Comments - journal RecentComments

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 strkjv@Isaiah:14:12-15 strkjv@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:4 strkjv@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning strkjv@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_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_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:16 @ RandyP comments: "Took Hagar her maid". How often do we think that the delayed answer to our prayers is calling for sacrifice on our part? How often do we answer prayers ourselves and then blame God that the answer is not all that it should have been or created a whole new set of problems on top of the old? There are always unpredictable consequences to our own answers. There are sacrifices that may need to be but, what sacrifices will those be? For Sara it should not have been to give her man over to another woman, it should have been the time she wouldn't be able to have raising her own child due to her rapidly advanced age. We must consider these thing wisely as well.

CR18Day_10 @ nkjv@Genesis:19 @ RandyP comments: "..the outcry against them (Sodom) has grown great before the face of the LORD". Before this strkjv@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_10 @ nkjv@Psalms:1 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that on a day where we've seen Lot evidence much needed righteousness standing the gap for two angels and Abraham/Sarah cohorting to deceive the king of a righteous nation that this Psalm would come to our reading. Walking not in the counsel? Lot bravely shows us a positive example taking in and protecting the two angels, Abraham cowardly shows us a negative by lying to Abimelech about his wife his half sister. In the positive case the counsel of the ungodly was to hand the angels over so that they could sodomize the two every man of the city young and old that night. In the case of the negative example the counsel is actually a personal fear that a righteous man has about what might happen to him at the hands of the ungodly because of the beauty of his wife. It is not a tangible threat at this point, it is a perceived threat self formulated. These two examples are not always the case but, they begin to show us how complex walking not nor standing nor sitting really is. On the one hand there is the potential cost or personal sacrifice that may have to be made in order to adequately stand firm, keep one's word, protect the stranger/innocent. One the other hand is the fear of what these other could do to yet or worse yet to your spouse. Take comfort though for the Lord knows the way of the righteous; in fact HE had HIS son walk the same path, endure the same costly hardships, be tempted along this road just as you and I. In fact that man that this psalmist says to be blessed very well could be our Savior described to the tee.

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 strkjv@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 strkjv@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_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_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@Psalms:12 @ RandyP comments: "The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times". Look at what the Lord is saying: that HE will rise for the cause of the oppressed, that HE will preserve the godly man. Now those are fighting words from a supposedly all compassionate God. Because of the unrighteousness of the ungodly who say "who will lord over us" (in other words many of those who are trying to tell us that God is nothing but compassionate, that all paths lead to heaven, that God doesn't trifle himself with man's doings) there are few godly men to be found (men who stand for God's poor/needy); God must arise in return. The godly were viewed as having been lord's over them. The righteous God is viewed as attempting to lord over them. The battle ground they choose to fight this fight is over the poor and needy; with their tongue note they intend to prevail. Sounds almost like the modern battles between Leftism and Libertarianism. It may be wise to remember that just because the words of the Lord are purified seven times that does not mean that are not still fighting words.

CR18Day_19 @ nkjv@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: By criticizing the woman pouring perfume over Jesus these men are criticizing Jesus who is allowing her to do so. The men (some = more than just Judas) are quite taken back by the wasteful expense of this woman's act and are presumably thinking just of the poor. Godliness often is situational, what is godly in one situation (even in most situations) may not be godly in all situations; it may only be godly in one particular situation yet that is precisely to where the ball has bounced. That seems to be the problem with rigid legalism just as it seems to be the problem with soft wrapped good works and intentions. The presence of God in the flesh seems to bring about several of these changes in godly direction, examples like disciples not fasting etc.. What is generally true is in fact a good standard to follow, but better still is keeping an eye on the bouncing ball and the game at hand is far wiser.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Genesis:39 @ RandyP comments: "Why do you look so sad today?" . Sometimes the biggest things to happen in one's life begin with simply being aware of other people, being concerned for other people, asking a simple question, becoming involved in helping other people find their urgent answers. It was never like Joseph saw an opportunity to get his case to Pharaoh by helping either of these two prisoners from Pharaoh's court. It wasn't like Joseph thought "here is my chance". It was not anything but an awareness and making one's self available to another in need. Joseph had likely done this many times for many people, it was likely just part of Joseph's character, he may have been known to others as being trust-able with these types of matters. See, so many of us would like to be this type of blessing to others but, we blindly pass by these many smaller opportunities in search of that one big one. Others don't have the level of confidence to open up to us because we do not have the level of confidence to have first opened the doorway to them. The Lord has favor on HIS children. It is not for HIS children to pick and chose who to spend that favor on. Nor is for the children to be so distant and put out not to be approachable by others. Nor is it for the favored children to come to other's answers by their own intellect or deductions. Nor is it for us to sugar coat the revealed answer when it is not so pleasing.

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@Genesis:44 @ RandyP comments: Great concern must be raised as to whether Joseph actually divines information or not. The most logical explanation is that he is making it look like it to his brothers to continue concealing his true identity. If not the case we are struck with possibility that Joseph has learned divination from the Egyptians. In later years divination is strictly prohibited by the Law of Moses. I would imagine that even before the law God was just as offended by it as with the Law. Joseph is never confronted by God on this issue, which leads me to believe that he was not actually divining. The other alternative may be that the translation of the word into English may be misleading. My brief word study dict:strongs H5172 is showing the Hebrew word as split between the prohibited type of prognostication and the lesser observational/experiential form. In this case, that it is the cup being the object referred seems to substantiate the darker meaning; one would not simply anticipate events in the future by using a cup.