heartstrings

Adrian Rogers was a great preacher.

Unfortunately, this is becoming too common. Metal illness needs to be address in our society today, and that should start in our Christian homes.

Two of my grandchildren got saved this week. They could not wait to Facetime with Grammy and Grampy to tell us all about it. All five of my children are raising their kids in church just like we raised them. I am so undeserving!

In our area, people just leave churches of all stripes. lol. Cuz the mountains and the trees are enough "church" for them.  (a wee bit of sarcasm there, but based in complete truth). I've not heard of any celebrating going on when folks leave.

In the King James, there are two basic forms of the word "you".  If the sentence is speaking to a group, as the direct object, the plural form "you" is used (or "ye" if the group is the subject) If speaking to an individual, it uses the word "thou".(or thee for a direct object). But I never noticed this before. The following verse changes from plural to singular.


Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God in His grace, specifically offered life and death, blessing and cursing to the whole group (you, plural). But He then specified that it was up to the individual (thou) to choose.
 

Genesis 6 is the summary of the more specific events in Genesis 4 and 5. 
In Genesis 4 it says Cain and "Lamech" killed people and Lamech took "two wives". This zeros in on the fact that men were committing polygamy and murder. Jesus even stated that "in the days before the flood" they were "marrying and giving in marriage". Genesis 6 sums it up saying they were "taking wives of all" and the earth was filled with violence". At the end of Genesis 4 it says that when Seth's son "Enos" was born, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Subsequently, the men who did so became "sons of God" by faith. Those men of faith are then NAMED in Genesis 5 and these same men are also named in the lineage of Christ in the Book of Luke. All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people. Genesis 6 sums it all up referring to them as "sons of God" "taking wives of all"
So, where these saved people went wrong, however, is by participating in the polygamy and marrying for beauty instead of spirituality and character.  So when they did so, and lived for hundreds of years, each "son of God" witnessed his "Seth" family lineage grow into a superpower within his own lifetime. They all would have been "mighty men" by sheer population, by wealth, by military strength, and by political alliances(the giving in marriage thing). They were conforming to the world. The "giants" were simply big warriors like the ones in the land of Canaan and nothing more. In a world without machine guns or other high-tech weapons, size was an important factor in hand to hand combat.. Hence, "giants" were to be feared. Angels are not mentioned in this story of Genesis 4. 5, or 6.

[quote]Matthew Henry observes, "All the patriarchs here, except Noah, were born before Adam died..." [/quote]
Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Then Luke 3:38 says...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 
Shows that Adam being "the son of God", had to be included with those mentioned as "the sons of God" since he was alive "when men began to multiply".
 

Genesis 6 is the summary of the more specific events in Genesis 4 and 5. 
In Genesis 4 it says Cain and "Lamech" killed people and Lamech took "two wives". This zeros in on the fact that men were committing polygamy and murder. Jesus even stated that "in the days before the flood" they were "marrying and giving in marriage". Genesis 6 sums it up saying they were "taking wives of all" and the earth was filled with violence". At the end of Genesis 4 it says that when Seth's son "Enos" was born, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Subsequently, the men who did so became "sons of God" by faith. Those men of faith are then NAMED in Genesis 5 and these same men are also named in the lineage of Christ in the Book of Luke. All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people. Genesis 6 sums it all up referring to them as "sons of God" "taking wives of all"
So, where these saved people went wrong, however, is by participating in the polygamy and marrying for beauty instead of spirituality and character.  So when they did so, and lived for hundreds of years, each "son of God" witnessed his "Seth" family lineage grow into a superpower within his own lifetime. They all would have been "mighty men" by sheer population, by wealth, by military strength, and by political alliances(the giving in marriage thing). They were conforming to the world. The "giants" were simply big warriors like the ones in the land of Canaan and nothing more. In a world without machine guns or other high-tech weapons, size was an important factor in hand to hand combat.. Hence, "giants" were to be feared. Angels are not mentioned in this story of Genesis 4. 5, or 6.

Genesis 6 is the summary of the more specific events in Genesis 4 and 5. 
In Genesis 4 it says Cain and "Lamech" killed people and Lamech took "two wives". This zeros in on the fact that men were committing polygamy and murder. Jesus even stated that "in the days before the flood" they were "marrying and giving in marriage". Genesis 6 sums it up saying they were "taking wives of all" and the earth was filled with violence". At the end of Genesis 4 it says that when Seth's son "Enos" was born, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Subsequently, the men who did so became "sons of God" by faith. Those men of faith are then NAMED in Genesis 5 and these same men are also named in the lineage of Christ in the Book of Luke. All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people. Genesis 6 sums it all up referring to them as "sons of God" "taking wives of all"
So, where these saved people went wrong, however, is by participating in the polygamy and marrying for beauty instead of spirituality and character.  So when they did so, and lived for hundreds of years, each "son of God" witnessed his "Seth" family lineage grow into a superpower within his own lifetime. They all would have been "mighty men" by sheer population, by wealth, by military strength, and by political alliances(the giving in marriage thing). They were conforming to the world. The "giants" were simply big warriors like the ones in the land of Canaan and nothing more. In a world without machine guns or other high-tech weapons, size was an important factor in hand to hand combat.. Hence, "giants" were to be feared. Angels are not mentioned in this story of Genesis 4. 5, or 6.

Even named persons, which none of us really know, are  publicly "consigned to the ignominy of both ignorance and unreasonableness" on this board from time to time. But this particular individual shall remain nameless. As a young Christian, this was the subject which prompted me to study the Bible  in more depth than I ever had before and it was one phrase which made me question the "fallen angel" interpretation when I first heard it; something that just didn't sound right: The pastor used the phrase "cohabited with women". When you have to change/alter what the Bible says about something to make your point, well, that's just changing the word of God. Because the King James Bible says they took "wives. Tell me please why fallen angels who had rebelled against God, dooming themselves to be a 'devils" or "demons" would take women as a "wives"? And why would a preacher call it "cohabited"? Anyway, this one thing made me question everything I hear men say from pulpits instead of taking their word for it as "knowing more about it" because of their notoriety, position, education, or status. And it's not wrong to question and verify what you hear.
Acts 17: 
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
 
You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

That's a quote from the Book of Jude.
Three groups of sinners from the Old Testament are mentioned in the Book of Jude:
1. The angels which "kept not their first estate" had rebelled against God and were cast out because they "despised dominion"
2. The Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness murmured and complained against Moses so they are the ones who "spoke evil of dignities".
3. The Sodomites were perverts so they are the ones which "went after strange flesh". People get this wrong by trying to say that it was the angels who went after strange flesh while completely ignoring the fact that this was the sin of the Sodomites.

Even named persons, which none of us really know, are  publicly "consigned to the ignominy of both ignorance and unreasonableness" on this board from time to time. But this particular individual shall remain nameless. As a young Christian, this was the subject which prompted me to study the Bible  in more depth than I ever had before and it was one phrase which made me question the "fallen angel" interpretation when I first heard it; something that just didn't sound right: The pastor used the phrase "cohabited with women". When you have to change/alter what the Bible says about something to make your point, well, that's just changing the word of God. Because the King James Bible says they took "wives. Tell me please why fallen angels who had rebelled against God, dooming themselves to be a 'devils" or "demons" would take women as a "wives"? And why would a preacher call it "cohabited"? Anyway, this one thing made me question everything I hear men say from pulpits instead of taking their word for it as "knowing more about it" because of their notoriety, position, education, or status. And it's not wrong to question and verify what you hear.
Acts 17: 
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
 
You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

Luke 3:38 ..........which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
In the genealogy of Christ found in Luke chapter 3, Luke says that Adam was "the son of God". So if we look back in Genesis 5 we find that Adam 
Genesis 5: 3nd Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
 
Genesis 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Three things to assemble here:
1. Men "began to multiply"
2. Adam was still around for "830 years" after "men began to multiply"
3. Adam was a "son of God"(per Luke 3:38)
So  puts Adam in the group "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2: 
How did Adam become a "son of God"? By calling upon the name of the Lord like everybody else. All of the men named in Genesis 5 are also listed in Luke chapter 3 in the Genealogy of Christ and all of those listed are sons of God by faith. That faith began back in Genesis 4.
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.  Genesis 4:26
John 1:12 But as many as received him,(the Word) to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Whose name? 
 
 
The "certain men crept in unawares" in the NT were the ones doing all three sins of those in the OT. But I digress.

That's a quote from the Book of Jude.
Three groups of sinners from the Old Testament are mentioned in the Book of Jude:
1. The angels which "kept not their first estate" had rebelled against God and were cast out because they "despised dominion"
2. The Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness murmured and complained against Moses so they are the ones who "spoke evil of dignities".
3. The Sodomites were perverts so they are the ones which "went after strange flesh". People get this wrong by trying to say that it was the angels who went after strange flesh while completely ignoring the fact that this was the sin of the Sodomites.

That's a quote from the Book of Jude.
Three groups of sinners from the Old Testament are mentioned in the Book of Jude:
1. The angels which "kept not their first estate" had rebelled against God and were cast out because they "despised dominion"
2. The Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness murmured and complained against Moses so they are the ones who "spoke evil of dignities".
3. The Sodomites were perverts so they are the ones which "went after strange flesh". People get this wrong by trying to say that it was the angels who went after strange flesh while completely ignoring the fact that this was the sin of the Sodomites.

Even named persons, which none of us really know, are  publicly "consigned to the ignominy of both ignorance and unreasonableness" on this board from time to time. But this particular individual shall remain nameless. As a young Christian, this was the subject which prompted me to study the Bible  in more depth than I ever had before and it was one phrase which made me question the "fallen angel" interpretation when I first heard it; something that just didn't sound right: The pastor used the phrase "cohabited with women". When you have to change/alter what the Bible says about something to make your point, well, that's just changing the word of God. Because the King James Bible says they took "wives. Tell me please why fallen angels who had rebelled against God, dooming themselves to be a 'devils" or "demons" would take women as a "wives"? And why would a preacher call it "cohabited"? Anyway, this one thing made me question everything I hear men say from pulpits instead of taking their word for it as "knowing more about it" because of their notoriety, position, education, or status. And it's not wrong to question and verify what you hear.
Acts 17: 
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
 
You're right, I should mention this to the Brother in private. But I certainly didn't feel led to cause anyone embarrassment in the Sunday School class.

I turned 62 last April and my Wife turned ...never mind. So we finally decided to join the "Adult"(seniors) Sunday School class. The very first lesson, I kid you not, was on Genesis 6 and the teacher told us that he agreed with the "Angels cohabited with women"  view(his words) because the scholars he read "know more about it than we do". I just kept my mouth zipped. Why bother?

Yes, Psalm 23 is speaking of the Good Shepherd, who stated that He "giveth his life for the sheep". That is a stark contrast to earthly shepherds whose sheep give their lives for the shepherd. From some of my limited and flawed observations, I am inclined to believe that there are other "opposites" written in Psalm 23 as well. For instance; I've observed that sheep prefer to paw out the grass so that they can lie down in the dirt. When sheep rise from these little beds they have made, they relieve themselves in the beds rendering the area in and around them unfit for grazing. If a whole flock of sheep are allowed to lie down in such an area for even one night,, they ruin it because a sheep will not eat where there is urine or excrement until it has been rained on sufficiently; And if they DO have to graze there they will ingest parasites which greatly impairs their health. So putting the flock on fresh pasture(ideally every day) practically eliminates parasites because it disrupts the parasites' life cycles.
But they WILL lie down in these beds night after night; and that's OK if that is a designated bedding area. So, I'm inclined to believe that any "bronze age" middle eastern shepherd who had even an ounce of sense was not going to allow his sheep to lie down in a rare and precious "green pasture" because that pasture was scarce and it was his livelihood.  Any ancient shepherd should have taken notice of this as very unusual upon reading or hearing Psalm 23 because the Good Shepherd does make his sheep to ''lie down in green pastures". To me, that is saying that the Good Shepherd has such an abundance of "green pastures" that he doesn't have to let his "sheep" lie in a sandy area in our own filth ; Even though it's our nature to "lie in the dirt" of this world and in the filth of our own making, He makes us "lie down" to rest in a clean place.

Yes, Psalm 23 is speaking of the Good Shepherd, who stated that He "giveth his life for the sheep". That is a stark contrast to earthly shepherds whose sheep give their lives for the shepherd. From some of my limited and flawed observations, I am inclined to believe that there are other "opposites" written in Psalm 23 as well. For instance; I've observed that sheep prefer to paw out the grass so that they can lie down in the dirt. When sheep rise from these little beds they have made, they relieve themselves in the beds rendering the area in and around them unfit for grazing. If a whole flock of sheep are allowed to lie down in such an area for even one night,, they ruin it because a sheep will not eat where there is urine or excrement until it has been rained on sufficiently; And if they DO have to graze there they will ingest parasites which greatly impairs their health. So putting the flock on fresh pasture(ideally every day) practically eliminates parasites because it disrupts the parasites' life cycles.
But they WILL lie down in these beds night after night; and that's OK if that is a designated bedding area. So, I'm inclined to believe that any "bronze age" middle eastern shepherd who had even an ounce of sense was not going to allow his sheep to lie down in a rare and precious "green pasture" because that pasture was scarce and it was his livelihood.  Any ancient shepherd should have taken notice of this as very unusual upon reading or hearing Psalm 23 because the Good Shepherd does make his sheep to ''lie down in green pastures". To me, that is saying that the Good Shepherd has such an abundance of "green pastures" that he doesn't have to let his "sheep" lie in a sandy area in our own filth ; Even though it's our nature to "lie in the dirt" of this world and in the filth of our own making, He makes us "lie down" to rest in a clean place.

Yes, Psalm 23 is speaking of the Good Shepherd, who stated that He "giveth his life for the sheep". That is a stark contrast to earthly shepherds whose sheep give their lives for the shepherd. From some of my limited and flawed observations, I am inclined to believe that there are other "opposites" written in Psalm 23 as well. For instance; I've observed that sheep prefer to paw out the grass so that they can lie down in the dirt. When sheep rise from these little beds they have made, they relieve themselves in the beds rendering the area in and around them unfit for grazing. If a whole flock of sheep are allowed to lie down in such an area for even one night,, they ruin it because a sheep will not eat where there is urine or excrement until it has been rained on sufficiently; And if they DO have to graze there they will ingest parasites which greatly impairs their health. So putting the flock on fresh pasture(ideally every day) practically eliminates parasites because it disrupts the parasites' life cycles.
But they WILL lie down in these beds night after night; and that's OK if that is a designated bedding area. So, I'm inclined to believe that any "bronze age" middle eastern shepherd who had even an ounce of sense was not going to allow his sheep to lie down in a rare and precious "green pasture" because that pasture was scarce and it was his livelihood.  Any ancient shepherd should have taken notice of this as very unusual upon reading or hearing Psalm 23 because the Good Shepherd does make his sheep to ''lie down in green pastures". To me, that is saying that the Good Shepherd has such an abundance of "green pastures" that he doesn't have to let his "sheep" lie in a sandy area in our own filth ; Even though it's our nature to "lie in the dirt" of this world and in the filth of our own making, He makes us "lie down" to rest in a clean place.

Way back about 1980, when I first started voting( I voted for Reagan), and I would tell folks that the Dems were communists, they would look at me like I was from another planet. But that's exactly what they are; and have been for decades, They are striving for a communist totalitarian dictatorship, and if they get it, it won't be pretty.

No love=no "Spirit"
No Word of God = no "Truth" (KJV)
We must have both to please God. If we only hold to one or the other, we have neither.

No love=no "Spirit"
No Word of God = no "Truth" (KJV)
We must have both to please God. If we only hold to one or the other, we have neither.

When I was selling sheep to Muslims, I would always ask what country they were from. They would usually come in groups of 3, occasionally just two. One thing that was interesting is you would have like one guy from Saudi Arabia, another from Kuwait, and another from Bahrain, or the West Bank,  All would be speaking Arabic and acted like they were just best buds. One of the guys, from The West Bank, a Palestinian, had been educated in Morocco ( I checked out his Facebook page). So why, if all these Muslim folks can get along so well, do the other Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Quatar, etc etc.,  not take in the Palestinians? Is it solely to keep them there as a thorn in Israel's side?

Their nasty religion reminds me of this.....
Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
A woman covering herself is good in and of itself. But I want no part of conforming to any facet of any dead religion which practices, sanctions and celebrates the things Islam does.