Comments - journal RecentComments

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: The sower sows the word.... He sows it indiscriminately on to a variety of different soils. Why waste seed where it will not be received? Many would think that it is the condition of the heart that determines whether the seed is received (which it is), but that each person is responsible for the condition of their heart (which might be a stretch for this parable - what can soil do on it's own to prepare it's own self?). Have you ever known a sower that was not a farmer? Is not the seed received received by the soil that he himself tilled? that he himself didn't compost and fertilize? that he himself didn't level, furrow and irrigate? Again I ask why waste seed everywhere else? How else does the sower do all this other at the same time? Why even the birds of the air are getting in on some word (not that it will do them any good)!

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_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: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_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_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: It seems to me that Reuben was willing to risk his brother's wrath by delivering Joseph back to his father Jacob. It would have made for big trouble in the household. Judah however saw it as an opportunity to turn a profit. Judah becomes the line of descendants that Christ is promised through. So it is not because of any exemplar behavior that the bloodline is chosen. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin later will become the only two tribes that remain of the divided nation Israel, the other tribes will split away. The Ishmaelites you'll recall take us back to Abraham and Hagar's son Ishmael. Midianites also descend from Abraham from his second wife Keturah. They would be the cause of plenty problems for Israel in years to come. Of interest is that Jacob's son are taking action with absolutely no thought even for their father Jacob who will be devastated by the sight of the bloodied tunic. No thought for Joseph, no thought for Jacob, no thought for Benjamin Rachel's other son, no thought for God righteousness, and one could even say no thought for themselves. This I believe to be a result of ungodly jealousy, consuming anger, murderous rage which is amplified in their hearts because of polygamy.

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_05 @ nkjv@Genesis:10 @ RandyP comments: The names listed here in 10 are what many call the "Table of Nations". From these three major family divisions come the first 70 nations of the world. Ham's division for instance extends south into Africa, from his generations come upper and lower Egypt, another comes Libya, another Ethiopia etc... Ham's son Canaan is of particular interest as those nations become a constant source of trouble later for Israel. From Japhath come the nations to the far east Asia/Russia/Eastern Europe. Shem is where we get those of the middle east mainly, the Persians, the Aramaic, the Semites, the Greeks, those that eventually settled north up the coast toward Spain and Brittan. Shem is also where we get Eber (the root word leading to Hebrew) whom through we arrive later at Abraham. Note that chapter 11 happens at the time of Nimrod, meaning that this genealogy covers both the three generations Ham to Nimrod, from Nimrod the Tower of Babel and the division of human language and beyond. With this table of nations adequately laid out for us to understand then Moses returns us back to the time of Babel in 11. Also note that it only takes three generations from Ham to Nimrod after the flood for the sin of all men to raise to a point of God's direct action again.

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?