Comments - journal RecentComments

CR18Day_04 @ nkjv@Psalms:104 @ RandyP comments: "At Your rebuke they (waters) fled". Judgment leads to the deluge, rebuke hastens it's retreat. It is an odd way of saying that HE rebuked what HE brought to pass. The only way I can find of explaining this is that HIS ultimate intention is not to judge man, but to get man through this state of wicked unrighteousness. HE rebukes what HE has brought down upon man having judged man to be wrong as a secondary thought to HIS ultimate objective of making man right through the additional process herein. Complicated... isn't it?

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 rsv@Isaiah:14:12-15 rsv@Ezekiel:28:11-19, perhaps even a pre-adamite world on earth. Consider also that all the LORD's works are perfect rsv@Deuteronomy:32:4 rsv@Job:38; beautiful/hidden from the beginning rsv@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_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_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 rsv@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@Mark:14 @ RandyP comments: By criticizing the woman pouring perfume over Jesus these men are criticizing Jesus who is allowing her to do so. The men (some = more than just Judas) are quite taken back by the wasteful expense of this woman's act and are presumably thinking just of the poor. Godliness often is situational, what is godly in one situation (even in most situations) may not be godly in all situations; it may only be godly in one particular situation yet that is precisely to where the ball has bounced. That seems to be the problem with rigid legalism just as it seems to be the problem with soft wrapped good works and intentions. The presence of God in the flesh seems to bring about several of these changes in godly direction, examples like disciples not fasting etc.. What is generally true is in fact a good standard to follow, but better still is keeping an eye on the bouncing ball and the game at hand is far wiser.

CR18Day_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_24 @ nkjv@Genesis:44 @ RandyP comments: Great concern must be raised as to whether Joseph actually divines information or not. The most logical explanation is that he is making it look like it to his brothers to continue concealing his true identity. If not the case we are struck with possibility that Joseph has learned divination from the Egyptians. In later years divination is strictly prohibited by the Law of Moses. I would imagine that even before the law God was just as offended by it as with the Law. Joseph is never confronted by God on this issue, which leads me to believe that he was not actually divining. The other alternative may be that the translation of the word into English may be misleading. My brief word study dict:strongs H5172 is showing the Hebrew word as split between the prohibited type of prognostication and the lesser observational/experiential form. In this case, that it is the cup being the object referred seems to substantiate the darker meaning; one would not simply anticipate events in the future by using a cup.