Zuno_Yazh

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!

/

-

The below is an item of interest that may or may not have any bearing upon the OP.

● Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

At the time of the offering of Isaac, Abraham actually had two biological sons; the other was Ishmael. So then, how might Isaac have been the only biological son?

Well; it's impossible to actually revise one's biological heritage; but there was a legal way to do it back then.

● Gen 21:10 . .[Sarah] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

The phrase "cast out" implies cruelty; and leaves a wrong impression. Sarah (and God too) wanted her own flesh and blood to follow in Abraham's footsteps instead of Hagar's boy Ishmael; and, in the case of slave mothers, there was a perfectly humane way to do it.

I'm told that the common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner in effect not only disinheriting the slave mother's child, but also disowning him.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

● Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away:

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest biological son.

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother.

NOTE: I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more. No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future plans for Isaac. Even if Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, I suspect that God would have eventually required it so anyway.

/

16 hours ago, TRKJVlover said:

the Only Begotten Son of God;

The koiné Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, and John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, and 1John 4:9 is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combo of two words. I'll tell you what it means; but I won't tell you how to interpret it because there lacks a consensus of opinion how best to do so.

The first is mono, which is a common prefix, e.g. monophonic, monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome, monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words: monogenes refers to one distinct biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole biological child in the New Testament. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.

Obviously then, an adopted child can never be strictly monogenes in the home because though it might be a home's only child, it wouldn't be a home's only biological child.

Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

/

-

● 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.

/

-

● Gen 6:5 . . God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

It's freaky to contemplate that humanity's designer has a way to eavesdrop His creatures' mental processes on a level with which they are mostly unfamiliar.

● Matt 15:19 . . Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,

So then, it's not how your mind works that defines you, no, it's how your heart works that defines you; and a man's heart is easily capable of hoodwinking his own consciousness.

● Jer 17:9 . . The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

There is a part of us that psychology labels the subconscious; which in Freud's opinion is a repository for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories, and painful emotions put out of mind by the mechanism of psychological repression. However, the contents do not necessarily have to be solely negative.

In the psychoanalytic view, the subconscious is a force that can only be recognized by its effects-- in other words: your mind's thoughts can be construed not as replicas of your hearts thoughts; but rather, as symptoms of your heart's thoughts.

The key word in the above is repression. God is able to de-suppress those repressed contents and submit them as evidence in the prosecution's case against an accused. That means He will be confronting people with things that they never before really knew about themselves; and that's why I sometimes say only a fool would take their chances with God. They have no clue the extent of the psychological tsunami they're walking into.

/

-

Rom 12:1 . . Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Sacrifices are basically things dedicated to God; i.e. set aside for God's purposes and/or utilized in such a way as to make God feel special instead of disgusted and/or disappointed.

Rom 12:2 . . Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Personal Bible reading is a good place to begin; however, the will of God isn't meant to be self-taught; it's meant to be instructed by teachers empowered by God for that purpose.

● 1Cor 12:29 . . Are all teachers?

No, not all are teachers; which of course precludes self-teaching. Only some are teachers and the rest of Christ's believing followers are supposed to be students, i.e. disciples.

● Eph 4:11-13 . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith

Sermons and Sunday school classes are Christianity's traditional sources of teaching. But there's radio programs too, e.g. Thru The Bible with Dr. J.Vernon McGee. These days with radio, television, and the internet; Spirit-inspired teaching is wide-spread and readily available.

In centuries gone past, it was necessary to go where the teachers were in order to hear them speak. Nowadays, they can come to speak where you are by means of electricity and electronic gadgets.

/

-

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)

/

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

I don't believe that comment is suitable on this forum.

Think about it Invicta. How's anybody supposed to discuss the Bible if they don't know what they're talking about?

Those kinds of discussions can only end up as perpetual bull sessions that never get to the bottom of anything because the Bible isn't meant to be learned by means of discussion; it's meant to be learned by instruction that's taught by someone enabled by God for that purpose. (Eph 4:11-14)

● 1Cor 12:29 . . Are all teachers?

The answer to that is a great big NO.

● 1Pet 4:11a . . If man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.

The koiné Greek word for "oracles" is logion (log'-ee-on) which means something spoken as opposed to something written. In other words; logion isn't talking about quoting the Bible, rather, it's talking about speaking as God and for God. If speakers can't to do that-- if they can't sincerely believe themselves speaking as God and for God, i.e. standing in for God --then they really need to do us all a favor and keep quiet because they'll only be speaking as themselves and for themselves; muddying the waters and creating confusion, and quarrelling, bigotry, intolerance, taking sides, accusations, rivalry, ivory towers, and bad feelings; in other words: not conducive to unity; which, according to Eph 4:11-14, is contrary to the Lord's wishes.

/

4 hours ago, DaveW said:

So do you NOT check to see if a teacher is qualified to teach you?

Do you just accept absolutely anyone to teach you without question?

Patience me boy; patience. If this thread survives; it will eventually get to information in the New Testament's epistles related to Christ's believing followers hooking up with Spirit-enabled teachers.

BTW: If you prefer teachers with seminary degrees, and/or recommendations, and/or accolades, and/or books published, and/or many years and hours of preaching, lecturing, and Sunday school experience: I can tell you right now that your search criteria is faulty; but we'll get to that all in good time.

/

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,

Though Roman Catholicism incorporates the Ten Commandments portion of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; technically it isn't based upon that covenant.

/

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

Heya - what qualifications do you have to teach in scriptural matters?

There's some information about me in the "Introduce Yourself" area. Look for New Old Man On The Block. My testimony is there too. You'll have to scroll down a little to find it.

There's additional information contained in the introduction to the Daily Genesis thread in the "Bible Issues" area.

BTW: If you are not competent and/or qualified to teach the Bible, then you are sure as heckfire not competent and/or qualified to discuss it nor to critique others making the effort.

/

-

● Luke 16:25 . . Abraham said, Son, remember

I should think that one of the negative aspects of hell is memory. How people down there retain their memories sans the brain cells they left behind with their corpse, I don't know; but they do, just as the rich man is able to experience thirst sans a flesh and blood tongue.

The older one gets, the more memories they accumulate, and many of those memories haunt us with terrible regret. However, people in hell not only have to cope with their bad memories, but also the good ones too, and I should think it is remembering the good things they enjoyed in life that makes their situation only worse in the heat.

They say it is better to have loved and lost, rather than not to have loved at all. I tend to disagree as I suspect it is far better to not know what you're missing. Ignorance really would be bliss in the once-rich man's situation.

Just think: that poor guy is still in anguish down there to this very day; something like 1,958 years since Luke penned his gospel in 60 AD. In the grand scheme of things, that man is only just getting started on eternity because 1,958 years is little more than a warm-up for the main event. To put that in perspective: 60 AD was something like 1,432 years before Columbus discovered America.

/

-

Rom 6:11 . . Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

"dead to sin" in this case doesn't mean Christ's sheep don't sin (cf. 1John 1:8-10). It means that sin can no longer give God cause to slam them with the sum of all fears.

● John 5:24 . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Note the grammatical tense of the "hath" verb in the above verse. It's present tense rathe than future; indicating that people who hear Christ's word, and believe on God, have everlasting life right now-- no delay and no waiting period.

Rom 6:12-13 . . Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Whether Christ's believing followers sin or don't sin will make no difference in their eternal destiny. However, they really should make an effort to walk as people in heaven rather than people in hell.

/

1 hour ago, Alan said:

your church, or fellowship, or doctrinal background,

There's some information about me in the "Introduce Yourself" area. Look for New Old Man On The Block. My testimony is there too. You'll have to scroll down a little to find it.

There's additional information contained in the introduction to the Daily Genesis thread.

BTW: Just a friendly reminder gang. This thread isn't about me, nor is it about you. It's about Christ's commandments. Let's stay on-topic; always keeping in mind the world is watching, so we really ought to give them something useful to think about instead of talking about ourselves.

/

26 minutes ago, DaveW said:

If you teach it straight then there will be no criticism - but so far you have not.

It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.

It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

(Mark Twain)

DaveW; is it impossible that what you sincerely think is truth isn't? Do you honestly believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra?

I urge you to exercise restraint in your choice of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them.

/

47 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Why don't you let us all know what it is you are trying to sell to us?

I am not a salesman; I am a herald doing just exactly what Christ ordered.

● Matt 28:18-20 . . And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Christ's commands aren't limited to the Gospels; they continue right on into the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and John.

● 1Cor 14:37-38 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

● 1Thess 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

I have nothing to gain by your compliance with Christ's commands, nor do I have anything to lose by your non compliance. But there are plenty of people out there in cyberspace who have plenty to lose by my silence.

I once heard tell of an autistic boy who said to his dad that airplanes fly so high because he isn't afraid of heights. You see; in the boy's mind, air traffic control is designed to accommodate his personal feelings about altitude.

Point being: when certain personality types have been on an internet forum for a while they tend to become not only territorial, but also somewhat bigoted and intolerant.

Senior forum members also tend to be quarrelsome and bossy; somehow assuming that their lengthy tenure grants them a license to police a forum, dictate its use; and manage it like a fraternity.

Back in the heyday of CB radio, we used to call those kinds of breakers channel bosses; which was a polite way of calling somebody a nuisance. (There was a cuss word modifying "nuisance" but seeing as how forum etiquette requires keeping a civil tongue in one's head, I can't repeat it.)

I urge you to stop making a nuisance of yourself DaveW. Have some consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others. As CBers used to say back in the day: Let the channel roll.

FYI: The internet is a mission field. Never forget that what you post on here can be seen world wide.

/

31 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Are you promoting or criticising the four spiritual laws?

How about you just state plainly what your agenda is?

The Four Spiritual Laws is the title of an outreach booklet authored in 1952 by Campus Crusade for Christ founder Dr. Bill Bright.

The information contained therein is okay as far as it goes; but not an adequate code of conduct for new Christians just starting out and wondering what's expected of them. Follow me down the rabbit hole and I'll show you; day by day, and little by little.

/

-

The Four Spiritual Laws is the title of an outreach booklet authored in 1952 by Campus Crusade for Christ founder Dr. Bill Bright.

The information contained therein is okay as far as it goes; but not an adequate code of conduct for new Christians just starting out and wondering what's expected of them. Follow me down the rabbit hole and I'll show you; day by day, and little by little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Acts 15:20a . . Abstain from pollutions of idols

Here's the text of a common Christian prayer.

"Bless us, Oh Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from thy bounty through Christ, Our Lord. Amen."

That prayer credits the providence of God and His son for the nourishment on the table. Well; in the old Roman world, they sometimes credited the providence of a pagan god for their nourishment.

Acts 15:20b . . Abstain from fornication

The koiné Greek word for "fornication" is porneia (por-ni'-ah) which refers to harlotry; viz: promiscuity, e.g. adultery, incest, shacking up, one night stands, sleeping around, and/or carnality related to one's religious ideology, e.g. the Rajneesh movement that once operated a large community in Antelope Oregon.

Acts 15:20c . . Abstain from things strangled

The meat of a strangled animal is different than that of a butchered animal. Though a strangled animal may be brain dead, it's flesh will be viable for a bit because the blood in its veins still has usable oxygen in it.

Acts 15:20d . . Abstain from blood

There are cultures that poke holes in cows' necks in order to drink blood straight out of the animal utilizing its own blood pressure like a tap to fill their cups. Other cultures cut open the thorax of animals freshly taken in hunting in order to take blood-soaked bites of the animal's heart. Those examples are probably about as close to vampirism as one can get without actually joining Edward Cullen's family and undergoing the conversion process.

/

-

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

/

58 minutes ago, DaveW said:

There are people here who would happy to discuss these issues.

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

/

-

Genesis 1:24-26a

Please forgive me for posting another installment so soon. Truth is: I'm really anxious to get to the human story 'cause that's where the real action is.

● Gen 1:26a . . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that man's creator is a human being; or at least resembles one. But according to Christ, the Creator is non physical.

"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24)

Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)

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)

There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its creator; except maybe the air in front of your face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21-23). Pagan concepts that portray the Creator as a human being are purely fantasy. (Rom 1:25)

The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identities of the antecedents.

● Gen 1:26b . . and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Humanity's right to dominate the earth is primarily where we find its image and likeness of God. In other words: Man's image and likeness of God is mostly about sovereignty, power, control, and authority. (cf. Gen 44:18 and Ps 82)

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.

I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:

We are not above the Earth;

We are of the Earth.

Well . . I respect the Native American cultural sentiment underlying that statement; and must admit that I agree with it to a certain extent. But creation's creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the God-given power to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to take control of even more.

Another aspect of humanity's image and likeness of God is immortality.

"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Ex 3:13-14)

In other words: God always was, He always is, and He always shall be.

Although it could never be said of humanity that it always was; in the beginning it could at least be said that humanity always is and always shall be; because according to Gen 3:22, people were meant to continue indefinitely.

God created all manner of living things in swarms and herds and flocks; no doubt to keep their numbers up because they weren't apportioned the tree of life for nourishment. It was located in the garden of Eden; to my knowledge, the tree was located nowhere else on Earth. In addition; the Hebrew word for "garden" indicates it was walled; probably to keep out foraging animals. In point of fact, I seriously doubt that the tree of life would've helped extend the life span of non human creatures even had they eaten from it; viz: the tree of life was strictly human food: a sort of ambrosia, so to speak.

Humanity is as close to divine as a creature can possibly get.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Ps 82:6)

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." (Ps 8:4-8)

● Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In verse 26, Man was created in "our" image. In this verse Man is said to be created in "His" image. It appears to me that the difference is due to the word "own". In other words; "our image" is not quite the same as "His own image". There seems to be a subtle difference between "us create" and "He created"; or maybe it's just my imagination.

NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to the first couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human race in total. In other words: Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does Gen 2:16-17 because according to Rom 5:12, that's how it worked out.

Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's a biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all human beings are of the Adam species and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of Adam; including Eve because she was made from a human tissue sample amputated from his body. Bible students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't eo ipso indicate males

/

-

Genesis 1:24-26a

● Gen 1:24-25 . . And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

We've come now to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including dinosaurs and humans.

This grouping of creatures (except for Man) isn't specifically given the blessing of fertility; but if God would bless aqua creatures and those with wings, why ever would He not bless the terra species too who are just as important? But since they've been reproducing all this time, then I'd have to say there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the assumption that they too were empowered to reproduce.

The Hebrew word for "living" is chay (khah'-ee) which basically indicates existing as life as opposed to existing as non life. For example, the structural elements of Noah's ark existed as non life; while it's passengers existed as life.

(Some people insist that all things are alive. I recommend leaving that belief at the door when crossing the Bible's threshold because scripture doesn't accommodate it.)

Chay makes it first appearance at Gen 1:20 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; and many times in the Old Testament thereafter; including fifteen times in reference to the Creator; e.g. Jer 10:10, indicating that the Creator is a living being as opposed to a totem pole or a mythical fantasy. There is a very large number of instances recorded in the Old Testament where the creator speaks of Himself as "I am".

Terra critters weren't created ex nihilo; rather, from the very land upon which they live; i.e. God used earthly materials and ingredients already at hand to construct them. Neat-O. Not only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet Earth; but they are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and decompose.

The "beasts of the earth" in this instance, simply refers to wild life as opposed to domesticated life.

The word for "cattle" is behemah (be-hay-maw') and means a mute beast (a.k.a. dumb animal). Behemah are the herd species from which came those that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and wagons, provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat and dairy for table, carry loads, and transport people from place to place on their backs. (Probably one of the better things that Spain did for Native Americans was make it possible for them to have horses.)

NOTE: Looking for a steed on the cheap? Well; according to the May 2017 issue of Smithsonian magazine; there are something like 70,000 wild horses and burros running free on Federal lands causing an unacceptable amount of environmental damage. No doubt the BLM would appreciate your help in reducing those numbers.

Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.

The plural of behemah is behemowth (be-hay-mohth') a word which some have construed to indicate dinosaurs; citing Job 40:15-24 as their proof text. However, it's easily proven that the era of monster reptiles was long gone before Mr. Job was even born.

It's no accident that some of the animals are so useful to Man. God made them for the express purpose of serving people. Although they're nephesh, same as Man, that doesn't make them equals with Man. However, although beasts are below the rank of the image and likeness of God, people have no right to be cruel to animals. But Man does have the right, by the creator's fiat, to take advantage of them; and to induct them into slavery for Man's benefit.

"creeping things" is the word remes (reh'-mes) and means: a reptile; or any other rapidly moving animal. Dinosaurs would've been included in this grouping.

/

9 hours ago, Alan said:

So, as I read your postings, it appears to me you believe in evolution, or in theistic evolution. Or, do I read you wrong?

Classical evolution per se, is, I believe, a spurious fantasy because it discounts intelligent design. But Bible students have to allow for a least a degree of genetic and somatic adaptations and mutations or Genesis won't make any sense at all-- at least not to me anyway.

/

-

Judas goats are trained for use in slaughterhouses and herd control. In stockyards, they lead sheep to slaughter; and are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical traitor Judas Iscariot.

The phrase has also been used to describe goats utilized to locate feral goats targeted for eradication. They're usually outfitted with a transmitter, painted in red and then released. The goats then locate the remaining herds of feral goats, allowing hunters with tracking devices to find and exterminate them. The red paint marks the goat with the transmitter so the hunters know which one not to shoot.

You know what can be even worse than going to hell? Your own children following you there: and they trusted you.

Here's a sort of cute story I heard once. I don't know if it's true but I guess it's probable.

A boozing farmer went out to his barn in the dead of night after a snowfall to sneak a pull from his liquor bottle. Just as he got to the barn door he heard something behind him. Turning, the farmer recognized his little boy coming towards him. In amazement he asked the little guy how he ever managed to find his way out to the barn in the dark. His son replied: It was easy; I walked in your footsteps.

Can you just imagine the anguish that parents in the netherworld feel knowing that they inadvertently raised their children in an ideology that led them down the road to hell and all the while sincerely believing themselves doing the right thing? In other words: they actually Judas-goated their children to follow mom and dad down there. For some families, the only thing they have to look forward to in the afterlife is a sad reunion in fire and despair.

● Luke 16:27-28 . . Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

That poor man had no way to contact his surviving kin and let them know his whereabouts; but his biggest fear was that he knew them all well enough to know that all five were coming down where he was-- there was nothing he could do to prevent it.

POP CLOCK UPDATE: 9 days have elapsed since beginning the thread. If the figures in post #1 are in the ball park, then something like 597,366 new arrivals have checked into the fiery sector of hades since Apr 01, 2018.

/

-

Genesis 1:20-23

● Gen 1:20-21a . . And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:

How can water alone be used to create living things? Well, it can't be any more difficult than creating the entire cosmos ex nihilo; i.e. from and/or out of nothing.

The word for "creature" is from nephesh (neh'-fesh) which distinguishes conscious life from non-conscious life. For example: though saguaro cacti are alive, they aren't nephesh because saguaro cacti aren't conscious, i.e. nephesh refers to all critter life great and small; but never to non critter life.

Nephesh shows up first in Gen 1:20-21 as sea creatures and winged creatures.

Next it shows up in Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts.

It shows up again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.

It shows up again in Gen 2:19-20 as the creatures to whom Adam gave names.

It shows up again in Gen 9:8-16 as all conscious life aboard the ark, including Noah and his family.

Some say that animals are people too. Well . . they're certainly not human, but according to the Bible, they are very definitely just as much a nephesh as a human being. So I guess we could consent, at least to some degree, that critters are people too; in their own way.

The Hebrew word for "fowl" is 'owph (ofe) which just simply means covered with wings as opposed to covered with feathers. It's a rather unusual word because it includes not only creatures with feathers, but according to Lev 11:13-23, 'owph also pertains to bats and flying insects. The English word "fowl" was obviously an arbitrary translation since owph is ambiguous.

What did those early flyers look like? Well; I suggest that at least some of them had to be Pterosaurs because on no other day but the fifth did God bring about winged critters. Precisely when and/or how God phased out those early skin-winged creatures is one of science's thorniest mysteries. It's reasonable to assume that whatever exterminated the Pterosaurs should have exterminated everything else with wings too; but somehow birds, bats, and flying bugs are still with us.

It's important to note that winged creatures were just as distinct a creation as aqua creatures. So winged creatures didn't evolve from creatures who once lived in the sea. Winged creatures are a separate genre of life in their own right, and absolutely did not evolve from some other order of life.

"great whales" is from tanniyn (tan-neen') and/or tanniym (tan-neem') which mean: a marine or land monster. Tanniyn is sometimes translated "dragon" as in Isa 27:1

It wasn't a tanniyn, however, that swallowed Jonah. That creature was either a dagah (daw-gaw') a dag (dawg) or a da'g (dawg). All three words indicate nondescript fish.

NOTE: The reason I quoted the three Hebrew words for "fish" is because the fact is: translators are not always confident how best to represent a Hebrew word with the English alphabet. In point of fact, there are ancient Hebrew words that nobody really knows what they mean so translators are forced to take educated guesses here and there.

"every living creature that moveth" would include not only critters that swim but also critters that creep, e.g. starfish, lobsters, crayfish, newts, clams, and crabs et al.

But what about aquatic dinosaurs? Well; according to Discovery's web site "Walking With Dinosaurs" paleontologists believe there were some amphibious reptiles such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, but those creatures didn't have the gills necessary to be truly aquatic like Nemo and his dad Marlin.

● Gen 1:21b . . and God saw that it was good.

In other words: He was satisfied.

The Hebrew word for "good" in this instance is towb (tobe) which is horribly ambiguous. It's meanings range from morally good, to good looking, to a job well done, to something that's good to the taste; and to a whole lot of other things in between; e.g. a good show, good food, as good as it gets, satisfactory; etc, etc.

● Gen 1:22a . . And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,

This is the very first place in the Bible where the Hebrew word for bless shows up. It's somewhat ambiguous, but in this case I think it's pretty safe to assume that it means to furnish freely or naturally with some power, quality, or attribute; i.e. provide, endow, and/or empower. In other words: the blessing of fertility was a providential act; and no doubt included microscopic creatures as well as those visible to the naked eye.

Providence is common in the Bible; especially in Genesis.

● Gen 1:22b . . and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Winged creatures have the advantage of flight; which, in my estimation, makes them more fortunate than creatures confined to water. The wingers get a much better world view from above than those below. Flying broadens one's horizons, so to speak, and gives us a bigger picture. Amphibious flyers, e.g. cormorants and grebes, have the best of both environs; they see things from above as well as from below.

Aqua creatures exist in the most unlikely places. When the crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste descended into the 35,761 feet Challenger Deep located in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench in 1960, they didn't really expect to find anything living down there; but to their surprise, they saw a flat fish similar to sole and flounder.

The video camera on board the Kaiko probe spotted a sea cucumber, a scale worm and a shrimp at the bottom.

The Nereus probe spotted a polychaete worm (a multi-legged predator) about an inch long.

● Gen 1:23 . . And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

/