Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Jim (53.80) pointed to the creation account in Genesis as a difficult
    passage.
    
>    Human beings were created after plants and animals appeared in Gen
>    1:12,21,25,27. Human beings were created while the earth was still
>    inhabited in Gen 2:5, 9.
    
    I'm not sure I understand what the problem is, so what I'm about to say
    may not make sense. If it appears that there's a problem reconciling
    Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, it is probably because you don't recognize
    that chapter 2 is just a "blow up" of chapter 1.
    
    Genesis 1 gives us the big picture - an outline if you will - of what
    happened "in the beginning." This outline ends with Gen. 2:3. Starting
    at 2:4 the narrative focuses on the pinnacle of God's creation, viz.
    mankind, and fleshes out (no pun intended) the creation account from
    man's perspective.

>    The commentary ask the question...Must one adhere to a perception of the
>    scientific findings? (Light itself was created before the heavenly
>    bodies that give off light. Gen 1:3,16)
    
    It should come as no surprise that light was created before the
    heavenly bodies. This may be better addressed in Garth's note, but I
    think the problem comes because of our definition for "light". If we
    define light as simply the existence of photons, then even those who
    accept the Big Bang theory would agree that photons existed before the
    matter formed into stars.
    
    It's also noteworthy that Gen. 1:3 uses the singular whereas v14 uses
    the plural. Just as it reads, God created "light" (whether that's
    photons or something else) on Day 1 and then collected it into distinct
    luminaries on Day 4.
    
    	BD�

    From OT to NT. Another difficulty that Jim mentioned in 53.80 deals
    with Jesus' cleansing of the temple.
    
>     In the New Testament there is conflicting chronology in the Gospel
>     story.
>
>     Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of His ministry during one 
>     of His several visits to Jerusalem John 2:13-17. The cleansing occurred
>     during His only visit, which took place just before his death. 
>     Matt 21:12-17, Mark 21:12-17, Luke 11:15-19, Luke 19_45-28.
    
    There is no conflicting chronology here. Jesus obviously cleansed the
    temple twice: once at the start of His ministry, as recorded in John,
    and once at the end of His ministry, as recorded in the synoptics.
    
    The remark above that "the cleansing occurred during His only visit"
    reflects a preconception not confirmed by the Scriptures. Jesus was in
    the temple plenty of times, not just once.
    
    While there are obvious similarities between the two accounts, there
    are also significant differences. For example, the first account (in
    John) happened early in His ministry, it seems He simply strolled in
    with no fanfare, there is mention of oxen and sheep, and at the end He
    engaged in dialogue with the Jews.
    
    The second account (in the synoptics) happened at the end of His
    ministry, He entered Jerusalem with throngs shouting "Hosanna", He
    quoted Isa. 56:7, there is only the mention of doves, there was a
    different exchange with the chief priests and scribes, and there is the
    fig-tree encounter.
    
    Once it is seen that these are in fact two different accounts the
    reconciliation of these passages is no problem.
    
    	BD�

    Barry, what you have given in your two replies seems to be your own
    rationalization. For one, I don't recall anywhere in the New Testament
    that specifically or implicitly says Jesus cleansed the temple twice, nor 
    have I ever heard it preached. Your reply is the first I hear on it.
    
    I don't mean to debate here, but could you give us some background
    information as to how you came up with this interpretation ?

    Jim

    On the Genesis contradictions. The reason for the contradictions is
    because the Pentateuch is written from four different oral traditions.
    The oral traditions tell the same stories in a different way. The
    four oral traditions are : Yawehist, Elohist, Priestly, and
    Deuteronomic. Each tradition used different styles and vocabularies and
    scholars have come to realize that this is part of the reasons for the
    contradictions in the Pentateuch.


     Jim

>    I don't mean to debate here, but could you give us some background
>    information as to how you came up with this interpretation ?

I thought .2 gave the information you request.

>    Barry, what you have given in your two replies seems to be your own
>    rationalization.

And what would you call the way you have interpreted these "problem"
passages?  Not rationalization?

MM

    Jim are you saying that Moses did not write the first 5 books? Or, are
    you saying that Moses *did* write the first five books and then *others*
    took his writings and began translating and interpreting these works?
    Please clarify?
    
      PDM
    

    re. .4
    
    to use your own words from .3 ----
                                                                   
    >>>  what you have given in your reply (.4) seems to be your own
        rationalization. For one, I don't recall anywhere in the New or Old
        Testament that specifically or implicitly says Moses did not write
        the Pentateuch, nor have I ever heard it preached by
        anyone serious.
    
    	The four writers scheme has long been discredited.
    
    	By the way, the politically correct response nowadays is that it
    	was written by "J", a woman.
    
    	In another word: Horsefeathers.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                   

    Hi Mark ! 
          What I printed isn't MY rationalization, but information from 
    scholarly sources such as the Collegeville Bible Commentary and commentary 
    from the New American Bible. I've also attended a course in Scripture 
    given by a scholar in which he gave me the same information.

    Peace
    Jim

Hi Jim !
>          What I printed isn't MY rationalization, but information from 

   ...true enough, but then my rationalization isn't mine either, for
it comes from the predisposition of an inerrant Bible, and other 
scholarly sources (Zodhiates, Dake, etc), as well as personal 
experience.

;-)

Mark

    RE:9
    Fine Mark,
               all I said was that Barry's reply seemed like personal
    rationalization. He didn't give reference or perhaps I missed it
    to what he was saying.



    Jim

    Hello Mr. Jim Richard,
       I would like to know why you fail to answer questions that I
    have posted to you, specifically? Is there some difficulty of which
    I am not aware?
    
    You have not responded to my question in .5 and in murdering a murderer
    topic (.98 and .12mumblefritze) as well.
    
     Just curious,
       !PC

    RE:11

    Sorry, if I missed your questions. I went back to 62.5, .12 and .98.
    Only .98 was yours and you were replying to someone else. The question 
    to me was at the end and I must of missed it. I'll answer the question
    over in that note.


    Jim 

Re .3 (Jim)

>    Barry, what you have given in your two replies seems to be your own
>    rationalization. For one, I don't recall anywhere in the New Testament
>    that specifically or implicitly says Jesus cleansed the temple twice, nor 
>    have I ever heard it preached. Your reply is the first I hear on it.
    
    You're right that nowhere does it say, "Jesus cleansed the temple
    twice." However, when you compare the account in John with the one in
    the synoptics you see that there are several differences.
    
>    I don't mean to debate here, but could you give us some background
>    information as to how you came up with this interpretation ?
    
    I'm hoping this *will* be the place for Scriptural debate. What kind of
    "background" information would you want? Just read the passages you
    yourself posted. Compare the setting and details of the one in John
    with those of the synoptics.
    
    Perhaps you've gotten into the habit of only giving credence to the
    opinions of others; hence the need for background information? I do
    know folks who go to commentaries first in an attempt to understand the
    Bible. My philosophy is to go to commentaries last.
    
    There is no substitute for getting it directly from the Bible itself,
    but if you would like me to find quotes from others who might share "my
    rationalization" I will be happy to provide them. I'm not the smartest
    Bible student in the world, so I'm sure I could find others who also
    teach the same thing. So, if my quoting others (instead of pointing you
    directly to the Word) would help you better sort through things please
    let me know.

Re .10 (Jim)

>               all I said was that Barry's reply seemed like personal
>    rationalization. He didn't give reference or perhaps I missed it
>    to what he was saying.
    
    I didn't think I needed to repeat the references since you were
    obviously aware of them. However, for completeness here they are:
    Matt. 21:1-27; Mark 11:1-33; Luke 19:28-20:8; John 2:13-25.
    
    I am also interested in your use of the term "personal rationalization".
    What is this supposed to mean? Does it again go back to your accepting
    whatever explanation has the most supporters? What I submit as
    explanations for Bible difficulties are personal inasmuch as I have
    peronally studied, researched, and opened myself to the Holy Spirit's
    teaching. I therefore expect that the explanations are rational. As a
    programmer, I am intensely rational by nature and could not abide an
    explanation that didn't make sense.
    
    I'm not saying that I'm a smart guy, or that I'm always going to be
    right. What I will say, though, is that the explanations I might
    present will make sense (at least to me), will be consistent with
    Biblical doctrine and sound hermeneutics, and will hold to a high view
    of Scripture. If a bunch of commentators agree with me that's great. If
    I can't find anyone who agrees with me, then I'll have to dig deeper to
    find out why. Regardless, I'll end up knowing the Lord better than if I
    had read a commentary or two and let it go at that.
    
    	BD�

Re Note 53.87 (Kris)

>      The Greek word "theopneustos" (not "pneumotheos") is mistakenly
>      interpretted as "inspiration of God" in 2Tim 3:16 of the AKJV.  It
>      is, in fact the "expiration of God" (or "breath of God") as worded in
>      the NIV.
    
    This obviously does not constitute an error. It's one of several places
    where the KJV is less than accurate (with all due respect to Marshall
    ;-). The word in 2 Tim. 3:16 certainly does mean "God breathed". It is
    in fact one of the verses that form the bedrock for inerrancy. If God
    breathed out the words (as the verse says He did), then the autographs
    must have been without error because God is without error.
    
    	BD�

Re Note 53.87 (Kris)

>      The genealogies of Jesus as given by Matthew and by Luke differ. 
    
    This is because Matthew's genealogy is tracing Jesus back through the
    line of His step-father, Joseph, whereas Luke is tracing Jesus back
    through the line of His mother, Mary. Look carefully at the words used
    by each of the writers:
    
    Matthew (chapter 1) follows a specific pattern as: A begot B; B begot
    C; C begot D; etc. This pattern is abruptly changed when we get to
    vv. 15-16 -> "Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan
    begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was
    born Jesus who is called Christ." So we have the pattern from Abraham
    (v. 1) to Joseph, and then the break because Joseph wasn't Jesus'
    biological father.
    
    In Luke (chapter 3) we see we aren't really tracing a line to Joseph at
    all. Verse 23 introduces the genealogy by saying that Jesus was
    supposedly the son of Joseph. If you have a Greek NT (or a "formal
    equivalence" Bible like the NAS, NKJV, KJV) you'll realize that from
    that point on, the word "son" doesn't appear in the text (in the
    English Bibles this is denoted by the use of italics). So what we have
    is essentially, `Jesus, being supposedly the son of Joseph: of Eli, of
    Matthat, of Levi... of Adam, of God.'
    
    	BD�

Re Note 53.87 (Kris)

>      The three accounts of Saul's encounter with Christ on the road to
>      Damascus given in Acts 9, 22, 26 differ on many points.  For example:
>
>         Acts 9:7  And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
>         hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
>
>      Compared with:
>
>         Acts 22:9  And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and
>         were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
    
    Attention to detail is again essential to resolving this difficulty. If
    you read these passages in the Greek you'll see that the first account
    is using the accusative case, whereas the account in chapter 22 uses
    the genitive case.
    
    Although probably not always important, this construct does allow one
    to distinguish between hearing a noise versus understanding the meaning
    behing the noise. As one of my English teachers was fond of saying,
    "You listen, but you don't hear." Jesus Himself used this literary
    device in John 8:43 -> "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It
    is because you cannot hear My word."
    
    The bottom line, then, is that Paul's companions did hear some
    unintelligible (to them) noise, but they could not derive any meaning
    from what they heard. Paul also heard the noise, but of course he *did*
    understand it.
    
    	BD�

Re Note 53.87 (Kris)

>      The temptation of Christ by Satan as recorded by Matthew has Christ
>      tempted first in His flesh, then in His pride of life, and finally in
>      His eye.  Whereas Luke has Christ tempted first in His flesh, then in
>      His eye, and lastly in His pride of life.
    
    Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but the lack of attention
    to detail is what gets folks to thinking that there are problems. Let's
    look carefully at how Matthew and Luke recorded the three temptations:
    
      1 Matt 4:3 -> "And the tempter came and said to Him..."
      2 Matt 4:5 -> "Then the devil took Him into the holy city..."
      3 Matt 4:8 -> "Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain..."
    
      1 Luke 4:3 -> "And the devil said to Him..."
      3 Luke 4:5 -> "And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms..."
      2 Luke 4:9 -> "And he led Him to Jerusalem and set Him on the
    	             pinnacle..."
    
    I just quoted the beginning of the verses so the difference becomes
    obvious. Matthew is clearly giving us a chronology. The "then" tells us
    that temptation 2 comes after temptation 1. After these we read that
    "again", here comes a third one.
    
    Luke doesn't give us any chronology words. He's simply listing the
    three temptations with no claim to an order. Why he put them in a
    different order from the way they happened is certainly open to
    conjecture, but this certainly does not constitute an error. If you
    were to ask me what I did today, I'd tell you that I ate three square
    meals, painted my son's room, went to the store, and typed in this
    reply. There's no intention on my part to mislead you, and if I
    answered this same question tomorrow I may re-order the events. I'm not
    in error, though, to list them as I did. (Extra credit: what is the
    correct order? :-)
    
    	BD�

Re Note 53.87 (Kris)

>      Finally, there is the fact that in almost all cases the Gospels
>      differ slightly in their recording of the same events or of their
>      recording of the words of Jesus.  Take an arbitrary quote from Christ
>      from any Gospel and look up the corresponding verses from any of the
>      remaining three.  In most cases there are slight, and usually
>      inconsequential, differences between verses.  But these are
>      differences in the recording of the same event which means that there
>      are errors, as minute as they may be.  An example is in the parable
>      of new wine:
    
    This is part of the classic "synoptic problem". That is, why are events
    recorded differently among the authors. There have been entire books
    written to address this subject in great detail (I know, I've read a
    few), so we will be unable to adequately address every one in this
    conference. I will, however, provide an explanation that fits most of
    the situations.
    
    The gospel writers did not profess to be scribes, meticulously
    transcribing the exact quotes that they heard. What the writers have
    sought to convey is the *meaning* behind what was going on during Jesus'
    ministry. If an exact transcription had been what God wanted, He would
    have only needed one gospel writer. The fact that He used four
    different writers indicates that He was more interested in covering
    His truths from a variety of positions so that everyone can come to the
    proper understanding of the message.
    
    Consider what would happen if you and I witnessed a hold-up at a local
    store. As the police questioned me I would say, "The robber came in and
    pointed a gun at the clerk. He said he wanted all the money. After the
    clerk handed it to him he ran up the street." You might say, "The thief
    stuck a gun in the attendant's ribs and demanded that he open the cash
    register. After grabbing the cash he ran down the road."
    
    Lots of differences in our two stories: I used "robber" to your
    "thief". I used "clerk" to your "attendant". I say he pointed a gun,
    but you say he actually stuck a gun in the guy's ribs. I say he ran up
    the street, but you say he ran down the road. And, what were the exact
    words that the robber used?
    
    I hope you can see that we both are correct in our stories. They tell
    the meaning of the facts from different perspectives and when put
    together give a better picture of the events than either one would have
    done on its own.
    
    Of course, the same is true of the Bible. I like to refer to the gospel
    writers as "inspired commentators". They recorded the facts to be sure,
    but they were inspired by God to supply the *meaning* behind them.
    
>    But the fact remains that they quotations and
>    they are different.
    
    The kicker here is that the original manuscripts did *not* contain any
    punctuation. There were no quotation marks. What the writers recorded
    is analogous to our robbery episode above. We didn't exactly quote the
    words that were used. So despite the Bible editors' kindness in providing
    quotation marks (and red letters) for us, the original writers used no
    such tools. Again, they were busy conveying the meaning behind the
    words, and not the exact words themselves - inspired commentators.
    
    	BD�

    Re .16 (my note on Saul's Damascus Road conversion)
    
    Fyi, I believe the NIV and the NAS both translate 22:9 to the effect of
    `those with Saul did not *understand* the voice' (sorry I can't provide
    a direct quote, but I don't have a NIV or NAS on me at the moment).
    
    	BD�

re:13
    
>    You're right that nowhere does it say, "Jesus cleansed the temple
>    twice." However, when you compare the account in John with the one in
>    the synoptics you see that there are several differences.

     The teaching is the same and it is clear that all four gospels are
     speaking of one and the same thing.
        
    
>    I'm hoping this *will* be the place for Scriptural debate. What kind of
>    "background" information would you want? Just read the passages you
>    yourself posted. Compare the setting and details of the one in John
>    with those of the synoptics.
   
     I did read them and I can no way see how you came up with the idea
     that Jesus cleansed the temple twice.    

>    Perhaps you've gotten into the habit of only giving credence to the
>    opinions of others; hence the need for background information? I do
>    know folks who go to commentaries first in an attempt to understand the
>    Bible. My philosophy is to go to commentaries last.

      I'm trying not to get into the habit of rationalizing things to fit
      my own perceptions. I'm not a Scripture Scholar. I don't have the
      expertise to interpret Scripture without guidance from those who are.

>    There is no substitute for getting it directly from the Bible itself,
>    but if you would like me to find quotes from others who might share "my
>    rationalization" I will be happy to provide them. I'm not the smartest
>    Bible student in the world, so I'm sure I could find others who also
>    teach the same thing. So, if my quoting others (instead of pointing you
>    directly to the Word) would help you better sort through things please
>    let me know.

     The commentary I've used is  the Bible itself. Frankly I've only
    just started using it this year cuz it was a Christmas present from
    a priest who is a friend of my wife and myself. You probably know
    nothing of the commentary and are basing your opinion on other
    commentaries that you've seen. I never seen others except the Bible
    study I use each day which is called "The Word Among Us."
    
     
>    I am also interested in your use of the term "personal rationalization".
>    What is this supposed to mean? Does it again go back to your accepting
>    whatever explanation has the most supporters? What I submit as
>    explanations for Bible difficulties are personal inasmuch as I have
>    peronally studied, researched, and opened myself to the Holy Spirit's
>    teaching. I therefore expect that the explanations are rational. As a
>    programmer, I am intensely rational by nature and could not abide an
>    explanation that didn't make sense.

     By personal rationalization I mean, that you've come up with your own
     opinion on the reasons for the defenses in the Scripture without
     facts to back it.

    >    I'm not saying that I'm a smart guy, or that I'm always going to be
>    right. What I will say, though, is that the explanations I might
>    present will make sense (at least to me), will be consistent with
>    Biblical doctrine and sound hermeneutics, and will hold to a high view
>    of Scripture. If a bunch of commentators agree with me that's great. If
>    I can't find anyone who agrees with me, then I'll have to dig deeper to
>    find out why. Regardless, I'll end up knowing the Lord better than if I
>    had read a commentary or two and let it go at that.

    I will take the interpretation of a group of Biblical experts over
    what I myself read in the Bible. After all, the version (NAB) of the Bible
    that I'm reading was translated by them.

     Jim

Referencing .19 in regards to Acts 22:9


Acts 22:9

KJV
  And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; 
but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Amplified
  Now the men who were with me saw the light, but they did not hear 
[the sound of the uttered words of] the voice of the One Who was 
speaking to me - so that they could understand it.

NASB
  And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did
not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

NIV
  My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice
of him who was speaking to me.

	Thanks Barry. Very clear.

ace

    Re: Note 71.20 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ
    
    Since we're not really debating the Scriptures, I won't continue this
    line. I felt I owed you a reply, though...
    
�     The teaching is the same and it is clear that all four gospels are
�     speaking of one and the same thing.
    
    You don't suppose that Jesus ever taught the same thing more than once?

�    By personal rationalization I mean, that you've come up with your own
�    opinion on the reasons for the defenses in the Scripture without
�    facts to back it.
    
    Interesting. The *facts* are that the two accounts contain several
    differences (as well as some similarities). Apparently you're looking
    for different facts.

�    I'm trying not to get into the habit of rationalizing things to fit
�    my own perceptions. I'm not a Scripture Scholar. I don't have the
�    expertise to interpret Scripture without guidance from those who are.
�
�    I will take the interpretation of a group of Biblical experts over
�    what I myself read in the Bible. After all, the version (NAB) of the Bible
�    that I'm reading was translated by them.
    
    These two paragraphs seem to contradict what you said earlier:
    
�     The commentary I've used is  the Bible itself.
    
    Either you're going to place emphasis on what the Bible itself says, or
    on what others say it says. It appears that you've chosen the latter.
    That's too bad because the Bible is what's inspired; our commentaries -
    no matter how good - are not.
    
�    Frankly I've only
�    just started using it this year cuz it was a Christmas present from
�    a priest who is a friend of my wife and myself.
    
    I did not intend to denigrate your gift or cast aspersions on those who
    gave it to you. I'm just giving out some friendly advice: If a
    commentator assumes that the Bible contains errors it's not going to do
    a good job at explaining the Bible's message.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. If you are interested in my finding commentators that support the
    two-cleansing viewpoint, my previous offer of looking them up and
    posting them still stands.

      Hi,
    
        I've only read through the first 13 replies, but I want to echo
        what Mark said.
    
        It ought not go unnoticed.
    
        Mark mentioned rationalizing with a certain _predisposition_.
    
        That's the key.  His predisposition being the scriptures are
        inerrent.
    
        Now, there's nothing wrong with rationalizing. We certainly don't
        want to irrationalize!!  The big thing is that we do so after
        before-hand asking for God's guidance and acknowledging that we
        (of ourselves) have virtually no wisdom and that we know nothing
        yet as we ought to know it (1 Corin 8:2).
    
        And finally, just to add my conviction that sometimes we do need
        to go beyond the English and look at the original Hebrew and Greek.
        A good example of this being Jesus saying to the Laodicaean church
        "I will spew you out of My mouth" when the grammar affords the
        alternative "You make Me so sick that I feel like throwing up!"
        (In other words, Jesus won't spew His church from His mouth, we
        make Him feel nauseous.)
    
        So Jim, that is a rather fundamental difference.  One may approach
        the word with the predisposition that it isn't necessarily
        inerrant and thus perhaps conclude there are contradictions. 
        Another may approach the scriptures convinced it is inerrant, find
        what seems to be contradictions, and explain these areas by a
        personal sense of spiritual immaturity.  That were the Spirit (the
        Interpretor) allowed in the heart in greater magnitude, what today
        seems to be contradiction, tommorow is seen to be harmony that is
        as plain as kindegarten.
    
        How one approaches the Word is the big thing.
    
                                                           Tony
    
                     

I've previously written long replies about how I deal with the Bible's 
inerrancy, and I don't need to reiterate them, but I think one excerpt is 
appropriate here.

I have some serious questions about the inerrancy of the Bible, but I also have
two facts from my own life to deal with:

	Fact #1 - At the very least, some parts of the Bible simply must be
		  Divinly inspired.  All the messianic prophecies, all the
		  prophecies of Israel's fall and exile which were given 
		  hundreds of years before they occurred, have no human 
		  explanation.

	Fact #2 - There have been numerous cases where I was convinced that I
		  had found a contradiction or error, only to discover on
		  further study that I was the one that was wrong.

Given these two facts, though my doubts about the whole Bible's complete 
perfection are not fully dispelled, I am now completely unwilling to pick out 
any verse and say "that's one of the wrong ones."  Even verses that I can make 
no sense whatever out of, the most that I will say is "I don't understand that 
verse."  I'm quite sure that whatever the status of the Bible as a whole, there 
will be a number of verses that I can make neither head nor tail of now, which 
will be precious to me at a later time in my life.

Paul 

Paul (.25);
  I can say that we have walked in the same road.
  Thanks.

Mark

    Its not those parts of the Bible I don't understand that trouble me;
    its those parts of the Bible I do understand!!
    
    
    Just a thought
    
    
    Graeme

    
    There's a passage in Joshua 10:13 that certainly sounds incredible.
    
    	"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the
    	people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.  Is not
    	this written in the book of Jasher?  So the sun stood still
    	in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a
    	whole day."
    	"And there was no day like that before it or after it, that
    	the Lord harkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord
    	fought for Israel."  KJV
    

    Not the only one's Mike.  Like streching out a withered arm, walking on
    water (in a storm, no less), parting the Red Sea, Pillar of fire,
    Pillar of smoke, iron axe head floating, feeding a mulitude, and many
    more.  !!!
    
    MM

    I agree: there's a lot in the Bible that sounds incredible from the
    human standpoint. The Resurrection certainly is high on that list. It's
    funny, but there seems to be an acceptable level of the miraculous to
    us 20th-century folks. Those of us who are Christians certainly don't
    deny that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, lived a
    sinless life, was killed and resurrected, and now offers eternal life
    to all who respond to His call. Given those miraculous events, why do
    so many find it difficult to believe that God created the world from
    nothing, that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, or that the sun
    stood still?
    
    Unless one has a pre-disposition against the supernatural there is no
    reason to doubt any of the miracles that are mentioned. Once you get
    past Gen. 1:1, the remaining verses should present no problems.
    
    	BD�

	Amen, Barry!

    Karen,
    
    You beat me to it.  I second that AMEN.
    
    Dave

    
    The difficult we accept right away; the impossible takes a little
    longer.  The implications of halting the movement of the sun and the
    moon from the earth's perspective, is that the earth stopped spinning
    on it's axis.  Not your ordinary miracle.
    
    Mike
    
    
    

>ordinary miracle.

Now, that brought a smile to my face, Mike.  :-)

    One thing that has impressed me is that I need to be careful about
    imposing upon the omnipotent God of infinite understanding my idea
    about how He should (or did) fulfill His word.  I recognize the
    implications of the earth's rotation coming to an abrupt halt, but
    could God not also create a miracle of time (or it's suspension)?  God
    has exalted His word above His name, and to me that makes doubting His
    word something not to be lightly done.

    Mark L.

         <<< Note 71.34 by QBUS::M_PARISE "Southern, but no comfort" >>>

    
    The difficult we accept right away; the impossible takes a little
    longer.  The implications of halting the movement of the sun and the
    moon from the earth's perspective, is that the earth stopped spinning
    on it's axis.  Not your ordinary miracle.
    
    Mike
    
    
Actually, I believe in order for the sun and moon to appear to be frozen
in one place in the sky, the earth doesn't need to stop spinning. Just
as we only see one side of the moon, because it's speed of spinning on
it's axis equals it's speed rotating around earth (I think I've got that
right, when both those speeds are equal we only see the same side...)

The actual spinning speed of the earth doesn't need to change. To make
the sun appear in one area all that would be needed is the earth to speed
up or slow down it's rotation around the sun such that it's rotation around
the sun equals the earths spinning on it's axis. (I think)...  And to make
the moon appear stationary in the sky, the moons speeds have to adjust
as well.

too bad I don't have actual numbers or equations to prove this - but I'm
99% sure that the earth doesn't need to stop. In fact, if the earth 
stopped spinning the sun would still move because of the earth's rotation 
around the sun.

Anyone have a Physics book handy???

For God, I'd think this would be a piece of cake to accomplish...

/Scott

>if the earth stopped spinning, we'd have no gravity

What?  What does gravity have to do with rotation?

>In fact, if the earth 
>stopped spinning the sun would still move because of the earth's rotation 
>around the sun.

True, but it would only move one degree per day, so it would certainly appear to
have stopped.

>The actual spinning speed of the earth doesn't need to change. To make
>the sun appear in one area all that would be needed is the earth to speed
>up or slow down it's rotation around the sun such that it's rotation around
>the sun equals the earths spinning on it's axis. (I think)...  

That's true, but it would be much more difficult to speed up the earth's orbit
enough to get it all the way around the sun in one day, and still keep it in its
current orbit so the apparent size of the sun didn't get larger.  Actually, I
think using physics, to increase the speed of the earth's orbit enough to circle
the sun on 24 hours, you'd probably have to be inside the sun itself, so physics
is right out the window no matter how you look at it.

Of course, saying it would be more difficult to speed up the earth's orbit is
sort of like saying that it would be more difficult for me to pluck up and lift
the 100+ story Empire State building than it would be for me to lift the 50 
story Prudential Tower.  That's true, but if you can accept the possibility of
the latter, then the former doesn't seem all that much different.  :-)

Paul

	About the Genisis thing. It does specifically say that 2 days after the
birds and animals were made, then man came. It goes on to say that the female
was made for a companion to man (Adam). But, later on when it says that man was
made first, then the birds and animals, doesn't it also say that they were to
be mans companion, but when he was still lonely God made woman? I doing this by
memory right now as I don't have a Bible right next to me. 



Glen

<<< Note 71.38 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

>>if the earth stopped spinning, we'd have no gravity

>What?  What does gravity have to do with rotation?

Doesn't the spinning on the axis cause gravity? 

hmm... now I'm not too sure... but the spinning must cause some impact on
gravity???  hmmm....

>>The actual spinning speed of the earth doesn't need to change. To make
>>the sun appear in one area all that would be needed is the earth to speed
>>up or slow down it's rotation around the sun such that it's rotation around
>>the sun equals the earths spinning on it's axis. (I think)...  
>
>That's true, but it would be much more difficult to speed up the earth's orbit
>enough to get it all the way around the sun in one day, and still keep it in its
>current orbit so the apparent size of the sun didn't get larger.  Actually, I
>think using physics, to increase the speed of the earth's orbit enough to circle
>the sun on 24 hours, you'd probably have to be inside the sun itself, so physics
>is right out the window no matter how you look at it.

Well... then maybe it was a combo of spinning rate change and rotation rate
change...  or, as someone else suggested earlier, maybe God just played with
time for a bit...

Actually - maybe nothing really changed but God only made it appear that the
sun and moon stopped moving...

Or, maybe God used mirrors...  ;-)

this is getting silly now...

/Scott

� hmm... now I'm not too sure... but the spinning must cause some impact on
� gravity???  hmmm....

The spinning produces a centrifugal effect which acts against gravity, but
it varies over latitude - standing at a pole, you'd be rotating each day,
which doesn't affect gravity. - rather than the head whirling over the heels...

So change in rotation wouldn't have that big an impact on your weight, but
it would throw us around some, as our lateral movement changed.

								Andrew

.39 (Glen)
>
>	About the Genisis thing. It does specifically say that 2 days after the
>birds and animals were made, then man came. It goes on to say that the female
>was made for a companion to man (Adam). But, later on when it says that man was
>made first, then the birds and animals, doesn't it also say that they were to
>be mans companion, but when he was still lonely God made woman? I doing this by
>memory right now as I don't have a Bible right next to me. 

Gen 1:21  ...birds were created
Gen 1:27  ...manking (male and female) were created

Gen 2:4b-5  "God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the 
field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was
no man to till the ground."

Gen 2:7  ...God formed "man" from the dust of the earth...
Gen 2:8-9 God plants the garden of Eden.
Gen 2:15  God puts Adam in charge of the garden
Gen 2:18  God moves to make woman from man.
Gen 2:19a "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
          field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
          to see what he would call them..."

So I presume verse 19 is causing you a little trouble, Glen?

Barry can answer better than I, but let us not forget this narrative.
In Genesis early one, we see the heavens and earth created.  Next,
In chapter 2, we see the story of mankind's genesis.

Do you take verse 19 to mean that it was at that point that God created
the beasts and fowl?  Do you also take verse 1:27 to mean something different
than verses 2:7 and 2:18?

"Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast..."  When?  If it happened
in the sequence of Genesis 1, then this is still a true statement.  It merely
attributes creation to God and says that God did it (past tense).
Semicolon (KJV); and brought these to Adam for naming.

So, does it still cause you trouble?

Mark

    
    When we hear the phrase "God's infinite wisdom surpasses all 
    understanding" I don't think it automatically releases our minds
    from striving to find understanding in His creation.  It may be
    easy for some to accept all mysteries on unaided faith, but for
    others like myself it's no simple process.
    
    Did God create the laws of natural order of the universe?
    Does God create within or without the laws of nature?
    Is God bound by what he can or cannot do by a higher order?
    
    Why did the Lord harken unto the voice of a man? (Joshua 10:14)
    
    Mike
    
    
    
    

    >Is God bound by what he can or cannot do by a higher order?
    
    A very good question, Mike, which strikes at the very heart of the two
    essential questions of faith, namely:  "Does God exist?" and "What is
    God like?"
    
    You speak to the second question.  *IF* God is omniscient, omnipresnet,
    and omnipotent, then there cannot be a higher order.  However,
    regardless of what God is like, He is bound by Himself.  It is God's
    nature, for example, to be Truth and therefore God cannot lie.
    Does this mean that God cannot do all things which eternity and
    infinity suggest?  Deep theological questions to ponder.
    
   > Why did the Lord harken unto the voice of a man? (Joshua 10:14)
    
    Because he chose to.  Is that so terrible?  If God is soveriegn, what's
    the big deal?
    
 >   When we hear the phrase "God's infinite wisdom surpasses all 
 >   understanding" I don't think it automatically releases our minds
 >   from striving to find understanding in His creation.  It may be
 >   easy for some to accept all mysteries on unaided faith, but for
 >   others like myself it's no simple process.
    
    Many of use here have not released our minds from striving to find
    understanding, but neither do we continue to strive to disprove but 
    instead to prove God's word, since by striving to disprove it, we have
    found in case after case that we were the ones in error.  When this
    realization hits home, the problems of the Bible don't all vanish, but
    like the others have stated, they become a matter of striving to
    understand without the nagging doubts that if I don't get an answer
    then I cannot believe.
    
    Do you think all mysteries of life will be resolved to your
    satisfaction before you die?  The realization that God's wisdom
    surpasses ours releases our faith from doubt but it does not disengage
    the brain; it is the recognition that God indeed exists and that He is
    God and we are not.  He is the Supreme Being, and we are not.
    
    Mark

    Re: Note 71.43 by QBUS::M_PARISE
    
    Mike,
    
    I'll be back, but I wanted to zip off a quickie in regards to one thing
    you said.
    
�    When we hear the phrase "God's infinite wisdom surpasses all 
�    understanding" I don't think it automatically releases our minds
�    from striving to find understanding in His creation.  It may be
�    easy for some to accept all mysteries on unaided faith, but for
�    others like myself it's no simple process.
    
    I am in total agreement here. The Bible tells us to love the Lord with
    all our hearts... and our *minds*. There are other verses (can't cite
    them off the top of my head) that support the fact that we need not
    shut down our power of reason.
    
    There may be folks who have such great faith that they can accept
    anything whether it makes sense or not. I've not been so blessed. This
    is really a bitter-sweet limitation, though, because it has forced me
    to carefully and closely investigate the Bible's claims. That's why I'm
    so convinced of the truth of the Christian message as proclaimed
    through the Scriptures. When taken as a whole, it is totally
    consistent. And the fact that the individual pieces, including
    fulfilled prophecy, fit together without contradiction provides
    overwhelming evidence of its divine authorship.
    
    If one does a careful and serious study of the Bible they must conclude
    that either a supreme being in fact oversaw its development, or that
    pure chance overcame the trillion-to-one odds of everything working
    out. In my judgment it takes more faith to accept the chance
    alternative.
    
    	BD�

	Gen 2 is a more detailed explanation of Gen 1.

ace

    So why didn't the author just give us the details in the first book ?
    Why tell us again in Gen 2 what he told us in Gen 1 ?
     
   
    Jim

Re:  .47

  >So why didn't the author just give us the details in the first book ?
  >Why tell us again in Gen 2 what he told us in Gen 1 ?

He wanted skeptics to have something to question?  :-)
  

Re:  .47

Seriously, this was a common literary style at the
time to the best of our knowledge.  Now, if you want
to ask why it was a common literary style, then I
admit you've exhausted my knowledge.

Collis

Re: 71.47 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting by" >>>

�    So why didn't the author just give us the details in the first book ?
�    Why tell us again in Gen 2 what he told us in Gen 1 ?
     
Still is accepted style in a lot of literature.  Like technical manuals ;-)

Give the overview to put it in perspective, then home in on areas you 
want to detail.  Makes it much clearer.

Sounds common sense to me.  I could never understand where people found a 
problem with Genesis 1 & 2.  But then I'm awkward like that ;-)

							Andrew

    May I request that discussions not directly related to specific problem
    texts be moved elsewhere? I would like this topic to stay focused on
    discussing particular difficulties that folks are having with specific
    verses. Thank you.
    
    	BD�

    Re .39 (Glen)
    
> I doing this by
> memory right now as I don't have a Bible right next to me. 
    
    If you are still having difficulty with "the Genesis thing", may I
    suggest that you get a Bible and post the specifics. Thanks.
    
    	BD�

Glen, 
  I'll move our rathole to 53. in a few minutes and answer you there.
  I've answered your question about this Bible difficulty and Barry
would liek us to keep this topic to questions and answers.

See you in 53 after I move these notes over there.

Mark

Notes 71.50, .51, .53, .54, .55, .56, .57, .58, and .61 have been moved
to 53.99 through 53.107 where wel will continue our discussion and honor
Barry's request in 71.59 to keep this topic to questions and answers.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod.

    
    Hi all,
    
    I've got passage that I would be interested in some feedback
    from anyone who has better understanding than me! I am confused 
    about Genesis 6:2-4, specifically
    
    	"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also 
    	afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters 
    	of men and had children by them. They were the heros of
    	old, men of renown." (NIV)
    
    It sounds almost as if some Greek mythology got mixed in here.
    Who were the sons of God?
    
    In Christ,
    
    Rowena

Hi Rowena,

There's three ways been suggested to understand Genesis 6:2-4.

1. The sons of God are the godly line of Seth, the daughters of men are the 
   ungodly line of Cain.  This is the conservative understanding, which 
   leaves a lot of loose ends, and barely seems to justify the birth of 
   distortions, or precipitate the judgement of the flood.

2. The Sons of God are the ruling class; the daughters of men, the plebs.  
   Barely worth considering, but it is held in some places.

3. The Sons of God are fallen angels, and the daughters of men are humans.
   At face value, this seems to be a non-starter, because 'the angels in 
   heaven do not marry nor are given in marriage'.  However, it bears 
   scrutiny, and particular words used in the New Testament indicate 
   that this may likely be the case.  It is how I understand it.  The 
   explanation is a bit long, because there's a lot of evidence to pull in.
   The idea of interbreeding between demons and women to produce unnatural
   giants sounds rather distasteful as well.  This , incidentally, is also  
   the Jewish traditional interpretation.

   I'll put the full explanation in the next couple of notes.  Unless 
   someone interrupts them ;-)

					God bless
							Andrew

    The Hebrew phrase used for 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:2,4 is used only
    5 times in the O.T. - in verses 2 and 4; also in Job: 1:5, 2:1 and 38:7 -
    all the Job occurrences being translated as 'angels'. Hence these.  'sons
    of God' (ie made by direct creation, not by breeding in the species) were
    fallen angels = demons.  This is why the offspring were mutants (giants -
    literally 'long-necked' not just overgrown men, and distorted - eg the
    24-digit giant of 2 Samuel 21:20 / 1 Chronicles 20:6).

    The reason for the demonic interbreeding? After the fall, God tells the
    devil in Genesis 3:15, it is the pure offspring of the woman who is to
    crush Satan's head. Thus Satan wants to corrupt the seed until there is
    no threat left to him.

    The result of this corruption is the judgement of the flood - presumably
    the mass of the human race has some degree of impure blood by this time.
    In Genesis 6:3, when God says (man's) days will be 120 years, He is
    saying how long there is until the flood, not the current life expectancy
    (which I used to think it was). The other warning was Methuselah's name,
    of course ('when he dies, it shall come').  He died within the year
    before the flood.

    The first obvious problem is that angels cannot reproduce (Matthew
    22:30). The significant point there is that the Matthew reference refers
    specifically to 'the angels in heaven'.  Two other references are
    relevant here, the only uses of the word 'oiketerion' for 'habitation',
    in the New Testament. In Jude :6, reference is made to 'angels who ...
    abandoned their own home (oiketerion), and 2 Corinthians 5:4: 'we ...
    wish ... to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling (oiketerion)' - ie an
    alternate state; the demons had regressed their natural state to a
    humanoid one, wherein they could reproduce with human women, to produce
    unnatural offspring. The resulting judgement to these demons is seen in
    2 Peter 2:4 - also associated with the judgement of Noah's time (v 5).
    Note that 1 Peter 3:19-20 also refers to this event, in terms of the
    imprisonment of rebellious fallen angels.  Note that the word usually
    translated 'preach' in this verse is not 'evangeliso', aimed at
    conversion.  It is 'proclaim' - to proclaim victory.  It does not imply
    the offer of salvation.  

    The other obvious problem is that this did not occur to any degree after
    the flood. Why didn't the devil just repeat the trick?  There are some
    giants after the flood, but they weren't able to infiltrate the human
    race to the extent that they did before - there seems to be a very
    effective project going to wipe them out.  I'll put the relevant
    references at the end, not to break into the flow, but various nations
    are involved, ending with David and his muscle men moving in on the last
    of the giant families.  Possibly the punishments referred to in the Peter
    passages may have had some effect, but this may not have been all.

    The only significant difference in lifestyle before and after the flood
    was the eating of meat (Genesis 9:3).  This involves shedding the blood
    of what they were going to eat.  Possibly not liked by demons, in the way
    strictly ordained by God in Genesis 9:4.  Hence they were weakened, as
    they could more easily get at people who didn't get involved with meat
    (ie vegetarians).  This is the weakest link in understanding this event,
    and can only be opffered tentatively, rather than as clear fact.
    However, the evidence adds up impressively, and there is certainly
    something there.  For certainly something sapped their effectiveness
    after the flood.  Other clues to this are: Romans 14:2; where the
    christian is told to be gentle with those whose faith is weak, the
    example given is of a vegetarian; identified as definitely so through
    weakness of faith; it's not just a matter of opinion.  Also in these days
    where witchcraft and demonic activities are on the increase, so is
    vegetarianism, - particularly instructed to those who are involved in the
    occult (I am given to understand that apparently it is in (a) witchcraft
    magazine(s)). My only problem here is that I thought that sort of
    involvement included pseudo-sacrificial rites, but that may be valid as a
    corruption; also I suspect that the blood is not given the reverence
    required in Genesis 9.

    I find this really exciting as a record of how God defeated one of
    the devil's attempts to overthrow the salvation plan, and of how
    the devil is still subtly trying to mislead us into falling into
    his trap.  

							cont...

continuation:

     The giant references ...

2 Samuel 21:15 - 22.  In some versions 'Rapha' is translated 
'giant', whereas it is really the name of one of the families of 
giants (descendents of...)
   Ishbi-Benob, Saph, Goliath, <Un-named - killed 
   by Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother>
Same referred to in 1 Chronicles 21:4 - 6 (variants on the names)

Also Deuteronomy 2:10 - 12, 20 - 23, 3:11
  Giant families:        wiped out by:
   Emites,               not sure - referred to as in the past then.
   Anakites,             Israel under David
   Rephites,             Israel under David
   Horites               Edomites
   Og (from the Rephaites)  Israel - in the 1800s giant villages 
       were found there too.  Later, giant bones, corresponding to 
       the sizes mentioned were found.
   Zamzumites  (from the Rephaites)    Ammonites

    Note that the Moabites and Ammonites, who wiped out some giantish tribes,
    were protected by the LORD when Israel passed on their way to the
    Promised Land.


Also relevant: 

Nephilim ('fallen ones'!):
 Numbers 13:33

Giant 'families': (Rapha, Anak, Emim, Zuzim, Horim/Horites)

Rapha ('fearful one', 'giant'):
 Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 15:8, 17:15, 18:16

Anak
   Numbers 13:22, 28, 33, Deuteronomy 9:2, Joshua 15:13,14, 
   Joshua 21:11, Judges 1:20, Deuteronomy 1:28, 2:10, 21, 
   Deuteronomy 9:2, Joshua 11:21, 22, 14:12, 15

Emim
   Genesis 14:5, Deuteronomy 2:10 - 11

Zuzim
   Genesis 14:5

Horim, Horites
   Genesis 14:6, 36:20, 21, 29, Deuteronomy 2:12, 22

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting tie-up is to do with mythology.  Genesis 6 
v 4 refers to 'heroes of old, men of renown' (NIV).  these could well 
be the origin of mythology - especially Greek mythology, where 
the 'heroes' were the offspring of women and 'gods' - or demons. 
So the mythological 'stories' would have a basis of fact (confirmed 
from the Bible - I love it!), though the myths themselves may well 
be innaccurate and coloured on the way to us.

>   Og (from the Rephaites)  Israel - in the 1800s giant villages 
>       were found there too.  Later, giant bones, corresponding to 
>       the sizes mentioned were found.

 Ok, how about a size/description.  Eg what is a giant since it appears we
 now have physical evidence to help with the understanding/translation?

 Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Sorry - I don't know the details of these - I'd like to see the source 
information myself.

But as far as size goes - a bed 13 foot long is mentioned as being used by 
Og, in Deuteronomy 3:11, and Goliath is reported as being over 9 feet tall 
in 1 Samuel 17:4.  This is using the height as interpreted in the NIV, 
rather than cubits, etc...

							Andrew

          
        
    
    	Over the past couple of years I've been pretty much
    	a read only noter in this confrence. Mainly because
    	been I was leary to asked question or express my
    	heartfelt opinions/questions in fear of being call
    	an antagonist. Does the MJ topic come to mind?:-)
    	
    	There are many topics I feel should be discussed in
    	here, not cause I wish to start arguments, but for
    	better understanding on how to veiw these subjects.
    	One being homosexuality, because I to this day can't figure
    	out how God really feels about this, and if people
    	are really born that way. And Catholisism, I was born
    	and raised one, and have been scared away from it from
    	so many differences of opinions. Can't we all act as one,
    	speak as one and love God as one church???
    	I know these 2 topics will not be discussed here and just
    	about givin up trying to figure them out...
    
    	The main reason I started this topic is to ask a question..
    	Now be gentle with me..I mean no harm.. ;-)
    
    	While growing up I was always told that Jesus taught much, much
    	more then what in the Bible. That if it was all written down, the
    	books would stack 10 feet high... So why if someone gives an
        opinion on a certian subject that is not dirrectly in the Bible,
    	are they told "prove it by a scripture in the bible" or disregard?!
    	The Holy Spirit is a gift to us to guide us and teach us to act
    	and speak. Why could'nt he be guiding us with more then only what
    	was writen in words in the Bible.. Could'nt there have been more
    	taught by Jesus/God then what is written. Could there be more to 
    	learn.... If things are said out of Love and to glorify God, do
    	the have to be in print in the Bible??? Could'nt there be more to
    	learn??
    
    
    	in love with peace
    	Bill
               

    >The Holy Spirit is a gift to us to guide us and teach us to act
    >nd speak. Why could'nt he be guiding us with more then only what
    >was writen in words in the Bible..
    
       THe Holy Spirit will speak to the heart of a Christian, He will
       intercede for us. But He will not contridict what God has already
       spoken.  He is not the author of confusion.  If the Holy Spirit is
       speaking to you then it will be in line with what the Bible teaches.
       
    
    >Could'nt there have been  more taught by Jesus/God then what is
    >written. Could there be more to learn.... 
    
       there's always more to learn, the Truth of the Bible is steadfast
       and sure, but we learn more each and every time we open and read the
       Word of God.
    
    >If things are said out of Love and to glorify God, do the have to be
    >in print in the Bible??
    
        On the surface the answer is easy, things are said out of love and
        to glorify God..every day.  But it seems to me that you may have a
        problem accepting that the Bible is inclusive as it stands. This is
        not to exclude any other teachings that glorify God but to add to
        the exemplification of what the Bible teaches.  
    
     this is also how cults are started.  Another teaching, or angelic
    message, a lost tribe, a new apostle etc...
    
    Yak 

God did not put all there is to know about God in the Bible.
God put all He thought we needed to know about God in the Bible.

Extrabiblical texts (and there are plenty) are extrabiblical for
various reasons.  How can we trust the texts outside the Bible, and by
what means did we come to trust the Bible as we know it today?

I believe when these questions are answered, you can know whether you
can trust the Bible to tell you all you need to know about God.
Not everything extrabiblical is evil; but not everything is God's
Word on the matter either.  One point of discernment is whether or
not something agrees with the tenor of scripture or in some way 
contradicts it.  If there is a contradiction, pitch it.

Mark

    This topic discusses Bible Difficulties and therefore has been moved to
    topic 71.
    
    Continue discussion here.
    
    Nancy
    Co-Mod Christian
    

    Hi Bill,
    
    To support your childhood teaching:
    
    John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
        of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
     31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is
        the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have
        life through his name.
    John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
        the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose
        that even the world itself could not contain the books that
        should be written. Amen.
    
    I believe the important thing is that our lives be guided by what is
    revealed in the Word of God.  If this be so, there are certain things
    which are definitely "out" as well as things that are definitely "in". 
    It's the things in between that give us trouble. :-)  If someone says
    "God wants all Christians to do such-and-such", we have a right
    (scripturally -- see Acts 17:11) to inquire *by the scriptures* if this
    is so.  In other cases, someone might say "I believe that God is
    leading me to do this-or-that".  Now, if "this-or-that" is in direct
    contradiction to the scriptures, we have cause to question (and
    caution) that someone.  If "this-or-that" is not contrary to the
    scriptures, we might ask how "someone" believes that God is leading
    them.  Often, God will speak to us through His word, using it as a lamp
    to our feet and a light to our path.  The "direct application" of the
    scripture might not be to our exact situation, yet God can use it to
    guide us.  The important thing is that if we stray from what is written
    in the Bible, or letting it be the guide for our lives, we become
    susceptible to error and/or deception.  As well, to seek to add to what
    God has revealed through the Bible is not looked on very highly by Him:
    "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
    this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
    him the plagues that are written in this book:" (Rev. 22:18).  But
    "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
    prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein" (Rev. 1:3).
    God has promised His blessing on those who read, hear, and keep His
    word.
    
    Mark L.

    For those of you who thought geneaologies were boring...
    
    The 5th chapter of Genesis holds an amazing secret for those that think
    geneaologies are boring.  Read the chapter (up to verse 31), and starting 
    with Adam, underline the name of every son that was born (I've done it 
    here for you).  When finished, go back and translate (Strong's
    Concordance should do it) the meaning of each name and string them 
    together.  You should be amazed by what your result is.  I certainly was!

5:1  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
 man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2  Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
 Adam, in the day when they were created.
5:3  And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own
         ----
 likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
                                                    ----
5:4  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years:
 and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and
 he died.
5:6  And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
                                                         ----
5:7  And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and
 begat sons and daughters:
5:8  And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
5:9  And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
                                            ------
5:10  And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and
 begat sons and daughters:
5:11  And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
5:12  And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
                                               ----------
5:13  And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years,
 and begat sons and daughters:
5:14  And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
5:15  And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
                                                           -----
5:16  And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years,
 and begat sons and daughters:
5:17  And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years:
 and he died.
5:18  And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
                                                                   -----
5:19  And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons
 and daughters:
5:20  And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he
 died.
5:21  And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
                                                      ----------
5:22  And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years,
 and begat sons and daughters:
5:23  And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
5:24  And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
5:25  And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
                                                                        ------
5:26  And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two
 years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:27  And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years:
 and he died.
5:28  And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
5:29  And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us
                             ----
 concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the
 LORD hath cursed.
5:30  And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years,
 and begat sons and daughters:
5:31  And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years:
 and he died.
5:32  And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and
 Japheth.

    Answers follow the form feed.

Okay, after reading Genesis 5:1-32, you should have come up with this list of
names and their translations:

Name           Translation
----           -----------
Adam           Man
Seth           Appointed
Enosh          Mortal
Kenan          Sorrowing
Mahalalel      Blessed God
Jared          Shall Descend
Enoch          Dedicated or Teaching
Methuselah     His Death Shall Bring
Lamech         Power or Disparing
Noah           Rest

So what do we get?  We get the Gospel message encoded in the names of Adam's 9
descendants.   Lowercase text and punctuation added for legibility.

"MAN was APPOINTED, became MORTAL, he hid and was SORROWING.  the BLESSED GOD
SHALL DESCEND, DEDICATED to save and TEACH.  HIS DEATH SHALL BRING POWER to the
DISPARING and REST."

There is no way man wrote the Bible and was clever enough to encode that into
Adam's lineage!

    (Now if only God had encoded something in there that proved to
    scientists that he knew what he was talking about, such as;
    
    Thou cannot race against light and win...
    
    It would be a truly different world...
    
    ;-)
    
    )

�    (Now if only God had encoded something in there that proved to
�    scientists that he knew what he was talking about, such as;
    
He did.  But they just translate it differently so that it doesn't upset 
their ideas of 'what people back then knew'.

eg, Isaiah 41:22 says of God : "He sits above the sphere of the earth..."
but as everyone knows that the earth was thought to be flat then, the word 
is translated 'circle' instead of 'sphere'...

I'm sorry - the Hebrew isn't mine - it's second hand...  I'm not a lingiust.

There are other similar allusions as regards the behaviour of the stars, in
Job, concerning which galaxies (?) are and aren't expanding... but I can't
pull them out off hand.

As regards 
�    Thou cannot race against light and win...
He gets even more basic in Jeremiah 12:5.... ;-)

But then, you know that in the Bible, He isn't out to prove to the mind, 
but to the heart.  Once that's open, the cloud over the mind is lifted.


							Andrew 

I thought this was wonderful, and I looked up all the names in the Strong's
expanded Lexicon in LOGOS.  I can't match one of the definitions to what you
posted.

Of lesser note is "Kenan". (Cainan)  According to the lexicon, this word 
Actually means "possession" (qeynan) {kay-nawn'}, but sounds almost the same as 
the word "lamentation" (qiynah) {kee-naw'}.

But I can't map Methuselah to the meaning you post at all.  According to the
Lexicon, Methuselah {meth-oo-sheh'-lakh} means "man of the dart."  I also looked
in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, and it said "man of the javelin," 
and gave the possible alternate of "Worshiper of God."  Nothing like "His death 
shall bring," which is really the key translation that makes the whole thing 
work.  I tried to look up the words for "death" and "bring" so that I could see 
if it the Hebrew word "methuselah" sounds like the phrase "death bring," but 
that didn't seem to work either.  The main word for death is muwth {mooth}, also
maveth {maw'-veth}, which could sort of match, but all the words listed for 
bring are:

	yalad {yaw-lad'}		beget, bring forth
	yabal {yaw-bal'}		bring, lead, carry, bear along
	athah {aw-thaw'}		come, arrive, bring
	shalam {shel-am'}		finish, bring to an end
	tsamach {tsaw-makh'}		sprout, spring up, grow
	alah {aw-law'}			go up, ascend, climb

The best I can come up with from this list is {maw'-veth-aw-thaw'}, which still
isn't quite there.

But I'm no hebrew scholar.  Can you find and post how the person who found this
came up with that translation for Methuselah?

Paul

Hi Paul, 

I'd *heard* that 'Methuselah' meant approximately: 'When he dies, it shall
come' referring to the flood, which followed shortly after Methuselah's
death (within the year).  This is near enough to Mike's interpretation,
too.  The second warning was the 120 year warning, in Genesis 6:3.  I
haven't found the names meanings to check yet, but very much appreciated
the posting, thanks Mike.... 


							Andrew

>I'd *heard* that 'Methuselah' meant approximately:'When he dies, it shall come'

Great.  Can you remember where you heard that, or can you find anywhere that
describes how it means that?  Like I said, the lexicons that I consulted had a
very different definition.  I'd *LOVE* to keep passing this on, because I think
it's great, but I want to be sure that it is correct.

Paul

    Well, I have a book giving the meanings of every name in the Bible (the
    author's last name is Jackson).  I remember that he stated in his
    introduction that you can't always take a literal "translation" to
    arrive at the real meaning of some names.  I would look it up, but the
    book is at home and I'm in Colorado.
    
    Re: Methuselah.  Something rings a bell in my mind of a Hebrew word for
    "death" that I think is something along the lines of "muth" -- might be
    relevant.
    
    Mark L.

    Our pastor told us about this a couple weeks ago.  He told the
    congregation that Strong's would suffice.  I'll ask him tonight,
    if he's available, what his source was.
    
    regards,
    Mike

Re: 71.80  Paul

�>I'd *heard* that 'Methuselah' meant approximately:'When he dies, it shall come'

� Great.  Can you remember where you heard that, or can you find anywhere that

In a sermon .... No use for back-referencing, hence the *heard*.  It's on
tape, from a Bible teacher I've listened to a lot (I have around 200 of his
tapes).  I believe this interpretation is mentioned in Pink too, but I'm
not sure of his source.  I've yet to dig into any reference material I can
find, though. 

								Andrew 

    Re: Note 71.83 by ICTHUS::YUILLE

�Re: 71.80  Paul

��>I'd *heard* that 'Methuselah' meant approximately:'When he dies, it shall come'

�� Great.  Can you remember where you heard that, or can you find anywhere that
    
    I was looking these names up in some of my books last night. If memory
    serves, that's the meaning given in "The Treasury of Scripture
    Knowledge" (a truly excellent reference book, btw, containing the most
    complete set of cross references, notes, various indexes, etc. of any
    book I've ever seen). You might also try looking up Methuselah in any
    decent Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia.
    
    	BD�

> I'd *heard* that 'Methuselah' meant approximately:'When he dies, it shall 
> come.

And it did bigtime. In the year of his death the flood came.

ace

>You might also try looking up Methuselah in any
>    decent Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia.

I did, and that's why I'm confused.  Strong's expanded Lexicon included in LOGOS
and the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (a 4-volume work) both translate
Methuselah as "man of the dart" or "man of the javelin."

Paul

    Re .86 (Paul)
    
    Yes, I believe the literal translation of "Methuselah" is "man of the
    dart". I believe the name has also established a colloquial meaning of
    "when he dies, it comes" (or whatever). I reach this conclusion because
    the books I looked through used italics when giving the literal
    translation for names, but when it gave the "death->come" one it was
    not italicized. This was also the case of one of the other names -
    Cainan I think (or someone else?)
    
    I wish I had written it all down when I went through it. What happened
    was, after I read a couple whose literal meaning didn't seem to match
    the meaning that Mike gave in .75, I started thinking this idea of
    seeing a Messianic prophecy in the genealogy felt a bit like numerology
    (you know - find some numbers in a pattern; assign "generally-accepted
    meanings" to those numbers; voila - you have a nifty suite of
    symbolism). Not discounting that it's possible that the names and/or
    numbers do point us to things, but anything that even smells like
    eisegesis causes me to lose interest.
    
    Given a good imagination, you don't even need to invent meanings for
    things. A sufficiently-creative person could probably take a set of
    random words and string them together to form an interesting idea:
    
    	BARRY;  SEED;  FRUIT;  FAITHLESS;   PIT;   ETERNITY
    
    	1) Barry's seed, if s/he is faithless, will bear no fruit and
    	   will be consigned to the pit for eternity.
    
    	OR
    
    	2) If Barry has no faith that the fruit contains seeds, he will
    	   break his teeth on pits forever.
    
    I hope no one misunderstands me. I am not slamming Mike or his pastor,
    or anyone who accepts the validity of this particular passage (or the
    idea of seeing "hidden meanings" in things in general). I've just seen
    too many well-intentioned people abuse the simple, clear, reading of
    the text to push a point that may never have been intended to be made.
    
    	BD�

re.87

>   	2) If Barry has no faith that the fruit contains seeds, he will
>    	   break his teeth on pits forever.

Really? Wow, powerful stuff!  8*) 8*)

There are two extremes. The one you mentioned and the one at the other end of 
the scale. That is, those individuals who only read the text but have no 
revelation. They only are able to see with their physical eyes, but the eyes
of their heart are not enlightened (Eph 1:17-18).

My personal experience is that God's Word has many layers of depth. To some
the Bible is a history book, to others it reveals the plan of salvation, to 
others it shows how to attain a holy life, to others it explains the 
mystery of God (Christ), to others it is God's revelation of the mystery of
Christ (the Church), to others it reveals God's eternal purpose, to some it
becomes the edible food to sustain them daily, etc. I think there is no end!

With God's Word, there's always something more, something deeper.

regards,
ace

    I thought reading the translations without the added text was fairly
    clear.  Sorry to say, it's tough to talk to your pastor in a church of
    2,000+ people without an appointment.  I always get a response when I
    write to him though.  Be patient...
    
>Name           Translation
>----           -----------
>Adam           Man
>Seth           Appointed
>Enosh          Mortal
>Kenan          Sorrowing
>Mahalalel      Blessed God
>Jared          Shall Descend
>Enoch          Dedicated or Teaching
>Methuselah     His Death Shall Bring
>Lamech         Power or Disparing
>Noah           Rest

    Perhaps balancing both concerns...
    
    1) to "sit" on the circle of the earth seems to clearly indicate
    authority over the earth - He is *enthroned* above the earth, He is
    greater than His creation, He is the Sovereign of the Universe...
    
    2) isn't "the four corners" idomatic of N,S,E, & W - or if those
    concepts were unkonwn at that time, of all you could see before you,
    behind you, to your right and to your left?
    
    Just a thought - well, 2 thoughts...
    
    Steve

    some translations have "sphere" instead of circle.  Maybe one of you
    LOGOS users can check out Isaiah 40:22.

    Jack Van Impe has a whole tape series on this stuff if you're curious
    and/or you like his style.  I haven't heard it so I can't comment anymore.

    I finally went back and read the rest of this topic.  Thanks for the
    thread on Saul's conversion.  I always wondered about that.
    
    There was another on Judas' death where Acts (1:18) record doesn't mesh 
    with the gospels (Matthew 27:5).  A little historical research (I think
    it was F.F. Bruce or Geisler & Nix or Unger's Dictionary) revealed that 
    his girdle broke under his weight and his body fell to the rocks below.
    
    One I've seen called into question is in Jeremiah 34:1-5.  Here
    Jeremiah appears to have prophesied that:
    
    1.  Jerusalem would be captured by the Babylonians and it would be burned
        with fire.
    2.  Zedekiah would be captured and taken to Babylon, and he would meet
        personally with Nebuchadnezzar.
    3.  Zedekiah would not "die by the sword", that is through violence or
        due to war.
    4.  Zedekiah would die in peace and odours would be burned for him as
        they had been burned for former kings.
    
    In Jeremiah 34:21, the prophet further reinforces that Zedekiah will be
    given over to Nebuchadnezzar.  In Jeremiah 52:8-11 we find out that the
    prophecy was only partially fulfilled.  Zedekiah didn't die "by the 
    sword" due to war and through violence (but his sons did).  He did 
    die in peace, but nothing is said about odours (spices) being burned for 
    him.  However, if you go to 2 Chronicles 16:14, you will see that this
    did happen for him in Jerusalem.
    
    Mike

snarf

:-)

Hi Everyone,

I had a nice luncheon with a friend of mine today and as we ate at Burger King
I brought up the subject of healing and then our conversation exploded from
there(meaning - conversation turned to salvation etc.)!!!

Questions I could not answer:

What happens to people who die prior to Christ?  During the judgement do they
go to heaven or hell? I know there are scriptures that talk about this, but I
could not remember them.
He questioned about Moses etc. that did not meet Jesus - was Moses and prophets
and people who believed in God before Jesus going to heaven? 

Then he brought up the evolution theory and I also remember seeing a poster that 
disproved all of the scientific theories. Does anyone have any information on
this? 

Thank you,

Steve

    Hi Steve,
    
    Brief response to a couple of your questions (I know I've addressed
    something similar to this before; but I don't remember the note -
    sorry!).
    
    Re: Moses, the prophets, etc. (sometimes referred to as 'Old Testament
    Saints')
    
    These had the promise of Messiah, only from their point in the
    'time-line', His coming had not yet been fulfilled.  They (and
    presumably those of the nations who came to fear the L-rd through all
    He did in and through Israel) put their trust in the Promise of
    Messiah; yet to come.
    
    We (for the past 2 millenia) are blessed to be able to put our trust in
    the same Messianic Promise, only from our point in the 'time-line', "It
    is finished"!  The long-awaited and promised (from the Garden of Eden)
    Messiah *has* come!
    
    Salvation has always been by faith alone - some had to put their faith
    in the Promise to come, others (i.e., we) must put our faith in the
    Promise fulfilled.
    
    Paul's letter to the Romans has some information in it regarding the
    salvation of those who *never* got/get to hear of the Promise.
    
    As for evolution questions, I know there's a topic here somewhere on
    that, and Garth Wiebe might be a good person to identify resources for
    you to read on the subject.
    
    Steve

Hi Steve,

� What happens to people who die prior to Christ?  During the judgement do they
� go to heaven or hell? I know there are scriptures that talk about this, but I
� could not remember them.
� He questioned about Moses etc. that did not meet Jesus - was Moses and 
� prophets and people who believed in God before Jesus going to heaven? 

We covered some of this in discussions in note 94.  I entered a reply about 
those who die without knowing Christ, in note 94.160, and there was some 
discussion around there tat might be helpful.

					God bless
							Andrew

    Re .101 (Steve)

>    What happens to people who die prior to Christ?

    The righteous went to Paradise/Abraham's Bosom (see Luke 16:19-22),
    which in my opinion was the pre-resurrection locale of the righteous.
    After Jesus' resurrection I believe that this was relocated to heaven,
    so that now "to be absent from the body [i.e. dead] is to be present
    with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8) Who is in heaven. (The Scripture to support
    this belief is scattered throughout other notes in this conference.
    Sorry I don't have time to reconstruct it for you, but fortunately
    whether the details or correct or not is irrelevant - see my answer to
    your next question.)

    The unrighteous went to Hell (also in Luke 16:19-23). This place, too,
    will be relocated, after the Great White Throne judgment to the Lake
    of Fire (Rev. 20:11-14).

>    During the judgement do they go to heaven or hell?

    Leaving the details aside, for all practical purposes they were in
    heaven or hell (depending upon their standing before God) immediately
    after they died. Any future judgment is not to decide anyone's eternal
    destiny but is instead intended to dole out rewards and punishments.

>    He questioned about Moses etc. that did not meet Jesus - was Moses and
>    prophets and people who believed in God before Jesus going to heaven?

    We know that God justifies everyone, OT or NT, on the basis of His
    grace which is activated as a function of our faith in Him. The classic
    example can be seen in Romans 4, where it says that "Abraham believed
    God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

    Try to look at it from God's perspective, i.e. remove the dimension of
    time. On our side of the cross, we're saved by trusting what Jesus did
    (past tense) on our behalf. On Abraham's side of the cross, he was
    saved by trusting what Jesus was going to do (future tense) on his
    behalf. We both still trust God, but (NT) Christians look back whereas
    the OT saints looked forward. Sure, we have the "advantage" of having
    history to supply us with perhaps a better understanding of how it
    happened, but the great thing about saving faith is that you don't need
    to understand how it happened anyway!

>    Then he brought up the evolution theory and I also remember seeing a
>    poster that disproved all of the scientific theories. Does anyone have
>    any information on this?

    I don't know about a particular poster, but there are plenty of books
    that shoot many holes in the arguments advanced in an effort to support
    evolution. Of course, not everyone who subscribes to evolution is
    totally stupid, either. I suppose it comes down to what you choose to
    believe. As was mentioned earlier, please check out Note 25.

	BD�

    I'm cross posting this from 551.16, as I think it fits here.  Its
    basically John MacArthur's commentary on Hebrews 11:39,40.
    
                                           .....I will add the following
    from John McArthur's commentary: "God has provided this 'something
    better' for us, that is for those under the new covenant, which is why
    apart from us they should not be made perfect.  That is , not until our
    time, the time of Christianity, could their salvation be completed,
    made perfect.  Until Jesus' atoning work on the cross was accomplished,
    no salvation was complete, no matter how great the faith a believer may
    have had.  Their faith was based on what Christ would do; ours is based
    on what Christ has done.  Their faith looked forward to promise; ours
    looks back to historical fact."
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    

It has been commented on by many that this is the only book of the Bible in
which there is no name of God, or divine title, in the Book.  However, the name
of God appears in a number of places if one knows how and where to look.  The
name itself, Esther, incidentally, means "Something hidden!"

The Invisible Protector
-----------------------
God had declared that if His people forsook Him, He would hide His face from
them (Deuteronomy 31:16-18).  Here in this very episode, that threat was
fulfilled.  Even though He was hidden from them, He still was working for them.
The name of God is hidden no less than 5 times in acrostics in the text.  (An
acrostic is a word or phrase made up of a preselected pattern of letters
extracted from a text.)  Four times it appears as YHWH (Yahweh); once as EHYH
(I AM).

First Acrostic
--------------
The first acrostic is in verse 1:20

           "1. Hi    2. Vekal     3. Hannashim    4. Yittenu"
            1. it    2. and all   3. the wives    4. shall give

It is formed by initial letters, for the event was initial; and the name is
spelled backward because God was turning back the counsels of man.

Second Acrostic
---------------
The second acrostic is in verse 5:4

           "1. Yabo       2. Hammelek    3. VeHamin      4. Hayyom"
            1. let come   2. the kind    3. and Haman    4. this day

It is formed by the initial letters as God is initiating His action; but the
name is spelled forward because He is ruling and causing Esther to act.

Third Acrostic
--------------
The third acrostic is in verse 5:13

           "1. zeH        2. 'eynennV    3. shoveH       4. leY"
            1. this       2. availeth    3. nothing      4. to me

It is formed by the final letters, for Haman's end was approaching.  But it is
spelled backward since God was overruling Haman's gladness and turning back
Haman's counsel.

Fourth Acrostic
---------------
This fourth one in verse 7:7, like the third, is formed by the final letters,
for Haman's end had come.  But it is spelled forward like the first, for God was
ruling and bringing about the end He had determined.

           "1. kY         2. kilethaH    3. 'elayV           4. hara'aH"
            1. that       4. evil        2. was determined   3. against him

Overall Design
--------------
Each of the 4 acrostics, revealing the YHWH, involves the utterance of a
different speaker:

1. Menucan, 1:20
2. Esther, 5:4
3. Haman, 5:13
4. By the writer, 7:7

The first 2 acrostics are a pair, having the name formed by the initial letters
of the 4 words.  The last 2 are a pair, having the name formed by the final
letters of the 4 words.  The first and third acrostics are a pair having the
name spelled backwards.  The second and fourth are a pair, having the name
spelled forward.  They thus form an alternation:

Backward
   Forward
Backward
   Forward

The first and third, in which the name is formed backwards, are from text spoken
by Gentiles.  The second and fourth, in which the name is formed forward, are
from text spoken by Israelites.  The first and second form a pair connected with
queens and banquets.  The third and fourth are a pair being connected with
Haman.  Here then is an introversion:

1. Words spoken concerning a queen
         2. Words spoken by a queen
         3. Words spoken by Haman
4. Words concerning Haman

In the 2 cases where the name is spelled backwards, God is seen overruling the
counsels of the Gentiles for the accomplishment of His own purposes.  Where the
name is spelled forward, He is ruling directly in the interests of His own
people, although it was unknown to them at the time.  It is remarkable also that
in the 2 cases where the name is formed by the initial letters, the facts
recorded are initial also; and in an occasion in which God's overruling was
initiated.  In the last 2 cases where the name is formed by the final letters,
the events are final also, and lead quickly to the end toward which God was
working.

Fifth Acrostic
--------------
There is still another acrostic in verse 7:5, which does not spell YHWH, but
rather the remarkable EHWH.  It is formed by final letters, and the name is
spelled backward.  It appears in the dramatic moment when the king seeks the
identity by asking, "Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart
to do so?"  (That is, to arrange for the destruction of Queen Esther and her
people).  Hidden in this phrase is the very name that God announced from the
burning bush:

           "1. huE        2. zeH         3. veeY        4. zeH"
            1. who is he  2. this [man]  3. and where   4. [is] this [man]

This is the "I AM," the very name God announced when He delivered His people out
of the land of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:23-25; 3:14-15) in the past, and who has now
come to deliver them again out of the hand of Haman.

Evidence of Design
------------------
In these 5 acrostics we have something far beyond coincidence.  (The rabbis
claim that "coincidence is not a kosher word!")  His presence, ever working for
His people and accomplishing the fulfillment of His purposes, was hidden from
view, just as it is here.

We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, yet the more
we investigate, the more we discover that the books of the Bible are all
actually elements of a highly integrated message system in which every detail,
every number, the names, even the elemental structures within the text itself,
are clearly the result of intricate and skillful "engineering."  The more we
look, the more we realize that there is still much more hidden and thus reserved
for the diligent inquirer.  Would you expect anything less in the Word of God
Himself?

Other Acrostics
---------------
Other examples of hidden discoveries within the Biblical text which have been
discovered:

The "Torah" hidden in the text of the Torah and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
the genealogy of Genesis 5.  Both of these have been previously discussed in
this conference.  Another is the the Aleph (Alpha) and the Tau (Omega) in
Zechariah 12:10.  Compare this to the multitude of verse in the OT and NT that
speaks of God being the "first and last" as well as the Alpha and the Omega.

Thanks Mike.  Fascinating.  But...

� It has been commented on by many that this is the only book of the Bible in
� which there is no name of God, or divine title, in the Book.

How about the Song of Solomon?

							Andrew

Song of Solomon 2:1
I AM the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.

    YHWH = I AM; the other titles refer to Christ.
    
Song of Solomon 8:6
Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong
as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals of fire,
which hath a most vehement flame.

    This verse in the NAS ends with "...The very flame of the LORD."
    
    Mike

Hi Mike, Song of Songs is generally considered not to contain any explicit
mention of the LORD.  I'll have to see what it's like in the NAS!  Uh ... 
I've only got the New Testament in the NAS... :-(

							Andrew

    There is still no mistaking Song of Solomon 2:1.  The "I AM" in all
    uppercase in the KJV is more than obvious.
    
    Mike

Here are some additional insights from Rabbi Ya'acov Rabsel:

In the Book of Esther, Meshiach, the name of Yeshua, and El Shaddai can be
found.  Also hidden is the name Haman, and some other combinations that stagger
the imagination.  Remember, the name Esther means "something hidden."

The Messiah
-----------
In Esther 1:3, starting with the first mem in l'malko "of his reign," and
counting 8 letters to the shin, 8 more to the yod, and 8 more to the chet,
spells Meshiach.  Eight is the number of the new beginning.  Eight people began
the new beginning after the Flood of Noah, on the very anniversary (in
anticipation) of our new beginning in Christ: The 17th day of the 7th month
(Nisan), resurrected 3 days after the Crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan, which
was Passover.

Yeshua
------
In Esther 4:17, starting with the last yod and counting every 8 letters, in
reverse, you come to the shin, the vav, and the ayin, spelling Yeshua, the
Hebrew name of our precious Lord.

The Almighty
------------
In Esther 4:2, beginning at the 4th aleph, count 7 letters to the lamed, and
continue this and you will spell El Shaddai.  El is the familiar name of God;
Shaddai from the root "breast" or "provider"; thus, Almighty.  The 7 shouldn't
surprise us - it's the reckoning for "completion."

Final Surprise
--------------
Perhaps the most amusing acrostic of all is found in Esther 3:11-12.  This one's
a crack-up.  By starting with the first heh in verse 11, and counting every 6
letters 10 times, you will have the phrase "haman v'satan ray'yack" which means
"Haman and Satan stink."

Six is the well-known number of man or Satan: one less than 7; or incomplete.
This is epitomized in the famed "666" as the number of the final World Leader.
We can see Satan working in the background in Haman's life, yet Yeshua Ha
Meschiach is always in the background, watching over His people even today.  And
He always is victorious.  We need to remember this as we watch the terrifying
world horizon and the decay of our national heritage.  Our citizenship is with
Him.

As Gentiles, we need to remember that we are grafted into the true olive tree by
the skin of our teeth.  We must not forget that we were joined into what was a
Jewish Church - with Jewish leaders, a Jewish Bible, and worshipping a Jewish
Messiah.  Baruch Ha Shem - "Bless His Name!"

    This is not a difficulty with the Bible reply, but more of a difficulty
    with me. For quite a few years now, I've been trying to read the Bible
    straight through. (Since I was a child, in fact) Haven't been able to
    do so. The main reason behind this is the language style of the Bible.
    I'm aware of the Good News for Modern Man version, but is there a
    version of the Bible that contains both Old and New Testament in modern
    English? If so, then what version and which Christian book stores in
    the Nashua, NH area might carry it? 
    
    Thanks for your help in advance.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    
    I have an easier time understanding the New International Version
    better than others but if you are looking for a Bible with truly
    modern day language try "The Message".  Our pastor uses it often
    as a reference for easy to understand messages.  Of course, I
    would cross reference it with one of the more traditional
    versions.   "The Message" at the moment is only the NT and
    Psalms but it might help for now. 
    
    I don't know who publishes it but it should be known by your
    local Christian book store.
    
    Pam

'The Living Bible' is a popular one over here (UK), but it originated in 
the U.S.  It is designed to be an easy read, though I have not used it 
myself.  I believe we have one in the house somewhere... ;-)

I'd have to do some digging to find out what Nashua bookstores might stock 
it ;-) - though I'd guess it's [still] pretty freely available there.  

								Andrew

>         <<< Note 71.112 by WMOIS::CONNELL "Story does that to us." >>>

    I agree with Pam.  An NIV may be better suited to you.

    You might also want to look for one that is written in paragraph style
    (my term) as opposed to verse format.  Your reading may flow more
    naturally if the sentences aren't broken up by verse breaks.

    Ron

 The New American  Standard is a good translation as well, one I use when
 I have a little trouble deciphering the KJV.  The Harvest Bookstore on Factory
 Street in Nashua should have all of the translations mentioned.  I'd suggest
 a study version of the NISV which would help.  The staff at Harvest should
 be able to help with that.




 Jim

I agree with Pam and Ron that the NIV is easy to read and understand, as 
well as being more accurate (and hence more reliable) than a paraphrase.  
It depends how 'easy' a read you want.  I believe that the Living Bible was 
written to be simple for anyone; in particular, family readings including 
young children.  That's why I mentioned it!  I mostly use the NIV.

							Andrew

    
    I have managed to get through the entire Bible 3 or 4 times now by
    reading my "daily" Bible.  It is NIV.  And it has pretty much 
    reading sequentially through the BIble in 365 days.  The publisher
    pulls sections together based on a time line.  So there are sections
    where the daily readings may be from Chronicles and Kings or one 
    of the books by the prophets.  Also he has a commentary for most 
    days (giving some historical information and an overview of the 
    passages).  
    
    I have to confess it is the only way I can make myself get through 
    some of the O.T. stuff.  I ended up giving my niece a copy when she
    indicated she was having a hard time getting through the entire Bible.
    And since I am goal oriented, it is good to have a specified segment 
    to read per day.  I do this in addition to my other studying.
    
    Mary Jo 

For doing serious study I use multiple translations:

    The New International Version (NIV) Study Bible edition
    The New American Standard (NAS) with a small Hebrew & Greek lexicon &
                                    dictionary section in the back
    an interlinear Bible (Hebrew & Greek, with the English below)
    The Jewish Publication Society edtion of the Tanakh (Old Testament)
    and the Revised English Bible (REB)

For doing straight reading, I like to use either the NIV or the REB.  In
some places I think the NIV does a more accurate translation, and in other
places, I think the REB makes some better word choices.  The REB flows very
elegantly, but I woulnd't use it as my only Bible.

Leslie

(Back from a great week of vacation)

    I want to emphasize what Mary Jo (in .118) mentioned. There is a Bible
    called the Daily Bible (published by Harvest House I think). It is the
    NIV text arranged in chronological order and with the duplicate
    passages removed. Interspersed within the NIV text (but clearly
    distinguishable because of the color) is some nice commentary that ties
    together what you read yesterday with what you're about to read today.
    As implied, it is also separated into "daily chunks" so that if you
    stick to the schedule you can read the whole Bible through in a year.
    
    The hardback of this Bible is called the Narrated Bible. Same thing,
    just more expensive.
    
    I've read the Bible in its entirety about 7 or 8 times in my life from
    several different versions. I heartily recommend either the Narrated
    Bible or the Daily Bible as the best way to do daily readings!
    
    	BD�

    Well, thank you all for the very fast responses. While I have owned
    more then one KJV bible, they've always been full of the these and
    thous and the begats and the like. I can do a little of that, but after
    one whole book or sveral chapters, if it's a long book, my eyes start
    to go loopy. :-) I like the Daily Bible, especially as it has
    commentary. I'm also glad that someone mentioned Harvest Bookstore as I
    knew that they had moved out of Simineau Plaza, but not to where.
    Appreciate it folks.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

 Harvest is on Factory Street, just before you get to Main St.  I've never been
 there, actually, but been by there a million times.





 Jim

    I'm not NIV+.

    .123
    
    :-) :-)  I *love* it!!!

| <<< Note 915.5 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| To see Paul's opinion as not inspired by the Holy Spirit's work in his
| life is to completely miss the point!

	Then shouldn't Paul have given credit to God afterall? If his opinion
was inspired by they Holy Spirit, then it was inspired by God. After all,
aren't we supposed to be giving credit for everything we do, to the Lord? Why
would someone who is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit take credit for
something that really did come from God?


Glen

    See 1Co.7:6  -- whose permission?
              7  -- whose gift?
              25 -- whose mercy?
              40 -- whose Spirit?

    My ideas Paul's writings have been changing as I have begun to see
    the continuity of all Scripture, what is known as the Old Testament
    and what is known as the New Testament.  

    Paul, as a Pharisee, would be used to basing any halacha (ways of living, 
    ways of following the Torah) on already existing Sripture.  I think he 
    appealed to the Torah has support for how he told the people to conduct
    their lives.  In this instance, the Torah did not address remaining 
    single as oppossed to marrying.  So he could state what the Holy Spirit
    revealed to Him, but he could not appeal to a direct ruling on the matter
    in the Torah. I think "command from the Lord" refers to the Torah. I do
    not think it is a statement of this part of Paul's instruction not being
    something inspired by the Holy Spirit.  

    I think getting married was pretty much taken for granted. This is what 
    you would do.  At brit milah (I may have spelled the transliteration 
    incorrectly), it is the circumcision ritual, a blessing is said for the 
    child - may you be for Torah, for the marriage canopy, and for good deeds.
    In other words, they are praying for the child to:
    1) love and follow the Lord, wanting to learn what the Lord wants and to be
       obedient to the Lord
    2) find a loving, compatible wife to whom he will be loving and faithful,
       and with whom he can raise a family.
    3) grow up to be compassionate, kind, and generous, and bring good to the 
       world and not harm.
    Marriage was the expected norm, and so there were no instructions in the
    Torah as to whether one should marry or remain single.

    Leslie    

    and for this cause shall man cleave to his wife...
    
    Isn't there scripture to this affect in the Bible?  

| <<< Note 915.8 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>


| So he could state what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him, 

	If he could state what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him, why did he take
credit for something that was supposed to come from the Holy Spirit?

 Glen...read the scriptures that Wayne listed in .7




 Jim

    And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I
    will make him an help meet for him."
    
    Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
    shall be called Isha, because she was taken out of Ish."
    
    "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
    unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Ge.2:18-25)
    
    Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning
    made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave
    father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall
    be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
    therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
    (Mt.19:4-6)
    
    The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his
    wife.  Jesus said, "What did Moses command you?"  They said, "Moses
    suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."
    
    Jesus said to them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this
    precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
    female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
    cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are
    no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
    let not man put asunder."
    
    Jesus' disciples inquired further, and He said, "Whosoever shall put
    away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And
    if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
    committeth adultery." (Mk.10:2-12)
    
    The Apostle Paul said, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
    loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and
    clease it with the washing of water by the word, That He might present
    it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
    such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought
    men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife
    loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth
    and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of
    His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man
    leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and
    they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak
    concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in
    particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she
    reverence her husband." (Ep.5:25-33)

 Bunch of notes about 1Corinthians 7:25 moved here.

 Please continue the discussion in this topic.


 Jim Co Mod

Glen,

I don't think it was a matter of him taking credit where no credit was 
due.  He was providing backup for what he was telling them. In this case,
he could not point to Torah, but could point to His relationship with God.
In affect, he was saying "I am trustworthy because of what God does through me."

Perhaps someone can correct me, but I don't recall Paul preceding everything
in his writings with "The Holy Spirit told me", or even "God told me". People
tend to use that kind of language casually today but it seems like it is 
reserved more for prophetic utterances in the Bible.

Leslie

    Hi, Leslie.
    
    I think 1Co.7:25 clearly shows Paul crediting God, not in effect, but
    quite literally:  "I give my judgment, AS ONE THAT HATH OBTAINED MERCY
    OF THE LORD TO BE FAITHFUL." (KJV)
    
    We must take seriously that by which Paul is qualified:  "Paul, called
    to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God..." (1Co.1:1)
    
    "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
    and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)..." (Ga.1:1)
    
    etc.
    
    But you know that! :-)
    
    /Wayne

    None of the passages in Wayne's reply, as good as they are, address 
    the question the Corinthians were asking.  The first three passages 
    are narrative in nature, giving reason for creating humans as male 
    and female, and also describing the nature of marriage.  The next four 
    are about divorce.  The last is about what the marriage relationship 
    should be like. All of these may have bearing on what was being talked 
    about in the Corinthian passages, but none directly address it.

    I am wondering, Wayne, if you could enter in the rest of the Corinthian
    passages 7:25-28 from the NAS?  I think its good to look at these things
    using more than one translation. Thanks.

    Leslie

                       <<< Note 71.140 by ROCK::PARKER >>>
                                 -< RE: .139 >-

>    I think 1Co.7:25 clearly shows Paul crediting God, not in effect, but
>    quite literally:  "I give my judgment, AS ONE THAT HATH OBTAINED MERCY
>    OF THE LORD TO BE FAITHFUL." (KJV)
    
     Yes, I agree with you. In my previous note, when I said "in effec," I 
     meant that another way of stating Paul's point is.

     Leslie

    my 71.141 was in reference to the scripture in Wayne's 71.137.  I agree
    with what Wayne has said in this topic.

    Leslie

    Leslie, to what reply are you referring?
    
    My reply in now note 71.137 was meant to answer Nancy's question in now
    note 71.134.  I just took liberty to add some context.
    
    I would add nothing to my reply in now note 71.132 to Glen's now note
    71.131.
    
    RE: .142  I knew you knew that.  Didn't I say that? :-)
    
    /Wayne

   RE: <<< Note 71.144 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

   Notes can be hard to keep up with :-).
 
   .141 was in reference to the passages in .137 which I knew was in 
   response to Nancy's .134.  But I kind of figured that .134 was in 
   response to my .133, and that "in effect" :-) she was asking, "Doesn't 
   the Torah passage that talks about how a man shall cleave to his wife 
   address the issue in Corinthians?" I was really responding to the question 
   I understood Nancy to be asking, and noting that the passages you supplied
   did not address the Corinthian's issue directly.

   Does anyone have ideas on exactly what the Corinthian's were asking?
   Its implied in Paul's answer, but is not directly stated in the text.

   Leslie   

   Oh, I forgot to say that I did look through the earlier replies in 
   topic 71 and didn't see this particular passage in Corinthians
   addressed. Could it have been somewhere else, BD� ?

   Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    I did not look through 71.* to see if in fact this verse had been
    discussed. I was only guessing that it was since I addressed this verse
    in my Bible Difficulties class, and I thought that my class was a
    superset of Note 71 (well, it was a superset, but obviously since the
    verse in question wasn't here, my class was more of a superset than I
    thought :-).
    
    What we did in the class was essentially look at the verses that Wayne
    posted, which really supports the idea of inspiration for Paul's
    admonition. I would also point people to 1 Thes. 2:13 where we see Paul
    again stating that his words were God's words.
    
    	BD�

| <<< Note 71.139 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>


| he could not point to Torah, but could point to His relationship with God.
| In affect, he was saying "I am trustworthy because of what God does through me."

	The above would only be true if the person God was using was God
Himself. I think we can all say that at some point in time, God used us.
But can we ever say we got it right time after time?

	And if Paul knew the Holy Spirit was there as Jesus had said, then why
his human influence? 




Glen

    Actually, upon further remembrance we also looked a bit more closely at
    the whole issue of Paul's writings to the Corinthians. I believe that
    Paul was using sarcasm with them ("I think that I also have the Spirit
    of God") as he did on other occasions (e.g. 2 Cor 11). Getting into
    this would take a lot of time and a pretty deep study of Paul's
    letters, which I am certainly not in a position to do. I just wanted to
    provide another thought about the passage under question.
    
    	BD�

RE:        <<< Note 71.148 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.yvv.com/decplus/" >>>

>	The above would only be true if the person God was using was God
>Himself. I think we can all say that at some point in time, God used us.
>But can we ever say we got it right time after time?

God, in his mercy to people, made of Paul a vessel chosen to spread the 
good news about God and God's salvation (Yeshua, or, if you prefer, Jesus),
God in his mercy gave Paul wisdom, insight, and knowledge to do this work.
Paul is speaking specifically here of himself, and not of every human being
that loves the Lord and is influenced by the Holy Spirit. It is true we are
not all right all the time. No doubt Paul made mistakes sometimes too, but 
that in no way negates that his words in his letters to the various 
congregations are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are trustworthy and true, 
and that God is the one who made this so.

>        And if Paul knew the Holy Spirit was there as Jesus had said, then why
>his human influence?

I'm not sure what you are meaning here.  Do you mean, why did Paul say "I have
no COMMAND of the Lord"? If so, then my answer was that Paul was refering to 
commands stated in the Torah.  

Leslie

| <<< Note 71.150 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>


| I'm not sure what you are meaning here.  Do you mean, why did Paul say "I have
| no COMMAND of the Lord"? If so, then my answer was that Paul was refering to 
| commands stated in the Torah.

	And then we're back to square one. Where was the Holy Spirit during all
this? Did He not know the message came from Himself? This is why I think Paul
used his own humanism when he said this, and was not totally being led by the
Holy Spirit. 


Glen

 Paul was speaking on an issue where Scritpure had been silent.  And remember
 Paul's statement on marriage in this passage was not binding.



 Jim

    Hi Glen!
    
     In my own experience of using the God given free will, and free speach
    we have here in the US, in a way, I can relate to Paul. In my own way,
    I'll try my best to explain this.
    
     In Christianity, there is The Trinity. I perceive The Trinity as
    triune, unlike humans being tripartite. God The Father has been, and is
    like a father to me, except in the sense of my Heavenly Father, perfect, 
    and blameless. (Although at many times I have blamed Him for nearly
    everything that is wrong with me, others, and the world.) He understands
    and made the provision for forgiveness by sending His Son, Jesus.
    
     Jesus is like my older brother, and in a real way, my Lord and Savior.
    He is the perfect example of how to live pleasing to God, The Father.
    Self-sacrificing, loving others, laying down His life, and all else He
    did during His earthly ministry.
    
     The Holy Spirit, being made evident to the believers in The Book of
    Acts, as promised by Jesus after His death, is a.k.a. The Comforter,
    The Teacher, and more. He leads those sensitive to Him to the best of
    His ability, and still not violating our free will. Paul may have done
    things similar to the things I have found myself doing at times. Such
    as listening, and hearing, the running ahead of He Who is trying to
    lead, and making mistakes, either in judgement or in words.
    
     In trying to see life as a concert, The Holy Spirit is the Conductor,
    working to make all the players play in perfect harmony. I confess I
    have missed His timing at times, and played faster than I should have,
    or spoken more than I should have. It is not God's fault for me not
    listening to the coaching of The Holy Spirit, when He tugs at my heart,
    giving me the thoughts of slow down, or rest.
    
      Paul, who made the statement "And we know all things work together 
    for good to those who love God, and are the called according to his 
    purpose", was able to use "hindsight", and see God do miracles, even in 
    Paul's mistakes. It's just a matter of "Amazing Grace."
    
     I hope that helps your question.
    
     Hi Jim,
    
     I'm not sure, but sometimes I think Paul was deeply wounded by a woman
    at sometime in his life, and may have expressed that, in his humanism,
    as Glen thinks. I've had women who have been a "thorn in my side" at
    times throughout my life. Maybe he did too?
    
     I'm so very glad Paul's statement is not binding. Two things I have
    not agreed to in my own personal covenant with the Lord are;
    
     1) A vow of celebacy. ( I think women are a wonderful creation!)
    
     2) A vow of poverty.  ( If properly used, money can feed the hungry )
    
    He understands, and still continues to love me like I am an adopted
    child. which in more ways than one, I am. 8-)
    
     Bob 

    .153
    
    Can anyone tell me if they recall what the thorn in Paul's side was? I
    had been under the impression it was illness.

| <<< Note 71.152 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>


| Paul was speaking on an issue where Scritpure had been silent.  And remember
| Paul's statement on marriage in this passage was not binding.

	If it wasn't binding, why is it in the Bible?

    
    Hi Nancy,
    
     From 2nd Corinthians 12:7; "And lest I should be exalted above measure
     through the abundance of revelations, there was given to me a messenger
     of satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure".
    
     Must have been one of the fallen angels? I wonder why Paul said what
    he said there twice? At least in the KJV it is recorded twice.
    
    Hi Glen,
    
     The Law of Love is greater than the law itself. There is free will,
    and the choice was, and is still available. Perhaps Paul felt strongly
    enough about being single, he didn't want his own words to be misinterpreted
    to the point no one would consider getting married, and if that had
    happened, there would have been no more babies.
    
     Bob

>| Paul was speaking on an issue where Scritpure had been silent.  And remember
>| Paul's statement on marriage in this passage was not binding.

>	If it wasn't binding, why is it in the Bible?



  Jesus said to Judas "Whatever you do, do quickly".  Is that binding
 to all Christians, for all time?




 Jim

    It's really simple.  There isn't a single command from the Lord Himself,
    that can apply to everyone for all time, that everyone must marry, nor
    that everyone must remain single.  This is an important decision.
    Sometimes it is dictated by circumstances, but usually the individual
    plays a role in the decisions that lead up to celibacy or marriage,
    and we are all directly responsible to the Lord for our decisions.

    Re: Note 71.154 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
�    Can anyone tell me if they recall what the thorn in Paul's side was? I
�    had been under the impression it was illness.
    
    It's not precisely defined, but the most popular theories include his
    bad eyesight (Gal. 6:11) or a possible speech defect (1 Cor. 2:1). I
    think I remember a theory about problems he had with his legs but since
    I don't recall for sure (and can't think of any Scripture that would
    support it) I put that low on the possibilities list.
    
    Some folks do think he was talking about spiritual oppression. I
    disagree with this since Paul specifically said the thorn was in his
    flesh.
    
    	BD�

    In addition to what Barry said, Paul wrote that the source of this
    affliction was from Satan.
    
    Mike

    I agree with the last two in that the Bible is not specific as to what
    the affliction or thorn in the side is but the important point that
    should be remembered is that God's grace was sufficient.

	Why is it that the Bible says one has to turn to Him if they want to be
saved, but if one gets married they can worship the devil, be of a different
religion, be an athiest, not include God at all, and be under His covenant? 



Glen

    .163
    
    Care to offer why you believe this to be true?  I'm very confused by
    your question without any specific examples of the same.

 If you'll read the Bible, you'll see that marriage was instituted by God.
 That others choose to reject God does not diminish the the significance
 of the that covenant.  At one point or another they'll have to deal with
 God and their rejection of Him.



 Jim

    Huh??  From whence does this come?
    
    Specifically, where does the Bible say that marriage provides context
    and justification for worshipping the devil, being of different
    religions, being an atheist, ignoring God, but remaining under His
    covenant?
    
    /Wayne

| <<< Note 71.165 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>



| If you'll read the Bible, you'll see that marriage was instituted by God.
| That others choose to reject God does not diminish the the significance
| of the that covenant.  At one point or another they'll have to deal with
| God and their rejection of Him.

	Then the question remains..... is marriage without God valid?

>	Then the question remains..... is marriage without God valid?



    God instituted life.  Is life without God valid?




   Jim

| <<< Note 71.168 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>


| >	Then the question remains..... is marriage without God valid?


	Jim.... please answer the question I asked, without asking a
question.... thank you.

 

 I don't want to play, Glen.  I apologize for even getting involved.




 Jim

   Glen, a distinction is being made between the marriage covenant
   between the two people, and an individual's relationship with God.
   The fact that they are in a valid marriage says nothing about other
   aspects of their life.

   Leslie

	So even the devil worshipper is in a valid marriage?

| <<< Note 71.170 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>

| I don't want to play, Glen.  I apologize for even getting involved.

	Neither do I. That was why I asked for an answer to the question I
asked, not another question.

    You fail to see the logic and the answer Jimbo provided Glen.  In
    essence the marriage is invalid by God. :-)
    
    Leslie, the covenant of marriage can only be between two people and
    God.  However, a vow between to people who don't believe in God are
    held accountable by each other or any legalities of that vow or
    agreement to which they have both committed.
    
    I believe the covenant of marriage to have been created by God.  I
    believe the legal document provided by states to simply be a financial
    tracking mechanism for both government and private businesses.

| <<< Note 71.174 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| You fail to see the logic and the answer Jimbo provided Glen.  In
| essence the marriage is invalid by God. :-)

	Hmmm.... I know of a couple of Christians in here that gave a different
view of marriage in another conference. They stated it was God's covenant, and
it did not matter what the people thought of Him. That was why I asked about
the covenant being all inclusive where one has to turn to God if they want to
be included as those going to Heaven.

	So that means that unless one is a Christian, then their marriage is
invalid. Hmmmm.....