Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:1 @ RandyP comments: If one does not believe that God created the heavens and the earth then one also cannot not believe that God made man (all men and women) in HIS own image. Human life therefore does not have the same imputed and imutable sanctity nor holiness. Yes one can respect human life, but the respect for life is a much different thing than the respect for God's very image. Later in strkjv@Genesis:9:6 a postdiluvian prohibition is placed upon murder, the reason given = because we are created in God's own image.

CR18Day_02 @ nkjv@Genesis:2 @ RandyP comments: Naked and not ashamed... because they knew themselves to be accurate reflections of what it meant to be created in God's image. In God's image is there any other way to be but naked and not ashamed? Compare this to strkjv@Genesis:3:7-8 where they hid themselves from the "presence".

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_02 @ nkjv@Mark:1 @ RandyP comments: Notice the rapid fire pace that these events are retold by Mark. THe same will be true of his entire gospel. It is almost as if it was the final case summary statement of the prosecuting attorney before the grand jury. These are the known facts in quick succession. These are the evidences against Israel and therefore man.

CR18Day_01 @ USER SET UP INSTRUCTIONS @ RandyP comments: Please register with the site administrator if you would like to participate in the group discussions. There is an admin password that you will have to log in with once from each device you intend to write from. Some devices will issue a security alert message because this hosting site is not fully certified (no reason to on this small scale). There should be no security problem however to your device by making an exception to this missing certificate. All comment board entries are then fully encrypted, plus there is no other information being transfered other than your text comments. Register now athttp://likepreciousfaith.us/html/PbiblxCommentRegister.html

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Genesis:7 @ RandyP comments: nkjv@Genesis:7:2 suggests that even before the Levitical cannon nkjv@Leviticus:11:1-47 that there was a common knowledge about what animals were clean. Seven of each makes for an odd pairing male and female. Many of these species are not monogamous as well. Add to that that an equal number of males is not typically required. With chickens for instance it is customary to have one rooster to dozens of hens. Same with bovine bulls and cows etc... That God is stating such a pairing to be made is undoubtedly a statement of God to man in and of itself.

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_04 @ nkjv@Mark:3 @ RandyP comments: It has been a decade or more since Jesus of Nazareth was crucified as the multitudes are first reading/listening to this first official gospel. The gospel is stating that within the first three chapters there was already a conspiracy between the Pharisee and Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reason for all now to see for the conspirators anger cannot be thought of as being anything other than His claim to forgive sins (which only God can do) and being Lord of the Sabbath and the Fast (which only God can be). Add to this that He has also already claimed to be the living fulfillment of Isaiah's messianic prophecy. There has been no talk by Jesus of any politically divisive ambitions. Now in an effort to destroy Jesus they are insinuating that He works for Satan. The topic of Jesus cannot be avoided by them because of the fact that He is performing so many miracles. They are being forced into a corner that they would rather not defend. This then is a case study of how men void of truth react to the true light. Mary had been told that her child would one day "reveal the intents of hearts of many"; this He is doing with little effort other than doing what good His Father is directing Him to do.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: This is now the second re-population of Genesis, first being the more controversial from Adam and Eve. Critics often ask "where did Cain and Seth get their wives"? The answer most likely is that they were sisters, but it doesn't have to stop there. Genesis was written not as an overall history as much as it was of all redemptive history (the details that would be important to our understanding of God's redemption). Seth and Cain's brothers and sisters are unnamed and unnumbered. Over the course of nine hundred plus years Eve surely bore Adam many. Those children married and had children. Those children bore many children. It could be that Cain and Seth married nieces or even grand nieces. While Cain was the first child, neither Able nor Seth necessarily have to be second and third if we are to look at the narrative as a redemptive history. In this passage we are back down to eight persons starting all over again. In both passages we can see how quickly the multiplication of being fruitful adds up.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:9 @ RandyP comments: Note now that while the world that then was was destroyed in the flood, wickedness has not been completely purged; there is a carry over. Righteous Noah is the first evidence of this getting unconsciously drunk. Ham is the second evidence of it by the manner that he looked upon his father's nakedness. It is Noah pronouncing a curse upon Ham's son Canaan which is important to note for two reasons. First, the fact that Ham is black skinned has been used by some bigots as proof that all black people are cursed or sub-human. The better interpretation is that one particular lineage of Ham's through Canaan is cursed by Noah. Ham you will recall had other black sons Cush and Mizrain and Phut that were not cursed (perhaps more) and lkely many daughters. Second, the lands best known that Canaan's descendants came to occupy are the very lands that later would become the promised land of Israel. What the actual effect of this "servant of servants unto his brethren" curse was meant to be and to what extent God would willingly honor it are other difficulties in the biggoted world view.

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: 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:12 @ RandyP comments: Now in the storyline of Abram we see God moving in an unprecedented fashion regarding HIS redemptive plan. We see a series of firsts, the first mention of a great nation, the making of an unconditional covenant, a personal appearance identifying the future location of that nation, the act of protecting the patriarch and his wife from others and their own poor self interested decisions, bringing about the enrichment and military success of the man, providing the acquaintance of a kingly high priest (a shadow of the redemption to come), giving the promise of a direct heir, prophesying the captivity of his descendants to Egypt; all this activity just in the first three chapters. Not until Moses do we see anything near this level of direct involvement by God. If there was a flag for us to stake the claim of what God was going to do redemptively for man the first would be planted in the storyline of Abram (Abraham).

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_06 @ nkjv@Mark:5 @ RandyP comments: I find it interesting that the legion of demons did not want Jesus to do a certain thing, begged for something other, and that Jesus "gave permission(nkjv)/gave them leave(kjv+rsv+asv)". For the poor man the result is just the same; he is freed from torment. For the demons they don't have to look for another host to inhabit; they are sent into the herd of swine (?did they know that the swine were going to drown - probably not?). For Jesus there is the added advantage that the owners of these swine (forbidden to eat by Jews) would be angry; they and the city's residents would be coming after Him in fear pleading that He leave their coast. Everyone seems to win here except for the owners and residents who would be recounting this fearful event for decades to come. The only question I have is did the demons die with the swine or are they still down there trapped in their carcass? or? Perhaps that is the question that the locals had as well.

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_09 @ nkjv@Genesis:17 @ RandyP comments: "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" It is obvious the Abraham's faith is not yet quite there. God needs for Abraham's faith to be precisely what HE needs it to be and is working with Abraham to bring that faith to light. You see, too often we look at faith as hope as best as we ourselves see it. Sarah is now another thirteen years older, Ishmael has grown into such a fine dear son, why not let things be as they are? Well, that is not the faith God needs Abraham to have. It is often not he faith that God needs us to have thinking that we've already done this and have that already available, let's just make something more of these. To know and believe God and what HE is going to do is to know things as HE sees it, the way HE desires to perform it, nothing less; and to trust in only that. This then is the beginnings of a faith that can be imputed truthfully as righteousness.

CR18Day_09 @ nkjv@Mark:6 @ RandyP comments: "He could do no mighty work there". We must be very cautious not to make the text say something it does not. Unintentionally perhaps, we can make this passage to say that it was the people's disbelief that kept/blocked Jesus from doing any intended mighty works; as if the sovereign God was not all that sovereign. Surely that is not what we mean to say but, that is often how our explanations come across. Better put, throughout the gospels (especially John's) we are presented a picture of the obedient Christ. What Christ sees the Father doing that He does. What He hears the Father say that He says. The Son is in fact mirroring the Father and if He doesn't behave in this all dependent manner well then there would be no reason to believe that He is in fact the Son. Satan's temptation of Jesus was an attempt to get the Son to do something that the Father HIMSELF was not seen/heard doing. Not that Jesus did not have these powers Himself but, that those powers were for this time to be set aside in humble submission/obedience. The Father would thus acknowledge glorify each of the Son's obediences by performing them thereby confirming HIS beloved Son in whom HE was well pleased in front of our eyes. Here Jesus had come amongst His own and saw the Father doing no mighty works, so He did likewise obediently. By doing no great works much was actually being said and done by them. You can imagine after having seen Jesus with the multitudes a day or so before how loud this sudden silence would be screaming out. Even Jesus' disciples were getting into the act previously and now? Why is this? Not to say "because of their unbelief" but to say "to make their unbelief known".

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_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_11 @ nkjv@Genesis:21 @ RandyP comments: Young men will scoff. It is just what they do, not understanding the bigger picture and not seeing anything other than their own self interests. Can't blame the kid for that. It is obvious though that a time has to come where the two lineages are going to have to part ways. Both will be blessed beyond measure but, only one line will be the redemptive line that God will work mankind's salvation through. There is no heroic contest to be waged, no one child better than the other/rest, it is simply a choice God has made long before either child was born, it simply is part of a plan that God has been working Abraham (and therefore true believers) through little by little to bring him (us) into the right mode of faith. In our regular everyday lives between ourselves it really is more about who is the most athletic, the most educated, the most assertive and hungry, or the one with the best family name; or as Ishmael would understand it the one who can hit the bullseye and split that arrow in the very next shot. That is the world that even young men grow to understand. The world of godliness is an entirely different matter however. It is not about this man or the other, it is about our one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and what has transpired because of Him on our mutual behalf. This all important pathway leading to Jesus is now beginning to transpire upon Abraham through quite young babbling toddler named Isaac.

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Genesis:22 @ RandyP comments: This is the passage that we will have to pay particular attention to. This is the passage were many a foolish man has staked his claim on a works based justification with God. I want you to remember back on all the work God has performed on Abraham to bring him to this point in his faith. Abraham's works to this point certainly have been less than stellar (nor will be his works to continue). As time and experience have gone by, Abraham's faith has been refined down to one definable thing: God has promised/God has provided and will continue/therefore God will accomplish. What is Abraham's role in all this? Continue believing in the promise/provision/eventual accomplishment and to not get in the way of it by what his baser impulses are attempting to do to achieve this in some measure of his own. This is a refined faith much different than a works based justification, it is a God based justification. Remember this, that Abraham's faith has already been accounted to him as righteousness (justification) strkjv@Genesis:15:6 before Isaac was even born. The fact that Abraham is being tested now because of this imputed justification already received by faith is more a test of our understanding of Abraham's faith than it is a test of his own. If to be understood any other way than this, well then at minimum we should each be taking our sons to the mountain top alter to sacrifice thus prove ourselves worthy workers of a different justification; perhaps we should be proving ourselves by even more; perhaps we should be proving ourselves even more justifiable than the others just to make the final cut eh! Is that justification with God the way you understand it?

CR18Day_11 @ nkjv@Psalms:107 @ RandyP comments: "...Therefore He brought down their heart with labor...". Some would wish to remove the "therefore" from their understanding; God brings hearts down just because. What a mean God that would be. The "therefore" suggest however that "they" had a major part in this because of their rebellion against HIS word and the despising of HIS counsel. If the "they" are to mean Israel, think of how many other times they did just that. It seems as if it is easier to fall into this rebellious mindset than it is to maintain the right mindset on it's own. I suspect it true in a personal sense, this gravitation towards rebellion but, I know it for certain among generations of men. One God delivered generation passes it's renewed godly enthusiasm and testimony to the next, the next passes down what amounts to stories or legends of the past to the next, not having experienced God to the same extent the successive generations grow colder and colder to this point of rebellion and despising counsel. This all too familiar entropy often occurs within a matter of years within one generation; even within days in some cases. "Therefore" God's righteous response to them is to bring them down (but not to let go). Down can be to let them suffer the consequences of their own counsel and actions for a time alone or serve those to whom they have become debtor/captor. Down can be a bit more drastic like a famine or multiple rainless seasons, enemy nations mounting on their borders. Down can be leaving them to their own resource and efforts if that's the way they want it minus HIS gracious blessings and wonderous power. Down could possibly mean progressively down as far down as they decide to go before they cry out to the Lord and HE bring them back. They suffer as one together in many instances so that they know without question that this is a God thing being imposed. But, HE does bring back. It would sound mean had we not done anything to deserve it or if there wasn't something better for us to know and be apart of but, think back on the majority of times when HE has blessed us when we didn't deserve that good part of HIM either. "Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men!"

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_11 @ nkjv@Mark:8 @ RandyP comments: Ashamed of Jesus and His words, let's consider. An adulterous and sinful generation on the one hand, God incarnate preparing to obediently die and rise again for the remedy for our sins and adultery. Which is the greater? Can we deny that this is adulterous and sinful generation? I think not. Can we deny that Christ has died and risen now to redeem us from this our plight? Well it sounds logical but, many are either skeptical or don't see the need. Can we deny that He shall return in the glory of His Father with the holy angels? Well that is where it gets sticky because He hasn't yet and He hasn't for quite a long time. Is this what we are ashamed of? Consider that in the day people were expecting the Messiah to be a military/political leader who would immediately restore the nation Israel to world prominence, deliver them from Roman rule. When the critic harshly insisted, there was that to contend with. Today the public expectation is much different, it is to leave it alone to it's own beliefs, to not meddle or tattle or stand against or be preachy. All this talk of heaven and hell and personal accountability, talk of depravity and original guilt and original pollution, talk of truth and righteousness and holiness and virtue, this talk has no place in this time or generation. So when the critic harshly insists, there is that again to contend with. Is the shame that we have to contend for our beliefs at all? We are sensitive to how others feel about us. In a sense for all our religiosity and business we still yet do not percieve nor understand, our heart is still hardened, having eyes we do not see, having ears we do not hear, neither do we remember; at least not to the extent that we should. "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me...". Ashamed? What does that mean? How might it present itself? Are we ashamed even if be in the least bit ashamed to deny ourselves and follow? Well then we certainly need to get to the bottom of that quickly.

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_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_13 @ nkjv@Mark:10 @ RandyP comments: "He taught them (multitudes) again". The multitudes might be there for miracles and wonders and food but, Jesus at the same time is making sure to keep up the teaching. Here we have His teachings on divorce, receiving the kingdom of God, keeping of the commandments, the cost of discipleship, the disciples path to greatness through servitude; all within one chapter. Even as people are coming to Him to test Him, He is using each occasion as a teachable moment. There is nothing too radical to His teaching but, it is amazingly consistent and authoritative. The radical portion comes because of His death and resurrection and the light it sheds on the fulfillment of these smaller case teachings.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:28 @ RandyP comments: "If Eloheem will be with me, and keep... and give... then shall Jehovah be my Eloheem". God is with Jacob and keeps him and gives to him richly, Jacob just doesn't have the experience of it yet. HE gives him a dream showing HIMSELF in Heaven with a ladder connecting to him down below by angels and in that dream HE reaffirms HIS longstanding unconditional covenant promising to keep and bring him back to this present land. Now normally our walk with God is not a you do this God and then as result of you doing that I will make you my God (making God prove himself first). Our walk is more of first having the belief from hearing the word and getting to better know whom we believe in through the daily experience of trying to live that word forward. Much of that initial word is comprised of promises however. It is in the hope of seeing those promises fulfilled that we are propelled forward. The hope is that HE will keep us here and now and bring us back to the point that HE gave us vision. With hope there is expectation but, before expectation can be fulfilled there are to be numerous experiences that bring us to a fuller realization beyond that of just a generalized God but, of, as a result of a series of processes, a very specific and identifiable knowledge of Yahweh.

CR18Day_16 @ nkjv@Genesis:29 @ RandyP comments: Interesting that attractive beauty is brought up again with Rachel as it was with Sarah and Rebekah. For them their beauty was felt a danger by their husbands in these foreign lands and causes them trouble therein. Rachel is also described as a shepherdess working her father's flocks, grueling and demanding sometimes dangerous work. Jacob's immediate attraction to Rachel becomes his long pathway to experiencing Yahweh through trial and error. Not sure why Jacob thought of working seven years to earn himself Rachel when other more sure arrangements likely could have been made. He seems to have set himself up for the problems ahead.

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_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:30 @ RandyP comments: "I have learned by experience that the LORD has blessed me for your sake". For Laban to confess this to Jacob is amazing. Certainly it is true but, how many father in laws or employers ever even recognize this as being the case let alone confess it. Now when Jacob declares the same concept back to Laban it sounds to me more presumptuous. "..the LORD has blessed you since my coming. And now, when shall I also provide for my own house?" You see the impression given that God provided you all this through me now you provide for me? Why is it not so too God has/shall provide for me? Sure Jacob says "you shall not give me anything" and it is meant to say 'what you have is God's... give me of God's the speckled and spotted' but, it is given by Laban just the same. Despite how it sounds perhaps there is something greater being conveyed here, that Jacob knows his father in law too well and knows that his departure will effect his father in law's vast possessions and also his perception of Jacob's righteousness considerably; the break will not be clean. Jacob wants something for his wages but, this concern and familiarity scares him. He seems to know that God will bless the spotted stock in order to make the exchange right (or at least is calling upon to) but, feels he himself still must contend with Laban. Surely God wants Laban to get past this and let HIS chosen lineage go. It seems that this is God working through Jacob on Laban and yet Jacob working through God toward Laban but, Jacob's fears and intents at the same time causing some perceivable awkwardness to the transaction.

CR18Day_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the LORD who said to me...". Jacob is going from one difficult situation to another (at least one that is potentially dangerous) but, he is doing it in obedience to the LORD and he is doing it in faith. His faith is that the God that guided and watched over Abraham by unconditional covenant, the God who did the same for Isaac, having commanded him to return to his father's land and of descendents numerous as the stars that the same God will guide and watch over him as well. It has to be comforting to him in a hopeful way, yet at the same time there is the manner in which he had left his brother twenty years previous. Hope often has to be strong enough to overcome rational/irrational fear (and perhaps guilt) in order to keep us obedient. What God calls us to is rarely the easiest most natural thing for us to do. It is that way so that it strengthens or faith in the process. Jacob restrengthens his faith in remembrance of covenant God had made with him and his fathers. What remembrance do we restrengthen our faith in similarity? It might be wise for us today to list those things out for future reference.

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 strkjv@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: "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_23 @ nkjv@Genesis:41 @ RandyP comments: "..the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass". We can remember back to Abraham where he was told by the LORD that his descendents will be brought into Egypt and that they would find favor, but the heart of the Egyptians would turn and they would be placed in bondage for many years. This storyline is part of that greater storyline and we are basically only into the first act. These men Joseph and Pharaoh for as much of a role as they play are only playing a part in a story much bigger than either of them written long before either were born. As much as we like to give preference in our theories to an individual's abilities and choices, very little in this chapter can be proved as being anything remotely concerned with that. God gives a dream to one man, HE gives the interpretation to another; HE gives it in such a way that the one man gives to the other (a complete stranger/a prisoner/a Hebrew) governorship over his vast empire. God gives seven years of plenty to fill the storehouses, gives seven years of severe famine, drives Joseph's brothers without their knowing to Joseph's feet to plead for wheat to survive the widespread famine. Yes, there is the individual's ability and choice involved to an extent but, it has only a secondary importance to God's choice and ability and some promises made three generations ago. And God is not yet finished. The story of Abraham's descendents in Egypt is only a part of an even larger story of the descendents being given the land of Canaan for their own, a story that will lead them all the way to a promised Messiah (going back to Adam and Eve) and the eternal salvation of their very souls.

CR18Day_23 @ nkjv@Genesis:42 @ RandyP comments: "Joseph remembered the dreams which he had dreamed about them, and said to them..". For Joseph, his long journey began with some dreams given him as a youth that his family would one day bow themselves before him. Much has happened to Joseph along this journey but, nothing that would suggest to us that Joseph's will and determination has brought this moment now to take place. In fact for the longest time those dreams seemed to be nothing but dreams, dreams had made him to suffer; not so. This certainly is not the course one would plan out if to engineer an event when the making of the dream to come true would pass. This is because this event was not engineered by Joseph, it was engineered and brought to pass by the LORD; there can be no doubt of that the way the story is presented, everything described here tells us that it was by God's hand and God's hand only. What we now must consider about the movement of God's hand is that it moves upon God's favor, favor is what makes all of this to occur, favor actuated by promise. In the natural sense everything can appear to be working against the man. Because of God's favor though, even that which appears to be working against the man/woman is unknowingly working for him/her by God's hand. And in the end it can only be said that it was by God's favor and therein God is praised.

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_23 @ nkjv@Mark:16 @ RandyP comments: Let us be clear as to why we believe in the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is not just because of these few testimonies from people that had seen Him in the flesh resurrected at the time (central and key as this evidence is). No we believe because of all that God has established prior to these testimonies even before Jesus Himself was born incarnate. We believe because of what was promised Adam and Eve of a seed to crush Satan, we believe because of what was promised Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, we believe because of what was promised to Moses and David and several verifiable prophets speaking to all Israel. We further believe because of the way God conducted HIMSELF even in man's utter disobedience, we believe because of the grace and mercy and longsuffering HE has shown successively to each generation, what HE has brought HIS people through, how HE has gathered HIS people, how lovingly HE has at times corrected them, how HE has stayed true to HIS word and not forsaken us even when we have not fully reciprocated. Much more do we believe because of the manner in which Jesus was born, the attention and resistance and tension from men His presence received even early on as an infant, later because of His teachings, because of His works (their size and scope and form). We believe because of the way He became despised and rejected for little or no tangible reason, sought after to kill, illegally tried and sentenced, brought before the Roman magistrate to execute because the Jews could not themselves do it. We believe because of the way people responded after His death, during the reports of His resurrection, the wild fire that immediately started throughout the region because of His gospel. We believe because of the effect this essential truth has proven to be in the everyday lives of everyday people throughout the ages ever since. In other words we believe because of all that God has established before and after to make this known, to confirm it as happening, to bless and favor those that this gospel has touched. In essence we have collected the best individual books relating to this evidence and establishment into one larger book of books. Each has it's own place in the chain of evidence. This Bible is why we believe what we do about that Jesus of Nazareth, His death/resurrection/ascension, that is why we believe even further in the revelation of His soon second coming and the day of final judgment. It is because of all that God has done throughout man's time on earth that brings us to these very same conclusions. Many will argue the resurrection and ascension singularly as if that were all it took to dispel all this other. I would say rather that it is all this other that proves the case for this one tremendously joyous thing: Christ indeed has Risen!

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_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.

CR18Day_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:11 @ RandyP comments: The sin observed in Babel runs throughout children of men (son's of Adam). Essentially it is this 1. The make a name for himself 2. To make himself secure by his own doing both in direct rebellion to God. The command of God is to "go" fill the entire earth. With it comes frontier type individualism, non-centralized control, reliance upon God. With rebellion comes gathering into cluster, centralized power and control, socialization, many men working towards one cause the object of which is whatsoever the few in control task them to do. That whatsoever is the thing that most concerns God for the heart and intents of man toward God are only rebellion. Nimrod intends to have a tower built that reaches to the heaven. The tower is a symbol of man made religion for the masses to look up to, for the idols way up and authorities in the middle to look down from. It is such a minute and pitiful sight sight from heaven that the omnipresent God mockingly has to come way down from heaven even to see it. By confusing the one current language into many, God effectively partitions mankind against each other and thus partitions man from there being one central world government drunken on the blood of the godly as we the see in the end with the Whore of Babylon after God loosens HIS current restraint.

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_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?