Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Psalms:104 @ RandyP comments: It is interesting that the thing that we require most in life water is the one thing that was used to enforce judgment: the flood. Too much of a good thing... is the saying. Water also signifies baptism and cleansing. This speaks volumes as to God's character in that even in HIS judgment thus far with man all has been done with an eye on cleansing and sanctification. This will not be the case however in the final judgment by fire when the focus will be on making a final end of all evil.

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:17 @ RandyP comments: God's covenant with Abraham here is unconditional; there is no "if you do this then I will do that". The only thing that is told him that his descendants will do is to guard/protect this covenant, the sign of that on their part being male circumcision. It does not say if you guard, it says that you will guard, and they have. Notice that the sign of the covenant circumcision is to be performed at eight days after birth before the child's age of consent and includes anyone born to or in your household. How often this was followed precisely as stated is questionable, but again this was merely the sign of God's covenant not the covenant itself. It is important to remember that this is the first major Covenant of God with man and is unconditional/immutable/irrevocable and takes all precedence over the future conditional covenants placed over the eventual nation of Israel.

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_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_18 @ nkjv@Genesis:34 @ RandyP comments: There is a very common belief that by serving God no bad thing can ever happen to us. For instance our daughters will never be raped, our sons will keep a level head, the family as a whole will not be put in danger. Maybe the desires of wicked people are spiritually manipulated. Maybe shields of divine protection surrounds us. Maybe it's the way we raised our children them that makes them always to do what is right; always in the right place at the right time. Maybe as some believe angels are assigned to protect us. The crux of the notion is that the God we serve will not allow any of it for we are HIS. Where do we get that belief? Remember that God had promised Jacob that HE would be "with him" nkjv@Genesis:31:3 but, what does that mean in terms of an all encompassing protection from any/all harm. What then does this mean for us? If harm does ever come to us does that mean that God is not with us? That God is angry with us? That somehow we are judged deserving of that? It is at these times we begin to question our belief in God when what we really should be questioning is the inconsistency of the premise of our belief in all impenetrable protection. Scriptural evidence is replete with examples where harm did come to both Old and New Testament saints. The difference being that harm did not defeat these people, harm made them to cry out to their God, God was found to be with them helping them onward every step of the way.

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_24 @ nkjv@Galatians:1 @ RandyP comments: "..any other gospel.." How many times must it be repeated? Just as not every path leads to heaven not every gospel leads to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The apostle raises a grave concern for us today. Note that Paul ties the issue of there being other gospels directly to the human tendency to please other men rather that be bondservant to Christ. Men need to be pursuaded of God's gospel not God pursuaded of man's. In the end man's various gospels aren't going to be of any use to them; the men that they were designed to please will all be in a unpleasurable place eternally unsatisfiable. The first example given is Paul's own previous conversation, his years as a Jewish zealot/enforcer, a life of pleasing other men even to the extent of willingly doing the dirty work they themselves did not wish to do. Everything he did to please those men (as Jesus wisely predicted) he did thinking that it was heroic service to God. These men above him relied upon that sentiment, they fostered it, they empowered themselves by being able to direct it towards their own purposes. The good news is that the gospel of Christ has nothing to do with pleasing these men. In fact if one chooses to look at it this way, the bad news is rather that this type of man will be extremely displeased by it and will be sending other zealous pawns out against you now. There are so many different directions that these "other gospels" can point believers that it will take a much larger discussion of this Epistle to the Galatians to grasp.