Hos 4:6 Their LACK of the 'knowledge of God" (See Eph 1:17) is what is hindering them from understanding truth. This is a SPIRITUAL lack, not necessarily an intellectual one...although they are related to a point. This type of 'lack of knowledge' comes through iniquity as well as generational curses AND willful...WILFUL disobedience.
They now have medical/scientific proof that "continued deviant behavior CHANGES the chemical make-up of the brain...NOT the other way around which is what the Gay movement wants the public to believe...another lie.
Of the sixty-five occurrences of the word in the Old Testament, five refer to something as being an abomination to another people. Thirteen of the things labeled "abominations" are dietary restrictions, the observation of which would bar a person from consuming such things as clam chowder, shrimp and, one of my favorites, the non-existent four-legged insect, which certainly refers to something besides what we call "insects".
Yes, and in Acts 10:13-15 GOD Himself removes that labeling of 'abomination' over any edible thingSeventeen refer to improper sacrifice, although I am hard pressed to think of a single Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) congregation that slaughters animals on their altars these days.
When, in truth, the Jewish people SHOULD be sacrificing animals because they hav NOT accepted the shed blood of Christ as payment for their sins and are still living according to the OT. Outright adultery and adultery cause by divorce, which is prohibited by the Bible even though it is a widespread practice today, account for three of the verses.
And nothing has changed; adultery is still sin and God Still does not like divorce. In addition to Jesus's comment in Luke, the love of money is decried as an abomination in two Old Testament passages. Four related verses cite dishonest trading practices as abominations. Twelve other verses list behaviors ranging from murder to women wearing "anything that pertains to a man" (for example, pants)
If you do the research, you will find that it was women who first wore pants.. Eight passages, including the one from Revelation, are not clear about what they mean by "abomination." Precisely two refer to homosexual behavior.
what is your point here? That because there are only two in the OT that refer to homosexuality, it is a 'lesser sin'? Consider the REITERATION of that OT commandment in the NT found in Romans 1:26!! Verses in the OT pertaining to sodomy (the OT word for homosexuality): Genesis 19:5-8; Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:22,23;20:13,15,16;
Never mind the dietary ones,their next thing to point out is about clothing made from diverse fibers,which under the mosaic law is an abomination also.
That is LEVITICAL law. See Lev 19:19)
This is a excellent answer I found to address this: "Why is wearing two different types of fabric a sin?
Ok it says in Leviticus. I hear people say thats only for the Jews. But where does the Bible say its only for the Jews? It also says in Leviticus that lying with another man is abomination. So that must also only be for Jews. How do Christians justify breaking a ton of rules in the Bible but decide to keep a select few? Christians also aren't supposed to eat pork, and Jesus never denounced that law despite what people say.
5 months ago Report Abuse
Ernest S Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Your question is full of gross ignorance and therefore it is difficult to answer.
It is a pity that you do not read the Bible for yourself for then perhaps you would be able to ask a clearer question.
Firstly it does not say not to wear different types of fabric on the skin.
The restriction was upon a woolen and linen mixture.
These requirements were only given to the children of Israel who were called out to be holy and to bear the Saviour, the Messiah.
All of the Mosaic Law was but a shadow to illustrate the reality to come. There were physical requirements to illustrate spiritual truth.
To focus upon your original question. Wool keeps warm and can cause sweat, which speaks of man's work and works which are required under the Law.
Linen is a covering of the flesh that does not cause sweat and represents righteousness to cover sin, and the only righteousness acceptable to God is that given by God through faith in His work.
The clothing was not to be mixed with wool and linen because what they represent are contradictory. Wool represents Law and Linen represents Grace. Law cannot be mixed with Grace without spiritually fatal results, therefore wool was not to be mixed with linen." at Why is wearing two different types of fabric a sin? - Yahoo! Answers
If one can keep up with this then they will point out Paul was a Pharisee,Paul never uses the word abomination.
Irrelevant. That could very simply be a language issue. Then the next question is why didn't he use it if it is still an abomination?
You must remember that Paul's heart's desire was to please the Lord. Coming down in a harsh manner would not benefit the Kingdom in the manner in which God desired. Consider the letters that Paul wrote to each one of them. He was fully able to clearly inform them of the displeasure they were bringing to the Lord without using that word. so again...that Paul did not say "abomination' is irrelevant.
(Remember the restrictions on the dietary laws were removed,so the thinking is if those were removed why not this also if the word abomination is no longer used in the New Testament) Jesus speaks of the abomination of desolation
which means "the abomination that brings desolation" so reset your thinking on that one and John talks about Mystery Babylon.
Consider what the word 'mystery' means; darkness, unknown, secrets. what does either of these have to do with sodomy STILL being an abomination/sin?? ...all sins ARE abominations to God, BTW...
Maggie
