Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:2 @ RandyP comments: Of every tree but one... Did God make us to sin? He gave us every opportunity not to sin rather. Man was created in God's image. In HIS image resides the inherent choice whether to bear that image or not. God had the choice whether or not to create us in HIS image, so then we had the choice whether to bear HIS image, the choice had to be given else we were not then created in HIS image. God made HIS choice. Now sadly we have made ours too.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: There are two remarks to be made drawn out by the this and the last chapter regarding human choice whether it is free or not. We have the issue of a curse Noah placed on grandson Canaan in response to Ham's actions. Canaan is being directly effected by something his father was guilty of doing. This curse effects human will and self determination on a man to grandson level with God's own involvement unclear. Then there is the splintering of human language into several diverse languages having a direct/purposeful effect upon the will and ability of man as a whole; God seeking to keep human self determination from harming itself. Though human will and self determination apparently remains in both cases, it has thus become limited/restricted to some extent either by man in the first case or else by God in the second (perhaps in the first). Perhaps the will was never completely unrestricted from the Fall. Perhaps the will is free, but the options available for it to chose from are limited. From just the text of two chapters nothing can be said for certain except that there are early indications that man's will is somehow being imposed upon to some mysterious extent, perhaps from various sources.

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_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: The sower sows the word.... He sows it indiscriminately on to a variety of different soils. Why waste seed where it will not be received? Many would think that it is the condition of the heart that determines whether the seed is received (which it is), but that each person is responsible for the condition of their heart (which might be a stretch for this parable - what can soil do on it's own to prepare it's own self?). Have you ever known a sower that was not a farmer? Is not the seed received received by the soil that he himself tilled? that he himself didn't compost and fertilize? that he himself didn't level, furrow and irrigate? Again I ask why waste seed everywhere else? How else does the sower do all this other at the same time? Why even the birds of the air are getting in on some word (not that it will do them any good)!

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Mark:4 @ RandyP comments: A thought about the sower's good ground: it makes everything else around it more valuable. The ground along that fence line yonder see might be as hard as a rock, the ground back along the ditch as marshy and overgrown with weeds as the next mans. But because of that good ground son, because of that really good "sun in the morning/cool coming in nightly/wealth producing" ground even clear down near that ole sandy barge and up toward that granite bluff where you daddy's dad's bones rest... all that land there is valuable land. But can you just imagine how little this place would be worth if it wasn't for that sower's good ground? receiving in all that sower's really good seed? making for all that abundance in the great harvest? nkjv@Mark:4:20

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Genesis:15 @ RandyP comments: "..the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete". Lost in all these wonders of what God is doing and what HE is going to do through Abram is the often missed byline of what others are going to be doing against God. One might ask why not just establish Abraham's descendants in the land right here and now? One, Abraham doesn't have any descendants yet. Two, the the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. God could easily defend Abraham's clan from the Amorites right now, but there is something essential to the plan that includes the transgressions of the current inhabitants (and others) and includes the captivity of Abraham's. God not only intends to show what will be done and prove HIMSELF capable but, prove to one and all why it must be done and in the process draw a whole lot of people to depend on no one else but HIM. Even in the establishment of the nation Israel, the nation isn't an end in and of itself, it is one further step towards proving the need for the Messiah. God could have done any number of things (ie smiting the Amorites out of existance), but instead HE chose one thing other, the thing HE knew in the long run would prove out to be the only right. Hard as it is at time for us to understand, HIS ways are not our way/HIS thoughts not our thoughts. "Do not be affraid, Abram, for I am your sheild, your exceedingly great reward".

CR18Day_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: It is doubtful that the residents in and around Gadarenes would have forgotten this event a decade and a half later when Mark formally recounted it. It is doubtful that the residents in and around Decapolis would have forgotten the formerly possessed man's testimony. Any one from anywhere else at that time doubting Marks account could easily have gone to either region and asked the residents. It is likely that the story was still widely known even there in Jerusalem. Maybe as time went by certain details would be passed down differently by the locals, the story might have morphed into something barely resembling what the Apostles recollected, but still decades later the evidence of the event described having happened would have been compelling.

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "The Lord has restrained me". It would be very interesting to know whether this was true or else Sara's impression of things. If it is her impression then she is never called to account for this; perhaps it should be better said that her age is what is at cause. If this divine restraint is the true then we have a couple possibilities to consider: One might be able to suggest for instance that God was testing the couple to see if they were going to do something on their own. The other possibility is that HE knew how they were going to react and that HE was out to let both them and us know that the doing of this was all HIS. It may not seem like an important distinction but, it is. There is a different frustration on Sara's part if she thinks that she is capable but being kept from bearing the child or not capable with God still sitting on HIS hands about it. Perhaps we are of similar frustrations in our prayers and then attempt to take the prayer answer into our own hand. The answer might be God's alone regardless of how long it takes or how desperate the situation is getting. The experience may well drive them/us into a deeper knowledge/trust of God first. It is this future clarified faith that will be accounted to them as righteousness.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: "..the outcry against them (Sodom) has grown great before the face of the LORD". Before this nkjv@Genesis:13:13 when Abraham and Lot first parted ways we were told that the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. The cry now or shriek before the Lord against them has grown beyond even exceeding. This may be the cry of their many victims preceding, the cry of the righteous from nearby cities, the cry perhaps of the angels watching over, the cry of the ground below them, all the above but a terribly exceeding cry nonetheless. This obviously is not the first time that they had done something like this. It is not a minority behavior. This is going far beyond the scope of normal homosexual behavior to the point of pagan religious rite. Lot appears concerned about this so as to strongly insist that the angels stay the night in his protection. I have no doubt that the angels could have taken care of their own selves but, this perhaps was the gesture of righteousness that they both were looking for. Righteous people stick the neck (even their families safety) on the the line for the stranger and the innocent in times when wickedness thinks up it's worst. I have no idea if Lot had done anything as righteous for anyone else before this but, he did do it the very night when he unknowingly most needed to. We do get the sense that the wicked menfolk regard Lot as one who keeps acting as judge. This night Lot has gone too far according to them and will pay a price steeper than even intended towards the angels that they originally set out for. Many say that they were going after "strange flesh" angelic flesh to sodomize them. I am not so sure. I believe that this same behavior was what the cry against them had been all along.

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_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Four thousand men, probably about that number again in women and kids conservatively. How many of those who saw this miracle of the loaves were still alive at the wider publication of Mark's gospel a decade and a half later? Quite a few of them; especially of the kids. How many others did each of these men women and children tell that would know of this event second hand or third hand and still be living? Conservatively hundreds of thousands, half or more still living. How many critics of that day refuted Mark's written account or questioned the numbers? We do not know of any. Again, how many witnesses at the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children? How many other people did they tell? How many were living to later support Mark's gospel? How many critics refuted that additional multitudes' claims? Again the blind man in Bethsaida; what kind of numbers are we talking about there? Was the blind man still alive? What did he say about this? Were those all important surviving witnesses nearby? Could anyone in Bethsaida still confirm this? Unfortunately you see, this logical line of critical inquiry was not the line of attack that the critics then engaged in (leading us to believe that they knew it would be inaffective to their defence). Their means of countering Mark was to slander and persecute and physically compel believers to blaspheme the faith, else to argue against it on mere philosophical grounds. The history here says more than just Mark's written words.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Mark:12 @ RandyP comments: "These will receive greater condemnation". Note that it does not say greater punishment. There is only one level of punishment, utter separation from the presence/restraint/provision of God: hell. Greater condemnation means that there is much greater reason that they are judged worthy of this one eternal punishment: impersonating a shepherd of HIS own flock (or as illustrated being a vinedresser that won't surrender to the owner his rightful fruit). Some would think that there are tiers to this judgment, that some will be better off than others, that some will be instigators and others recipients, that there will be those that party and those that suffer. The bible says no such thing. Each person will suffer as if there was no one else around him and yet all will suffer the same together as one for it is not only God's separation that they suffer but, God's wrath. Neither outpouring choses whom to separate/punish more.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Genesis:32 @ RandyP comments: We find that when the patriarchs build an altar not only do they build it and worship at it, they name the spot. Most altars mark a specific place where God had met up with them else a place to where God had brought them. The named spot not only means something to the patriarch involved but, also the descendents to follow; plus it keeps the story of which in their remembrance. We do not build altars anymore to worship, many significant places seem to take on an idolatry of their own, yet remembrance is important if kept in the proper light. When God meets up with a man, when God brings a man to a momentous spot it is good to keep that immediate time in remembrance. Looking back on your walk with God, where would your altar and memorial sites be? Are your children aware of them?

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: "But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him". Was Joseph set up by Jacob's outwardly expression of love to suffer what he later suffered at the hands of his brothers? I have heard many sermons on Father's Day say as much. I think it better to say rather that the brother's propensity towards utter hatred is the prominent consideration. A father cannot always anticipate how his children are going to react. A father cannot always contain his love for one particular child for the sake of those children he certainly loves but not as easily. A father may not even be aware of there being a problem unless the wife or else one of the other children make him aware of it. A father cannot be held responsible for the way his other children react to an outward expression of love especially when it comes to them either leaving as dead or selling that more beloved child into slavery. That occurrence is not the result of child rearing, that occurrence is a result of some very ungodly anger deeply rooted among the brethren. Later on it will be said by Joseph "what you meant toward me for evil" meaning Joseph did not blame Jacob, no, the brothers were directly responsible for this. But, even then he said "God meant it for good". God did not cause this, God simply allowed it to happen so that HIS good might restored (we'll explore that further as the story is recounted). Jacob's love did not cause this. Hatred caused this and surely that hatred existed long before there was a multi-colored coat weaved and given by one God fearing and loving man. Perhaps these preachers should not be so hard on Jacob on a day meant to honor our many Jacob like fathers.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Mark:15 @ RandyP comments: In most present day judicial systems a man is innocent until proven guilty. At the very heart of that statement is the notion that an innocent man should not need to prove his innocence, rather it is on the prosecution to first prove his guilt. If and once the prosecution has done that then the man still would have the further right to fully defend his innocence. The natural instinct is to pile up the two mounds of evidence at the same time and measure which pile stands up taller. Such an instinct neglects the more judicious notion that the accused man is first innocent. There is a common baser instinct as well that the accused is first guilty and has to prove himself innocent else why would have been arrested and brought before this court anyway. It is precisely because the evidence can be misread, evidence can be trumped up or falsified, clearer evidence can be avoided, others can be lying. The evidence in this case is clearly not what convicts Jesus, Pilate could find no evidence. What convicts Jesus is public sentiment which has been roused up by his accusers. No defenders came to His legal side. No witnesses were called on His behalf. It was a largely a trial only brought before the court of His accusers afterwards brought before a whimpish political judge that cared more for his own waning popularity than for any form of human justice. In the end however, it is not ultimately about human justice, it is about divine justice, Christ suffers our form of justice in order to bring to us precisely that.

CR18Day_24 @ nkjv@Genesis:44 @ RandyP comments: It is interesting to see the brothers' concern now for Jacob with regard to Benjamin that they didn't have in regard to Joseph. The passage of time and regret may have something to do with it. The nearness of Jacob now to death may play apart. One would hope that the knowledge of Joseph being sold not mulled/devoured to death and the guilt of attempting to maintain their lie before their father has worn heavy on each of them. As much as I disagree with what Joseph is staging now, I sense that he is fishing for some type of indication of their regret and shame and change of heart. I do not see that Joseph has been directed by God to pursue this in this manner but, I almost feel that God is allowing him this for the sake of Joseph's own restorative process. It brings up an interesting question as to when a person obviously victimized by the sinful nature of another is given the opportunity to either retaliate else restore, how much leeway can be given for the victims own damaged nature to work itself through it's pain and confusion? Surely the victim does not have the right to sin in like fashion, sin after all is sin but, does the victim have the right to work to sort their way through it even if their restorative actions become questionable? My sense of compassion says yes. My sense of righteousness says only within constructive limits. Joseph I feel comes close to these limits by what he is staging.

CR18Day_24 @ nkjv@Psalms:24 @ RandyP comments: LORD of hosts is a common phrase in the OT filter:OT LORD+of+hosts . King of glory only appears in this one psalm filter:OT King+of+glory and here it appears five times. It is made obvious that the LORD and the King are one in the same. Rarely is the LORD of hosts ever equated to king filter:OT LORD+of+hosts+AND+king , the king being referred to elsewhere is a human king. The point is that this king is none other than the Jehovah of hosts, the strong and mighty, mighty in battle. Agreed? It is not David. It is not Israel herself. It is not some future human ruler. It is Messiah; Messiah is Jehovah of hosts. So why would King of glory/LORD of hosts be entering through gates of eternity when He should already be there? Why does He have to be identified and equated to as one in the same? Why need there be such a joyous celebration at this occurrence? Could it be that took upon Himself flesh being born of a woman, was despised and rejected, stood silent like a lamb before it's shearers, bore the iniquity of us all, was cut off from the land of the living, was raised into the pleasure of the remaining Jehovah and lives evermore to make intercession for transgressors? That certainly would something worth celebrating. That certainly would require our re-familiarization to as to His true identity. So I ask you: Who is this King of glory?

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: Not only is this the dividing point of all the world languages, it should also be considered a major dividing point in the world's religions. From here each of the peoples are going to take their own freedoms and liberties with the base religions either man made demonic influenced faiths or God revealed and purposed faith or an intermingling. Some will choose to keep certain elements of the original like the Adam/Eve and flood accounts, some will carry on through to Abraham before splitting, some will rebel from this point and suppress the Genesis revelation altogether. That God has now set this in motion by confusing the languages must mean that there is enough of the message instilled in them that there is ample means for them to come to Christ at some point else be judged for not changing course back to Him.

CR18Day_26 @ nkjv@Genesis:48 @ RandyP comments: "...truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations." Of each of Jacobs sons, each became a single tribe of Israel except for Joseph who became two. The twelve tribes are really thirteen by count but twelve by vote, the two are often counted as half tribes else other times the priestly tribe of Levi is excluded. Manasseh settles east of the Jordan. Ephraim settles west of Jordan in a somewhat central parcel that one day becomes Samaria. For four hundred years it hosted the Ark and the Tabernacle until the time of David (of Judah). Joshua, Gideon and Saul were all leaders over Israel from this tribe. Early on Ephraim was pre-eminent among all the tribes under until the second Jewish period when that importance was given to Judah. It split with Judah along with nine other tribes during Solomon's son King Rehoboam's oppresive reign. Assyria latter took it over and the tribe was forced to intermingle marriages. The whole became the so called "bastard" nations of Samaria.

CR18Day_27 @ nkjv@Genesis:49 @ RandyP comments: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people." It is often speculated as to how much the bible patriarchs knew about God's plan of redemption as we now know it, what had been passed down, what had been further revealed to them, what they actually believed? Here we have a statement by Jacob that many would suggest is his belief in a coming Messiah: Shiloh; others would say a coming peace/nation. Where would Jacob have gotten that if to mean a Messiah? This would come from the initial statement of God after the fall when HE promised Eve a "Seed" that would crush the Serpent's head. Could this Seed mean the nation Israel (that the nation one day would crush Satan)? Note that as Jacob is in the act of blessing his son upon his death bed he is revealing some not so complimentary things about each son's future progeny, even Judah's (scepter ruling "until" the coming of Shiloh). Note that all son's but Benjamin (due to age) rebelled against the love of their father and his beloved Joseph by falsifying his death and selling him into slavery. Note that Judah's rule ended during the Maccabees into the Herod kings (who were not from Judah) immediately precedes the time of Jesus. The utter destruction of the Temple and consequential total dispersion of Jerusalem left impossible any chance of Judah's reign picking back up even into today. Messiah is either Jesus of Nazareth (or someone during that same time) or else Jacob lied. How much did Jacob know? Quite a bit actually. Now so do each of his sons and son's families.