Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_03 @ nkjv@Genesis:3 @ RandyP comments: Hid from the presence? There is nowhere possible to hide from our omnipresent/omniscient Maker. Perhaps a better way of thinking this is that they kept themselves from reflecting HIS proper image knowing now by their guilt that they had done exactly what God had forbidden. Note that even with this new knowledge Adam/Eve did not seek to repent nor was it offered to them. The just divine sentence had to be carried out. Yet within that mortal imprisonment thus decreed thereto were immediate and future mercies indicated from God.

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Psalms:104 @ RandyP comments: Gap Theory is often flagrantly misrepresented by those that oppose it as being an un-biblical attempt to meld scripture with man's current interpretation of the geologic record. The true basis of the theory however is that scripture consistently uses overwhelming deluges of water as signs of God's judgment. Scripture therefore may suggest that while God "bara - created" the heavens and the earth whole nkjv@Genesis:1:1, something happened between that and nkjv@Genesis:1:2 that required God's judgment; it is during this alleged gap that Gap Theorist place the fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angelic host kjv@Isaiah:14:12-15 kjv@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect kjv@Deuteronomy:32:4 kjv@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning kjv@Psalms:3:11. Consider that "was - hayah" means became, that "void - tohu va bohu" means empty/waste (thus became waste), that the Spirit of God then hovered over (another symbol of judgment) the waters and that God later had to divide the waters from the land in order to "let there be - hayah (become)" what the theory would say is an "awah - make/restoration" in six days. This of course is one possible explanations of scripture and there are more scriptures then presented here used to support it. But, even if one does not agree with Gap Theory one should not so callously disparage the possibility. The opposing more coventional view has just as many difficulties being that God would have then created an dark empty flooded waste (perfect however?). This passage in 104 I believe speaks of Noah's flood (not to return again), though it does also suggest that the foundations were laid before the waters covered it as a garment.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: A famous evangelist of the last century has been quoted as saying that "if God does not judge modern day San Francisco, He owes Sodom a big apology". I certainly don't want to stand behind San Francisco nor any other cities sinfulness (regardless of what it's dominant sin is), but I do not see the same level of wickedness as presented here. These are a city full of men at the front door insisting on sodomizing two strangers for what I believe are religious not just sexual reasons. I have yet to hear of a case of this same kind of activity in modern San Francisco. There is also the issue of the outcry against it coming before the Lord. Now days the so called "Silent Majority" is just that: silent; there is little if any outcry before the Lord. There is few if any righteous persons stepping up to protect the innocent at their own possible peril largely because their few if any non consenting victims and little if any of this type of mass behavior. All that really can be said is that this Silent Majority keeps acting as judge in their silent uninvolved sort of way. God owes no one any apology, but He does owe all of us judgment.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:20 @ RandyP comments: "For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her". It is interesting that the prophet Abraham is allowed to lie about Sarah being his sister to deceive Abimelech but, the same king is kept by God from sinning against (who? Abraham/Sarah/himself) God. Not only had the king been prevented, all the wombs of his household had been closed up. Had he married as he wanted (even touched) the wife of the prophet even though not knowing so/having been deceived by the couple, it would have been Abimelech's and therefore Abimelech's nation sin against God. What is Abraham's excuse? Fear of the possible designs of the ungodly. Is that a valid excuse for a man of God? Perhaps not valid but certainly human. I do not see that Abraham and Sarah lost out in this or were directly corrected by God. It does say that Sarah was rebuked but, the context seems more to suggest that Abimelech went out of his way to restore her marital honor.

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Mark:9 @ RandyP comments: "..All things are possible to him who believes." Let's get this straight. The belief Jesus is talking about is much different than what the majority of us believe. As we would have it there would be little need for Jesus, we would simply believe for our healing, believe and not doubt, healing then comes as a result, Jesus is just some sort of facilitator helping us to draw the confidence out from within us. Belief of this kind equates to the strength of one's own mind and self determination. There are millions upon millions of people trusting their hoped for healing to this brand of self determination, quoting fragments of cherry picked scripture to help buttress it's resolve from within. It is such a simple minded belief, why did it take someone like Jesus to assure us of this truth if that is all that it took? The truth is that it takes Jesus, all things point to Jesus, it cannot be done without Jesus even if through disciples under His commission. The belief first and foremost is in Jesus, that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him kjv@Hebrews:11:6. This is true for those receiving the healing just as it is true for those commissioned to be His healing emissaries. Fasting and prayer, what do they have to do with with us being productive emissaries? 1. They place our focus properly back on to Christ. 2. Being ourselves focused, they help us to help others to focus on Christ as well. Paul once was recalled kjv@Acts:14:9 to have perceived in a man that he had the faith to be healed. Paul likely had been in much prayer and fasting, had not the man been ready Paul would have known to prepare the man by teaching him more about Jesus. Without prayer and fasting emissaries simply go through the motions, some cases it might work, the tougher cases they often miss the mark. Christ's reward to the victim comes through the emissary who truly seeks Him. Note that there is always an emissary whether Christ or disciple standing in the gap in between, this is so all may know that it is not from within one's self but from the Father through Jesus Christ.

CR18Day_12 @ nkjv@Genesis:24 @ RandyP comments: Why was Abraham so insistent on Isaac not taking a wife from the local Canaanites? Look at the base of the name Canaanite. Whose name do you see? Canaan right? The son of Ham who Noah cursed to be servants of the servants. Ever wonder why Noah didn't curse all of Ham's offspring? Call it providence but, Canaan's descendants became the very people that now possessed the land soon to be promised to Noah's son Seth's descendant Abraham (therein the nation Israel). How much Noah knew about this at the time is doubtful but, by providence this is how it all worked out. Also provident is that by Seth's descendant marrying another of Seth's descendants the redemptive line leading to Jesus is kept pure. Did Abraham know all of this? Impossible to tell. It is something for us now to ponder and appreciate however.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@MPsalms:11 @ RandyP comments: "For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright". Here believe it or not we have the very picture of a compassionate God explained best by what HE is most compassionate about. Many would say no that this is the very picture of a judgmental God, a God who narrowly only cares about one certain thing (which by the way is largely impossible for any man to achieve). What the critic typically is describing is a non-judgmental God rather a compassionate God; they are equating compassion with being non-judgmental. This is a totally erroneous definition of compassion. A person is compassionate only when things matter deeply to him, when possible outcomes are weighed and the best and desired outcome is chosen, when both the end justifies the means and the means justify the end, when one stands firm on the grounds of what is true and good and complete and lasting. The prize you see is to have us HIS fallen creatures to be brought back into the glorious presence and favor of our Holy God, to be neath the wing of that presence and favor forever more. What glory and holiness would that prize be if God was to degrade down to the simple minded nebulous image of non judgmentalism (if there actually is such a thing), allowing that eternity to be pretty much what this corrupted life itself has become? Shall the compassionate God justify righteousness with HIS lasting presence and favor or shall HE justify the critic's more of the same corruption with it? As to righteousness, man himself indeed is unable to achieve it. It is not something that is meant for man to achieve. Christ has achieved man's righteousness, Christ is his righteousness received by faith. The man that receives the righteousness of Christ is changed by the effect of it upon him, but still it is Christ's righteousness alone. This is the righteousness God truly is compassionate about, for it satisfies all of HIS requirements and best intensions for the man whom HE created!

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued me?" Funny how one even when in the right can yet be in the wrong, at least by association. Jacob is right. Unknowingly though his wife Rachel is placing him in the wrong; she has in fact stolen some of Laban's idols. The whole list of everything Jacob has done and endured righteously over twenty years under Laban's idolatrous hands is called into question because of another person's (his bone of bone/flesh of flesh) act say of sentimentality or possible duplicity. This comes from the one person Jacob longingly suffered for the most, the one with whom he was smitten for at first glance. It is an ugly ugly story anytime deception has to be used to keep the greater storyline right side up. It is even uglier when it is the one whom you most love, that is most beautiful in your eyes that brings that unknown cloud knowingly over your head.

CR18Day_18 @ nkjv@Mark:13 @ RandyP comments: There is the line of interpretation that suggests that the "you" that Jesus is prophesying of here are the same "you" plural that asked Him to explain this to them privately. James was martyred early on, but Andrew and Peter would have witnessed at least the beginning of the sorrows that befell Jerusalem throughout the 60's leading up to 70AD the destruction of the city and Temple (Andrew perhaps saw all of it). They of course were brought before councils and martyred in Greece and Rome respectively. John lived decades past this time of the nation's tribulation, later surviving an attempt of being boiled in oil and even later being exiled to the island Patmos where he wrote his Revelations to encourage the persecuted saints to follow. Most all of the pieces can be made to fit including the all important "abomination" and sudden flight of informed believers. We would be in the "after that tribulation" period kjv@Mark:13:24 waiting on the darkening and the clouds of glory and sending of His angels which HE says Himself will come up on us unexpectedly as a "thief in the night". As with all interpretations there are some difficulties indeed with this view. Based just on this passage thus far however there could be possible substance to it. Keep it in mind when we come to other prophecies of the same events outside of this.

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_19 @ nkjv@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: I sense that even though Judas has already been to the chief priests to field their offers to turn Jesus over, that Jesus does not yet see this as "the betrayal". Jesus says that one here "will" betray Him. The actual betrayal is still an option for Judas that he will have to decide on. Note that Jesus as much as tells Judas in the other men's hearing that it would be better for him (if that is his decision to betray) to have been never born than to suffer the woe he is about to to suffer as a consequence; and yet Judas decides to betray him any way. Some would say that Judas does not have a choice in the matter, some even that he was predestined/born to do this. Why then would it be said that it would be better for him not to be born? Why then must he suffer for that which he had no choice in doing? One possible explanation for us to consider is that God does not violate man's choices, but knows what those choices are going to be with perfect foreknowledge. God uses the foreknowledge of our choices to direct the accomplishment of HIS perfect will. Another explanation is that God is always in action, man is always responding to God's action, man is free to react however he chooses but it is never any surprise to God how a particular individual does in fact react; man's free reaction thus can be reliably be counted on. This theory essentially holds that God does not make a man to do any particular thing, HE simply counts on it. Some would look at this as the ability to predict, I look at it as the ability to know a man better than he can know himself.

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_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.