Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_01 @ USER INSTRUCTIONS @ RandyP comments: This journaling facility is intended to be used for bible commentary and to share external web links that might be of interest to the current bible topic. Please refer all general usage questions to me directly so that we can keep the commentary clean and free from general user distractions. Thank you!

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Genesis:8 @ RandyP comments: Our odd pairing question is answered in nkjv@Genesis:8:20. The seventh clean creature was used as an offering as soon as they got off the Ark.

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_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_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_17 @ nkjv@Genesis:31 @ RandyP comments: "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued me?" Funny how one even when in the right can yet be in the wrong, at least by association. Jacob is right. Unknowingly though his wife Rachel is placing him in the wrong; she has in fact stolen some of Laban's idols. The whole list of everything Jacob has done and endured righteously over twenty years under Laban's idolatrous hands is called into question because of another person's (his bone of bone/flesh of flesh) act say of sentimentality or possible duplicity. This comes from the one person Jacob longingly suffered for the most, the one with whom he was smitten for at first glance. It is an ugly ugly story anytime deception has to be used to keep the greater storyline right side up. It is even uglier when it is the one whom you most love, that is most beautiful in your eyes that brings that unknown cloud knowingly over your head.

CR18Day_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_20 @ nkjv@Genesis:39 @ RandyP comments: "But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him mercy". It is a popular notion that the Lord's blessing brings nothing but good, it is not of the Lord if it brings bad. Being largely superficial we see that on the surface that it doesn't look good for Joseph; sold into slavery, falsely accused of sexual misconduct, imprisoned, forgotten. If this is what being righteous brings, why consider being righteous then? On the other hand, looking deeper we see that the Lord truly is with Joseph raising him to the top each and every time. Other people could see that the Lord was with Joseph, they trusted him so much with their businesses that they themselves didn't even know what business was being done; yet they prospered like at no other time. The question as we would have it becomes why then should other people prosper when the righteous man remains a slave? This friends is often the dividing point between the mind set of a righteous man from a not so righteous man: the righteous will continue trusting and serving the Lord regardless of/with little consideration of what it will mean to himself, the not so righteous will do so only when it means a foreseeable good unto himself. One such person should ask how righteous being not so righteous really is.

CR18Day_20 @ nkjv@Mark:15 @ RandyP comments: In most present day judicial systems a man is innocent until proven guilty. At the very heart of that statement is the notion that an innocent man should not need to prove his innocence, rather it is on the prosecution to first prove his guilt. If and once the prosecution has done that then the man still would have the further right to fully defend his innocence. The natural instinct is to pile up the two mounds of evidence at the same time and measure which pile stands up taller. Such an instinct neglects the more judicious notion that the accused man is first innocent. There is a common baser instinct as well that the accused is first guilty and has to prove himself innocent else why would have been arrested and brought before this court anyway. It is precisely because the evidence can be misread, evidence can be trumped up or falsified, clearer evidence can be avoided, others can be lying. The evidence in this case is clearly not what convicts Jesus, Pilate could find no evidence. What convicts Jesus is public sentiment which has been roused up by his accusers. No defenders came to His legal side. No witnesses were called on His behalf. It was a largely a trial only brought before the court of His accusers afterwards brought before a whimpish political judge that cared more for his own waning popularity than for any form of human justice. In the end however, it is not ultimately about human justice, it is about divine justice, Christ suffers our form of justice in order to bring to us precisely that.

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?