Handy To Know

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#1
-
Hello; and welcome to the beginning of a collection of odds and ends from
the Bible that come in handy now and then for just about everybody.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#2
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The simplest difference is chronological, i.e. the Old Testament focuses
upon the Jews' religious history prior to Christ's birth, while the New focuses
upon the world's introduction to Christianity in connection with Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection.

2• "Old Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

3• "New Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people will eventually
agree upon with God as per Jeremiah 31:31-34.

/
 

FlSnookman7

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,125
135
63
#3
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The simplest difference is chronological, i.e. the Old Testament focuses
upon the Jews' religious history prior to Christ's birth, while the New focuses
upon the world's introduction to Christianity in connection with Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection.

2• "Old Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

3• "New Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people will eventually
agree upon with God as per Jeremiah 31:31-34.

/
With all due respect I must disagree. The entire bible points to Jesus Christ. The old covenant was between God and man while the new covenant is between Jesus and God the Father.
The old testament is all the books before Jesus walked the earth as a human. The new testament starts with Matthew but the new covenant starts in Acts.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#4
-
The Everlasting Gospel

This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.

Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the
everlasting gospel to preach to the people who dwell on the earth-- to every
nation, tribe, language, and people. Fear God! he shouted. Give glory to
Him! For the time has come when He will sit as judge. Worship Him who
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the springs of water!

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

1• There is 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.

/
 
Aug 27, 2017
521
9
0
#5
Luke 11:

30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

(ESV)

I like the comparison when thinking about The Old Testament and The New Testament.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#7
-
Light

Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to
create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific
properties, including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to
govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of,
other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths
and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though
light has no mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite invisible. For
example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can see the
Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's light is
visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't matter; it's
energy.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic
radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice,
soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy,
gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction,
reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure,
force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light
was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep

That statement reveals the planet's condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the earth's particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

NOTE: It's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily conceding
that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g. the
cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, aqua
life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

But when it comes to light they choke; finding it impossible within
themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description
of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why
wouldn't light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet
Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#8
-
The Length Of A Creation Day

Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves
that the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one
time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow
band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made
from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions
of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in an ocean. The tectonic forces
that pushed the Himalayans up from below sea level to their current height
work very slowly and require untold eons to accomplish their task.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning"

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the Sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the estimated 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#9
-
To Infinity And Beyond

Gen 1:16 . . He also made the stars.

Celestial objects require some special consideration because of their
apparent distances and the apparent time it takes for their light to reach the
Earth.

For example: last decade, an analysis of the light that Hubble telescope
detected coming from a distant galaxy named A1689-zD1 suggested it's
apparent distance at approximately 12.8 billion light years.

Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He
began constructing the stars; which indicates that as a physical structure,
the Earth should be older than A1689-zD1. But geologists have pretty good
reason to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5 billion years
old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion years old.

So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is Earth's senior
by at least 8.3 billion years. But there's a rub. Light's journey through
space is complicated by some curious mysteries.

1• The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all
directions. And not only is it expanding; but the velocity of its expansion
isn't steady, nor is it slowing down as might be expected; but rather,
contrary to common sense and Newton's standard laws of gravity; the
velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious force
which, for convenience sake, has been labeled dark energy.

Plus, the expansion isn't uniform. Galaxies farthest from our own appear to
be moving away faster than those closer in; which means of course that
viewed from those farthest galaxies; our own would appear to be moving
away faster than those closer in because the expansion is moving us too.

Ergo: many of the galaxies seen by powerful telescopes are quite a bit more
spread out now than when they were born. How much more I don't know;
but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion years, then it's my
guess the difference is significant.

2• Light has no detectable mass, yet is effected by gravity; so that light's
path through the cosmos is not always the shortest distance between two
points; which suggests to me that A1689-zD1 is nearer than its estimated
12.8 billion light years.

3• Although the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the void is a bit more
complicated due to the fact that it's state isn't steady. There are forces in
space influencing not only light's path, but also its velocity. There was a time
when scientists sincerely believed that although light could be slowed down,
it could not be sped up; now they're not so sure.

4• Light doesn't decay. In other words: there is no detectable difference in
age between the cosmos' first light, and the light emitted by the screen of
an iPhone.

5• The more that scientists study the cosmos, the more things they discover
about it that cause them to question what they believed in the past. Today's
scientific truth is only valid until another truth comes along to cancel it.

All the above suggests to me that A1689-zD1's apparent distance has no
bearing upon its age; viz: the estimated age of the cosmos is only loosely
theoretical rather than actual. In other words: current dating methods are
unreliable and subject to revision. It's very possibly true that the Earth really
did precede the stars just as the Bible says.

Now; a consideration that shouldn't be overlooked is that Gen 1:16 refers
only to stars visible to the author's naked eye, which would limit the
category to those of the Milky Way. In point of fact, as recent as the
beginning of the last century, most astronomers sincerely believed that the
Milky Way contained the sum total of all the stars in the universe; up until
Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies-- now
estimated to number as many as 200 billion in the observable universe.

God challenged Abraham to count the stars (Gen 15:5). But of course
without optical assistance, Abraham was limited to the stars of the Milky
Way; whose apparent diameter is estimated to be a mere 100-150,000 light
years.

The final say of course is the Bible. According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated
the earth on the day that God made them, which was prior to His creation of
humanity. In other words: it's not unreasonable to believe that God didn't
wait till starlight reached the earth on its own, but punched it straight
through in order to begin illuminating the earth immediately.

But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
Sistine Chapel.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)

Stars makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning
for them. I believe the universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as
intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and da Vinci --testifying to the genius of an
engineer-artist without peer.

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#10
-
Day And Night

Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct, and opposite, conditions-- the
absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Defining those conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing the chronology of
Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, it's essential to keep days and nights
separate. When people attempt to define "day" as a twenty-four hour
amalgam of light and darkness, they invariably come up with some rather
convoluted interpretations of Matt 12:40.

Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
distinguish Day from Night

On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.

These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for calendars but can lead
to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions,
and/or chronologies.

Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.
And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to
dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

That passage not only defines "day" as when the sun is up, and "night" as
when the sun is down; but it further defines night as when the stars are out;
and yet people still don't think God means it.

Christ defined Day and Night as they were practiced when he was here.

John 11:9 . . Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours in the day? A
man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.

"this world's light" is the sun; which Christ defined as "by day". So if Christ's
"day" was defined as when the sun was up; then Christ's "night" had to be
defined as when the sun was down.

So then, when Christ predicted his death to last for three days and three
nights, he obviously meant the hours of daytime and nighttime as they were
understood when he was here rather than some other era otherwise the
people in his own time wouldn't have known when to expect his crucified
body to come back to life.

NOTE: Daytimes divided into twelve divisions were regulated by what's
known as temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time
of year. There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when daytime
consists of less than 12 normal hours of sunlight, and sometimes more; but
when Christ was here; the official number of daytime hours was always 12
regardless.

I don't know exactly why the Jews of that era divided their daytimes into
twelve divisions regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it was just a
convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil affairs;
including the Temple's activities (e.g. the daily morning and evening
sacrifices)

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#11
-
The Image And Likeness Of God

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, creation's God is non physical.

"God is spirit" (John 4:24)

Spirit isn't solid. (Luke 24:36-39)

Moses warned 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). Concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely
fantasy. (Rom 1:25)

Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground.

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

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 feelings behind that
statement; and must admit that I agree with it whole-heartedly. But
creation's creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very
definitely above it too, and has the God-given right 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. And that's not the end
of it. According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to take control of even
more.

/
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#12
With all due respect I must disagree. The entire bible points to Jesus Christ. The old covenant was between God and man while the new covenant is between Jesus and God the Father.
The old testament is all the books before Jesus walked the earth as a human. The new testament starts with Matthew but the new covenant starts in Acts.

All one and the same testament written by the finger of God . The Old testament saints that had the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ in them by the Spirit of Christ they looked ahead to the suffering of Christ before hand and the glory that followed (the opening of the graves of Old testament men) who did have the Spirit of Christ in them . We look back to the same suffering demonstration afterward and the glory that did follow ,as the "time of reformation".... the rightly dividing principle . The same vantage point.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#13
-
The Everlasting Gospel

This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.

Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the
everlasting gospel to preach to the people who dwell on the earth-- to every
nation, tribe, language, and people. Fear God! he shouted. Give glory to
Him! For the time has come when He will sit as judge. Worship Him who
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the springs of water!

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

1• There is 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.

/
To these eyeballs, this sounds very much like the "credo" for masons, shriners, and even the 12 step program! And like every/anything, man gets their hands on, it becomes corrupted!


There are many many "spiritual entitites" out there claiming their "supremeness", OVER man! Merely, "objects" (not even gonna give "these" the respect they may well demand from man), that " go bump", in the darkness! Ever wonder why, when looking upon some pretty looking building, yea, even a church, or more particularily, some "cathedral", and see the pretty little gorgoyles looking down? And even, on "public" buldings, the using of ornated columns? (ashterah poles!) Remember the "celebration" of children "frollicking" around the "maypole?" ...Baal worshipers, or at least followers of!.....
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#14
-
Big Daddy

The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
all forms of life back to a singular genetic heritage regardless of species. In
other words; if you started with a raccoon, and followed it's branch down the
tree far enough, you'd eventually intersect with another branch that you
could then trace to mushrooms. The tree is sort of the equivalent of a Big
Bang of living things.

The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces
human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no
matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can
eventually be linked to a common ancestor; which of course is no surprise to
Bible students.

Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And
the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,
and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.

The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23
contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's
translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other
twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"

In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as
was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated
from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her flesh and her life from Adam;
consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's flesh is Adam's flesh.

Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother
of all people everywhere.

Acts 17:26 . . He made from one man every variety of mankind to live on
all the face of the earth

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human
father because if Christ was biologically related to his mother, and if his
mother was biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to
Adam just like everybody else.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#15
-
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers
because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800
years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his day, rather than death as the Bible thumpers understand it in their day.
In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die
normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It
can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours' viz;
the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The
day ain't over yet"

Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
seriously.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#16
-
Why Everyone Has To Die At Least Once

Prior to Moses an official code of divine law, containing lethal consequences,
had yet to be issued.

Rom 5:13-14 . . Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is
not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned
from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin
by breaking a command, as did Adam.

The answer is: they all had to die not because of breaking an official code of
divine law; but because of Adam breaking just one (Gen 2:16-17). His
disobedience in the matter of the forbidden fruit effected his entire posterity:
both the good and the bad; the young and the old.

This is really difficult for some people to get their heads around.
Nevertheless, it's very important to accept it whether one understands it or
not because Paul applies this principle in his effort to explain why it is that
believers never have to worry about being condemned for their sins. (Rom
5:12-21)

NOTE: Opponents are often quick to point out that Ezek 18:20 says that
children don't share their father's guilt. But hey, which came first? Adam or
Ezekiel? So then, since Adam's incident came along many years before
Ezekiel's prophecy, then God was at liberty back then to reckon Adam's
posterity as joint principals in his act of disobedience.

Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin; and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

"all sinned" has no reference to all's own personal sins; just Adam's, i.e. his
sin became everyone's sin, even everyone yet to be born.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#17
-
Why Cain Was Rejected

Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 8:20 and Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only issue: Cain himself was an issue too.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?

Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was actually impious. (1John 3:12)

In what way was he impious? Well, my first guess would be friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the holy days of obligation. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.

Bottom line is: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.

1John 1:5-6 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#18
-
Why God Didn't Execute Cain For Murder

Gen 4:12-13 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to
you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth. Cain said to the Lord:
My punishment is too great to bear!

Cain's punishment was relatively lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't
punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to
survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is
that fair?

Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he
executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for
murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num
35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is intrinsically wrong, yes; and it's intrinsically a sin, yes;
however; it hasn't always been a capital sin. According to Deut 5:2-4, Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law
can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is
precisely why God didn't have to execute Cain for murder.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#19
-
From Whence Cain Got A Wife

Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was
constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In
other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as
Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life,
rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped the work and has been on a
creation sabbatical every since.

According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.

Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life descend
from a solo specimen.

Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

The Greek word for "nation of men" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to
racial diversity.

Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.

An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three
sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's,
and Japheth's children all married amongst themselves.

Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem
and Ham and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these
the whole earth was populated.

Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof
of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930,
and Noah to 950.

Now as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13,
and Gal 3:17; God doesn't enforce His laws ex post facto: viz: they are not
retroactive. So then, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to prosecute
pre-historic people for incest because it wasn't prohibited in their day; and
wouldn't be until later in Moses'.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#20
-
How The Critters Got To Noah

Gen 6:3 . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet
his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude
that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years
left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody?
Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the
earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life;
everything on earth shall perish.

Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each
into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From
birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on
earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers.
God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which
implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went
extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because
Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1897-- eight years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and fifteen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably
reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many
species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure
points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for
example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was
once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's
crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into
the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they
cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form
mountain ranges and hill country.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter
forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the
waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the
sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys
sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a
boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover
the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for
showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any
geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land
bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's
diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico,
are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to
fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was
quite a bit different in the ancient past.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway,
although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at
various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water.
That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but
those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who
has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological
processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

/