Comments - journal RecentComments

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_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_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_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?