellion. Why not then have all the languages of men confused?