Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Zuno_Yazh

Daily Genesis

Recommended Posts

False doctrine is no trivial pursuit, and one who continues to try to teach false doctrine will have a hard time here. 

If you don't believe the first chapter of the Bible is true, then you have no place teaching anything in a Bible believing forum.

We don't want your poison, and we won't allow you to sell it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2018 at 9:11 PM, Zuno_Yazh said:

 and the origin of Yhvh's people.

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Zuno_Yazh said:

 

Moses instructed Yhvh's people to avoid making any kind of mannequin, figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19)

 

Cliff,

You have a penchant of using, "Yhvh's people," inserted in your text. This usage of, "Yhvh's people is, quite frankly, unusual and a little besetting.

Do you not like to use, "God's people? Or, "the saints of God?"

Is it due to a different version of the bible than the KJV?

Is it due to your continual reference to the Hebrew? Is so, please give us the Hebrew dictionary that you are using.

Alan

P.S. If it due to the church that you belong?Or, group that you belong to? I would like for you to give us the name of the church, or group, or fellowship, and the translation that you use.

 

 

Edited by Alan
corrected the P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zuno_Yazh said:

 

Sorry; but I have a lot of material to cover in Genesis. I can't allow myself to get bogged down in trivial pursuits.

 

/

The doctrine of the literal creation is a trivial pursuit?

The doctrine of the literal creation is of extreme importance which is not to be taken lightly. In this study you, not us, brought up the evolutionary process (through a descriptive process). So, the issue of whether or not the creation of the world was by evolution or creation is fertile ground for discussion and of utmost importance and is not a "trivial" matter to be dismissed lightly.

Edited by Alan
grammer (twice)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

I regret to announce that as of this post I will no longer contribute comments to Daily Genesis.

 

/

Edited by Zuno_Yazh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

Hello again;

 

Sorry for that temporary blackout. It was definitely cowardice on my part for letting a certain element hereabouts intimidate me. Nehemiah would have never caved like I did and I'm ashamed. Anyway, I'm ready now to put my nose back to the grindstone; so let's get back on track forthwith and get this wall built!!

 

Gen 1:28a . . And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,

 

Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law; especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.

 

It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.

 

NOTE: The belief that couples should enter marriage for no other reason than procreation is an invention right out of an ascetic imagination; and if truth be known, it's in defense of a celibate clergy. According to Gen 2:18-24 and 1Cor 7:7-9, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather than procreation. If in fact deliberately childless marriages are wrong, then Catholicism's platonic union of Joseph and the Lord's mom would be a sinful relationship.

 

Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.

 

Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God intended for His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He wired them all with libido rather than instilling within them a sense of duty. It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their own, propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections.

 

Gen 1:28b . . and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

The Hebrew word for "replenish" can be either male' (maw-lay'); or mala' (maw-law') which are very ambiguous. Some have attempted to say that "replenish" indicates a previous generation that was somehow exterminated in a mass extinction event. Well; the argument is pretty weak seeing as those words can also mean simply to fill rather than refill.

 

The Hebrew word for "subdue" is from kabash (kaw-bash') which emphasizes coercion and force; and means: to disregard; to conquer, and to violate.

 

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down; to subjugate.

 

kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined leave no room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate planet Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to no plant nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be arrested for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because this earth is h.sapien's domain.

 

But the interesting thing is; the Adam species is also the monarch of the whole cosmos; not just the dinky little third rock from the Sun where he hangs his hat.

 

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." (Heb 2:8)

 

Gen 1:29-30 . . And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

. . . And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

Prior to the Flood; man, beast, bug, and birds too-- even the lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for sea life is not stated.

 

That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's obvious that they didn't use their teeth like that at first.

 

For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. And everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks; which he doesn't use to kill his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom in search of his favorite mollusks.

 

Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid, named Tiarajudens eccentricus, exhibits saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.

 

In the kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man or to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)

 

/

Edited by Zuno_Yazh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teach it Biblically and everyone will be happy.

But you have already shown you like to redefine words and terms, so we will be watching very closely.

We would also like to know why you should be trusted and what your doctrinal position and background that means you should be trusted.

And no, I won't stop pushing this point. 

Until you give us a reason to trust you, why should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

Gen 1:31 . . And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God entrusted the task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in truth it was incomplete?

 

In reality, Man hasn't improved the planet at all. He has actually ravaged it and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it with warehouses and factories and malls and residential communities.

 

A prime example of this kind of destruction is INTEL's massive Ronler Acres Campus located on what was once agricultural land in Hillsboro Oregon. Thousands of cubic yards of perfectly good topsoil was scraped away during construction of the facility. What did they do with it? Was it transferred elsewhere in order to use it for farming? No, instead INTEL used it to build a massive berm all around the facility where the soil will never again grow food. NIKE did the very same thing with the topsoil scraped away during construction of its facility in Beaverton.

 

Man's denuding of watersheds has caused unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation. He's dammed rivers, thus disrupting ancient fish migration routes. He's over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMO vegetation; and made possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.

 

It seems that everything man touches, he ruins; and as if the Earth isn't enough, he's moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched its first Sputnik into low Earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). Humans have even discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including the golf balls that astronaut Alan Shepherd left behind.

 

So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with pride and satisfaction in a job well done.

 

I believe creation's creator knew precisely what He was doing, and where He was going with creation; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in medicine and rocket science. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.

 

"O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all" (Ps 104:24)

 

NOTE: The information disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis is incorporated in the text of a gospel labeled as "everlasting".

 

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev 14:6-7)

 

The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:

 

1• There's a supreme being.

 

2• He deserves respect.

 

3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and

 

4• The cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of intelligent design.

 

Of particular interest to me is the inclusion of water in the everlasting gospel. Scientists theorize the origin of the earth's amazing quantity of water without really knowing exactly where it came from, nor how it got here. Well; that is one of the things that I like about Genesis. It takes an essentially unsophisticated, uneducated blue-collar welder like myself and gives him answers to questions that people much brighter, and better educated cannot answer.

 

Giving "glory" simply indicates giving someone credit where credit is due; and "worship" can be roughly defined as reverence, i.e. honor and respect.

 

It's quite natural to admire celebrities, pro athletes, and super achievers-- to give them credit where credit is due --but not quite so natural to do the same for their creator.

 

Anyway, point being: people either believe in intelligent design, or they don't. If they do believe, then they will admire both the designer's genius and His handiwork. If they don't believe; then they will neither admire nor respect anything about Him: simple as that.

 

/

Edited by Zuno_Yazh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't believe the Bible means what it says - we saw that in your totally false and unjustified redefinition of terms earlier in this thread.

Why on earth should we trust someone who doesn't believe the first chapter of God's Word?

Especially when that one is presuming to TEACH FROM THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE, but he doesn't believe it means what it says!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuno_Yazh, could you make the attempt to engage with other forum members on points they bring up for discussion rather than pushing ahead? I think you'll see a better response from folks. 

I'm not going to lock this thread yet, but let's see 1) actual engaging, rather than didactic lecturing, and 2) focus on topic, not people (from both sides). I'll keep an eye on the reporting system, so feel free to use that if any significant issues arise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Salyan said:

could you make the attempt to engage with other forum members on points they bring up for discussion rather than pushing ahead?

 

NO!

 

/

Edited by Zuno_Yazh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuno_Yazh, "No" is not an acceptable answer to a moderator on these forums. Moderators are here to moderate at the request of the board owner and uphold his board policies. This type of response to a moderator will not be tolerated on this board.

Salyan's request as a moderator was reasonable and fair. Your reply to her was unchristian at best and absolutely rude by any standards. If you claim Christ as Savior you should hang your head in shame for your disrespect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×