Question
#1:
Thank you for your reply. I was expecting quite a wait as the weekend is another
one of your busy times. I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your
health and hip. Hope you were able to recuperate some over the weekend. I am
grateful that you give of your time and talents with a kind heart. When I
consider your words and work are derived from your search of the Holy Bible,
through diligent study (including the languages the scriptures were originally
penned in), and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I feel humbled, more
than from any earthy gift or reward. I apologise for my lengthy emails. You need
not answer all my questions, and I have read most of your works- except not a
lot of your last completed work - as I am rereading The Satanic Rebellion for
more understanding.
Response #1:
I'm always happy to receive your emails, my friend. I gain from hearing
your perspective, and I'm always encouraged by your courageous sharing
of the gospel. If you were a horse, you'd be one that always to be
reined in instead of spurred on (the kind we all prefer – and I'm sure
that's true of our Lord as well).
Question
#2:
Dear Professor
Response #2:
You're welcome.
I'm keeping your children and your family in my prayers daily, my
friend.
Question
#3:
Greetings Dr. Luginbill and thank you again for sharing your hard work from you
two part series of the Satanic Rebellion and the Coming Tribulation. I was just
sharing a portion of your work with a friend of mine who lives in southern
California. I sent him your exegesis of the 7 Eden's. I do have a question in
regards to this part on the third Eden, you write;
b) The Interim Third Heaven: After Satan's rebellion, the universe,
naturally and from its original creation a place of light, was "blacked
out".(21) We have no way of knowing how long the Lord left Satan and company
in fearful anticipation of immediate judgment before restoring the earth and
the universe. We can assume, however, that there was still a place where He
made His presence known for fellowship with the elect angels. This would
most likely be in heaven, given the devastation of planet earth as an
initial judgment upon and restraint of Satan's activities (a situation to be
described in part 2 of this series). When restoration of the earth does
occur (along with the new Eden), we do in fact find the elect angels in
God's presence, filled with joy as they observe the event (Job 38:4-7).
Why could Job 38:4-7 not be referring to the original earth as opposed to the
restored earth as you suggest?
Response #3:
Good to hear from you, my friend – and thanks for your kind and
encouraging words.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Hebrew is even more explicit, because the first phrase, bereshith,
really means "first off" or "as the very first thing". In other words,
God existed before creation (cf. Jn.1:1ff.); then God
created the heavens and the earth – in Genesis 1:1. But if that is true
– and it surely is – then He had not yet created the angels, because
"first" He created the heavens and the earth. Where could the angels,
creatures that they are, have even existed before heaven and earth were
created in any case?
The morning stars in Job 38 (several answers in series here)
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Question
#4:
Hi Bob,
Response #4:
This is another
anthropopathism (see the link). God cannot forget – in fact He
cannot "not" have known ahead of time. But couching this language in
human terms makes the point very effectively and so is blessed: His
forgiveness is ABSOLUTE.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness..
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Question
#5:
Hi Bob,
Response #5:
I think this is an excellent application on your part. If God allowed
Himself to be approached however anyone wished to do so, then any
religion would save. As it is, Jesus is "the Way" and the only One to
life eternal (Jn.14:6). He and He alone is the strait gate and narrow
way through which we must enter into life (Matt.7:14). Only through
Jesus Christ can we approach the Father, and everything in the Law is
meant to represent Jesus and His sacrifice. So when these two did what
they did, it was the same thing in essence that Cain did in offering
vegetables which spoke of his own works rather than Abel's blood
sacrifice which spoke of the cross. "Strange fire" indeed! Anyone who is
trying to impress God with their own works, doing things
He has not asked for or authorized, is by definition trampling the blood
of Christ underfoot (Heb.10:29). Whether judgment comes swiftly (as it
did for these two) or delays until the end, the result is the same:
rejection of Christ is to be self-selecting and embracing condemnation.
If the Father were not absolute on this principle, He would not be just
and righteous; in other words, He would not be who HE IS . . . and then
no one could be saved through His ineffable sacrifice of His Son which
satisfied His righteousness in the case of all who stand on THAT work
rather than their own. That is the true meaning of holiness.
Question #6:
Hi Bob,
Response #6:
Hello my friend,
Question
#7:
Hi Bob,
Response #7:
The wealth of the scriptures is beyond calculation – for those who look
into them humbly seeking what the Word of God has to say. Another "heart
thing".
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show
you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait
for him!
We have absolutely nothing to fear, nothing to worry about, nothing to
be concerned about. We are absolutely safe and secure. The enemy is
"us", our sin natures along with the world and worldly things we
sometimes choose to excess. Of course there is also another enemy who
stokes both of these sources of alienation from the Lord, but He who is
in us is far more powerful than those unholy three put together. It's
all about the truth and our response to the truth of Him who is the very
Truth.
Question
#8:
Dr Luginbill,
Response #8:
On "bad language", while I can't say I'm perfect on this, but a good policy for
Christians is not to engage in it because we reflect on the Lord in all we do.
As far as reacting to others, I've never been a fan of gasping legalistic
Christians who are easily offended by just about everything. If you don't like
what you are seeing or hearing, you don't have to acknowledge it and many times
you can just leave.
Question
#9:
Hello Dr Bob,
Response #9:
You're most welcome, my friend, and I am keeping you in my prayers for
growth and other things as well.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies,
outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders,
drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just
as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will
not inherit the kingdom of God.
In terms of "what is sin", it is clear from the passage above, a list
given by Paul which is NOT meant to be comprehensive but merely to give
examples of sin, that sin comprises all manner of activities, things we
think things we say, and things we do – anything that violates God's
will for our lives in an arrogant way. The anemic "such things" in the
NKJV translation is better rendered "things of this sort" and I would
expand it to bring out the true meaning thus: "anything else of this
sinful sort of thing (in case I missed your particular weakness)". As
Paul tells us at Roman 5:13, sin existed before the Mosaic Law was given
– only specific sins were often not recognized as sin until the Law
specifically forbid them. And there are many things which we know from
the New Testament which are sinful but not directly prohibited by the
Law. As in the passage above we see a number of actions and patterns of
thought and speech for which no one every made an animal sacrifice – but
they are "works of the flesh" and definitely sins.
Question
#10:
Hey Bob,
Response #10:
Nicely done, my friend.
Question
#11:
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. In regards to the great flood of
Noah's day that God "...blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of
the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky,"
(Gen.7:23a), how do you suppose the Nephilim made a comeback upon the earth
(Num.13:33)? There are so many folk trying to figure out if the Nephilim
reincursion after the flood was through a second episode of angels marrying
women or did some Nephilim DNA navigate the flood via one of Noah's sons or
there wives perhaps?. It does seem that the reappearance of these hybrids came
through the descendents of Ham via Cush then Nimrod who "... began to become a 'gibborim'
" (Gen.10:8). Even entire tribes of Nephilim are found in the promises land that
are linked back to Canaan such as the Amorites (Gen.10:16) whom Amos says their
"...height was like the height of cedars" (Amos 2:9). Being that a cedar tree
can grow at least up to 30 feet tall, these were definitely hybrids. If the
angels that committed this original crime by abandoning "their proper abode"
have been "kept in eternal bonds" are we to assume that there was a second wave
of angels after the flood that created these post-flood Nephilim?
Response #11:
Numbers 13:33 is frequently misinterpreted. Don't feel bad about it – my
seminary professor got this one wrong too. He even put it on the final
for us to defend his interpretation. I couldn't bring myself to do it so
pointed out in excruciating detail why he was wrong. Earned me one of
the only A-'s I got there in an otherwise 4.0 career.
Nephilim, Fallen Angels, and Genesis 6
The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.
The Origin and Fate of the
"Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.
Dinosaurs, the
Nephilim, Noah, et al.
The only Nephilim we know for certain about after the flood is
antichrist who is predicted to be the devil's seed (Gen.3:15; see
the link). It also seems likely that
the ten kings of Revelation who support him are also Nephilim (see
the link).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Question
#12:
Greetings Bob,
Response #12:
As to "when the plain sense of a text makes common sense, seek no other
sense", that is clearly correct – but people often see that "plain
sense" differently.
Question
#13:
Hello Bob,
Response #13:
Always great to hear from you, my friend.
Question
#14:
Behold, My servant will prosper,
Unger makes a good point on the rendering of יַשְׂכִּיל and I can see
from your translation that you interpret the passage similarly:
But His redemptive work sprang out of His sterling and unflinching obedience
to the will and purpose of the Lord, so the King James Version and many
interpreters translate it, Behold my servant shall deal prudently (yaskil,
“act wisely, circumspectly,” as used in Psalms 2:10; 36:3; Amos 5:13 and
often in Proverbs 10:5, etc.).
Others render the verb in the sense of “prosper, have success” (as in 1
Samuel 18:15;Jeremiah 10:21; 20:11; 23:4; cf. BDB, p. 968). It seems,
however, that the King James Version’s rendering, in taking the whole
introductory “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently” as the summary of
the basis of the Servant’s exaltation, gives a much fuller and more
satisfying basis for the Messiah’s exaltation than merely the words
“Behold, My Servant.
Response #14:
My translation: "My Servant will embrace the truth"; I'm not sure why
NASB went the way they did with sachal, but I see no
justification for it.
Question
#15:
Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
Another good point by Unger which also exposes the wrong addition in the NASB:
His humiliation was as deep as His exaltation was high. Many were astonished
(smm, “awestruck, appalled, emotionally desolated”) at you (NASB),
thrown into a benumbed and stupefied state of mind, the second person “you”
(MT) evidently by a dramatic enallage referring to the Servant-Messiah, but
most critics amending it to “Him” (third person singular).
But the New American Standard Bible refers it to My people, rendering it, “Just
as many were astonished at you, My people.” The reference is clearly singular to
our Lord and not collective to “God’s people”.
Response #15:
Correct. Israel is the Servant in many places in Isaiah, but even there
the reference is to Christ as the quintessential Son. In this context,
we would have to read this whole wonderful passage as a metaphor for the
suffering of the Jewish people and take the Messiah out of it altogether
for the mistaken rendering/interpretation to work here (heaven forbid!).
Question #16:
That's what I thought as well, that's why I was somewhat surprised by
the addition of the NASB. Having re-read the verse now, I think I know
what they may have meant - to compare the Messiah to the suffering of
God's people - "As many were appalled at you (my people - i.e., as many
were appalled at the calamities that I allowed to fall upon you)" - "So
His appearance was marred more than any man and His form more than the
sons of men". Do you think that we could take this verse in such a way?
Response #16:
It's defensible from a purely linguistic point of view if one
reads עָלֶיךָ (I am reading עָלָיו, which is supported by some of the MT
mss, the LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch). In terms of meaning, there
is no reason why looking at things from Isaiah's day or from the
Messiah's day, "many" should have been appalled at Israel. Isaiah's time
predates the Babylonian exile, and the Messiah's day is long after the
fact. My translation:
(13) Behold, My Servant will embrace the truth. He will arise on high, be
lifted up, and be greatly exalted, (14) to a proportional degree that many
had [previously] been appalled at Him. For His appearance had been marred
beyond human [likeness], and His form more than [that of any] other man.
Question
#17:
What is your take on the words “So His appearance was marred more than
any man And His form more than the sons of men”?
Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
Do you agree with Unger on this:
This part of the verse is a parenthetical statement explaining why many were
astonished at the Servant. So marred (“disfigured,” pointed in the Hebrew as
hofal, a passive participle, or read as a noun) was the disfigurement of His
visage (“His appearance,” NASB, with special reference to His face), more
than any man (min, in a comparative sense or min, “from a human being,” in a
negative sense), and his form (to’aro, His “physical body in general”) more
than the sons of men, meaning because of this brutal physical violence
perpetrated upon Him by His angry persecutors. In other words, His
disfigurement was inhuman; He no longer looked like a man. That meaning is
better than C. C. Torrey’s conclusion that the meaning is simply comparative
- “more than any other and his visage than the children of men” (Second
Isaiah). The inhumanity of Christ’s physical treatment is more rationally
defended than its uniqueness as far as severity is concerned, for many other
human beings have been abused physically in a crueller sense.
Do you agree that these words apply only to the pre-cross physical
suffering and do not include also our Lord’s agony on the cross? This is
perhaps the key point that will allow to decide whether the verse is to
be understood as Unger proposes (i.e., physical sense, our Lord no
longer looking human through the beating) or comparatively (our Lord’s
suffering on the cross being greater than anything else any human being
has ever experienced).
Response #17:
Yes, this is a prophecy of the physical abuse that our Lord suffered in
being tortured and crucified. It is symbolic of course of what He was
soon to do in the darkness for us – but those watching could not see
that; it was veiled in darkness deliberately.
Question
#18:
Ok, understood and I see what you meant by מַרְאֶה and תֹּאַר referring to the
physical suffering. So how would you take the מִן here - as saying that our Lord
was disfigured "more than any man" and "more than the sons of men" in the sense
of suffering more than they, or, as Unger proposes, in the sense of our Lord
being disfigured "from looking like a man/sons of men" in the sense of His
suffering being inhumane.
Response #18:
I'm not even sure what the "inhumane" thing would mean . . . except that our
Lord suffered something no one else ever suffered. However, while that might be
(and is) true, it would apply to the person Himself, and not to His appearance –
which is the subject here.
Question
#19:
NIV SB: on Isaiah 52:14 'appalled at him'. When they saw Christ's
suffering on the cross. Cf. the reaction to the ruined city of Tyre
(Eze 27:35). disfigured. A term used of a "blemished animal," which
should not be offered to the Lord (Mal 1:14). Cf. the disgraceful
treatment of the servant (see 50:6 and note).
Do you agree that “appalled at Him” refers to the cross? What is
disfigured referring to? Since according to the note this term is used
of a “blemished animal”, could it refer to our Lord being made “sin” for
us? Keil and Delitzsch make no reference to the cross when explaining
this verse, but rather just to the appearance of our Lord.
Response #19:
It is the truth that He suffered in the darkness more than the suffering
of all humanity put together in dying for the single least sin of the
human race – and He died for them all. So great is the disproportion of
grace compared to all that is. However, this verse is referring to the
physical abuse He endured. I don't see how מַרְאֶה and תֹּאַר can be
interpreted any other way (except by ignoring their presence and
meaning). It is good to remember that His suffering before and on the
cross prior to the darkness is given to us to give us some small idea of
what it would take for Him to die in the darkness for the sins of the
world.
Question
#20:
Understood. Do you think that the term maschith suggests - "disfigured.
A term used of a "blemished animal," which should not be offered to the
Lord (Mal 1:14)"?
Response #20:
I don't like the word since it implies in English a minor defect. On the
one hand, our Lord had no defects (which would disqualify an animal from
being sacrificed), and on the other hand there was nothing about His
physical suffering which was minor (quite the opposite).
Question
#21:
Isaiah 52:15 (NASB)
What does Isaiah mean by “He will sprinkle many nations”? In what sense is
“sprinkle” meant here? Do you agree that it's a direct reference to the
sprinkling of cleansing? Keil and Delitzsch interpret differently:
And accordingly we follow the majority of the commentators in adopting the
rendering exsilire faciet. The fact that whole nations are the
object, and not merely individuals, proves nothing to the contrary, as
Habakkuk 3:6 clearly shows. The reference is to their leaping up in
amazement (lxx θαυμάσονται); and the verb denotes less an external than an
internal movement. They will tremble with astonishment within themselves
(cf., Jeremiah 33:9), being electrified, as it were, by the surprising
change that has taken place in the servant of Jehovah.
Unger is against this interpretation and on good grounds.
Response #21:
K&D are "off the wall" here entirely. Of course nazah means "to
sprinkle" not to "jump" or "cause to jump", and the reference is clearly
to the salvation of the gentiles that would come from the Messiah's
sacrifice, frequently enough mentioned in the OT (as James points out in
Acts). These nations are not watching the cross so they can't be
startled by it in the first place. You can make nearly any Hebrew word
means other than what it means by appealing to similar sounding roots in
other Semitic languages (it's a flawed method).
Question
#22:
What specifically do the words “For what had not been told them they
will see, And what they had not heard they will understand” refer to? Is
it to do with our Lord’s exaltation following His crucifixion? Or is it
rather a reference to His Second Advent, when all His enemies will be
defeated and His glory revealed?
Response #22:
It's a prophecy of the gospel which in times past was not available
worldwide:
In the past, he let all nations go their own way.
Question
#23:
Dear Teacher
[11]Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled
with violence.
It occurred to me that the filling of the earth with violence and the corruption
of all flesh may have had to do with genetic manipulation again just like what
happened with the production of the Nephilim. That is, just as the Nephilim were
already result of genetic manipulation by the rebellious angels, they in turn
carried on the business of corrupting the genes of animals that existed at the
time. Might this have been the case?
Response #23:
Thanks for the update. Mostly good stuff! I'll be keeping the
bureaucratic battle in my prayers until you've won it (cf. Lk.18:4-5).
Question
#24:
Hello--I hope you are well. I have a question--I seem to remember hour
telling me that both Joshua and Yeshuah are shortened versions of
Yehoshua. And mean basically the same thing "God saves." Well, a
Christian mystic on CARM has this to say about these forms:
"SHU Egyptian theology; a god of the air. Compare the prince of the air. -
Budge's hieroglyph Dictionary. The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of
the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath
the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the
artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being.” - Brittanica. but let us
go further... Jewish historian Josephus, who lived in 1ad said the
tetragrammaton was made of vowels. [YHWH] is IEUE! . Josephus writes: “A
mitre also of fine linen encompassed his head, which was tied by a blue
ribbon, about which there was another golden crown, in which was engraven
the sacred name [of Yahweh]; it consists of four vowels,” Wars of the Jews,
Book 5 ieue is the pronunciation, as four vowels, which indeed ancient
hebrew uses, just as today you see txt and know that it means text and has a
vowel e present. If you look at interlinear texts, the same ieue as phonetic
expression is used when referring to God. IEUE - means 'he secures
breathing' - the breath of LIFE! LIFE. SHU on the other hand has the typical
Harsh Egyptian consonants... which were overlaid to the tetragrammaton.
Giving us the egyptian form - from which comes yeshua via various
transformations. HORRIBLE and not scripture. Having an entirely different
meaning and being of canaanite origin." Many can criticize that i refer to
egyptian terms. Well, in fact, scholars do research those terms since the
place names in scripture such as memphis and others are Egyptian."
---------------
Response #24:
Well now there is an English word that sounds identical: "shoe". So I
guess, based on this methodology, that we are all wearing Egyptian gods
on our feet.
Question
#25:
Hello--Well I think it is ridiculous, too. As ridiculous as that Messianic years
ago, on CARM, who claimed that "Jesus" meant "son of Zeus" because he had read
it in some book...I told him what you wrote about that, and he eventually backed
off. I doubt this person will, though. Christian mystics are a pain.
Response #25:
I remember that one too! Some people will believe just about anything.
Question #26:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #26:
1/2) Both the Greek word and Hebrews word(s) for "wisdom" are feminine;
in Proverbs, however, Solomon is using the poetic technique of
personifying wisdom, that is, referring to the concept as if it were a
person, "Wisdom", and because the word is feminine he uses she/her to
describe Wisdom. Even though wisdom (sophia) is feminine in Greek
too, Paul is not writing poetry and doesn't portray wisdom as a person
who speaks in an allegory, but he uses wisdom as a concept so "it" in
translations is appropriate; many Greek words which to us are neuter
have either masculine or feminine gender in Greek and Hebrew too.
Question
#27:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,,
Response #27:
Glad to hear it, my friend.
Question
#28:
The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
How should we translate “created”, “possessed”?
Response #28:
This is a poem wherein Wisdom is personified. Wisdom is a quality, not a person;
poetry takes the liberty of personification for emphasis.
Question
#29:
Ok, so as a quality that is divine, I take it you would translate verse
22 as "possessed" rather than "created"? The reason I'm asking is that
the commentators are split whether this verse refers to pre-incarnate
Christ (those who take it as existing from eternity) or not (those who
see it as created and Jehovah Witnesses who reject our Lord's divinity).
Response #29:
This passage is taking a quality and portraying it as a person. It's an
allegory. It's like if I were to write a poem about Wickedness and how
he/she behaves. There is no person "Wickedness", but the characteristics
I would describe in the poem would give readers an idea of what
wickedness as a concept is (if that were my goal and I were a good poet,
e.g.). God is all-wise and always has been. Wisdom is a quality of His
deity which has been obvious from His initial creation of the world.
That is what "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before
His works of old" means.
Question
#30:
Since the problem of Solomon’s idolatry has really bothered me, I
thought I would also attach my questions on 1 Kings 11.
1 Kings 11:4-8 (NASB)
Was Solomon saved if he engaged in idolatry?
Response #30:
Solomon most definitely did engage in the trappings of idolatry to
please his wives. He began in humility and ended in the sort of
arrogance that is hard for very rich, powerful, famous and successful
people to avoid. Since Solomon was all that and in spades and had
everything his heart could even possibly imagine, allowing it to turn
somewhat hard against the truth was inevitable – absent a diligent daily
attempt to stick close to the Lord via His truth. Solomon seems to have
had a foot in both camps, as we say, "swearing by the Lord but also by
Molech" (2Ki.17:41). He dealt with the Lord in a crooked, half-hearted
way, and the Lord repaid him by dealing with him in a subtle way
(Ps.18:26), not taking the kingdom from him but taking most of it away
from his son.
Question
#31:
So do you think he is with the Lord or did he become apostate? I think if we
read what chapter 11 says and didn't know it was Solomon, we would be certain
that this person did leave the Lord and apostatise, but since it's Solomon, it
seems harder to accept.
Response #31:
I obviously can't be dogmatic about it, but I'm fairly certain that
Solomon is in heaven. What his behavior in his latter days did to
diminish his reward is hard to say (it's clear that he wasn't adding to
his treasury of eternal blessing while involved in these compromising
activities), and he certainly did flirt with apostasy (or the sin unto
death), and clearly incurred divine displeasure and divine discipline.
There are plenty of Christians today who compromise with the world – but
who are probably still believers. It's a dangerous attitude, policy and
stance, but it is very common. Also, there are different kinds of people
in this world and different kinds of Christians. Some are consistently
bad; some consistently good; some start bad and end up good; some start
good and end up bad. Category one is the most common; category two the
rarest; category three – well, that's you and I; since our experience is
absolutely the opposite of category four, of course we can't understand
how anyone could be like that – but many people are (Saul is another
king who did the same thing, even worse, but we know he is in heaven
because of Samuel's testimony: " tomorrow you and your sons will be with
me": 1Sam.28:19 NKJV). So relapse does not mean loss of salvation even a
person risks it, nor necessarily total loss of reward (though that is
put at risk as well since apostasy means the loss of everything:
2Jn.1:8):
But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things
that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. For God is not
unjust to forget your work and labor o love which you have shown toward His
name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Question
#32:
1 Kings 11:13 (NASB)
Why is it that God's treatment of Solomon was a result David's
faithfulness?
Response #32:
Solomon was not just Solomon; he was the head of the nation, the son of
David, and in the line of Christ. For these reasons he is treated
differently than a "normal" Israelite would have been. The tribe is
Judah; Benjamin was closely associated with Judah and remained a part of
the southern kingdom even when it was called "Judah" (cf. Deut.33:12).
Question
#33:
1 Kings 11:22 (NASB)
This is an interesting observation – would you agree that the good relationship
established between Israel and Egypt through Solomon's marriage was the reason
for Pharaoh's reluctance to let Hadad go?
Response #33:
I suppose it is possible. The Pharaoh seems to have genuinely valued him
and his advice. Sometimes commentators wish to inject Realpolitik
into all instances of foreign relations mentioned in the Bible and
elsewhere too. Individual relationships do not explain everything (pace
Herodotus), but they do count for something, and so are also not to be
ignored as a false narratives, especially when the one we are dealing
with is in the Bible.
Question
#34:
1 Kings 11:41 (NASB)
What is the book of acts of Solomon?
Response #34:
This would seem to be a (non-inspired) book which no longer exists,
along the lines of the book of Jasher.
Question
#35:
How about Solomon's conversion - do you think we can draw the conclusion from
Ecclesiastes that Solomon did discover the vanity of things he turned to and
came back to God before his death?
Response #35:
Very possibly so, especially given the lament on old age in Ecclesiastes
chapter 12.
Question #36:
Hi Dr L,
Response #36:
I do think it's true that these biblical narratives have a great deal to
teach us if we stop to think about all of the ins and outs of them. A
very good point that for all the heartache, Leah was blessed by the
Lord. A good lesson for us all. Very often when we are feeling neglected
and abandoned and abused, we are also forgetting the great blessings
that the Lord has poured out upon us . . . as well as forgetting that
dying for the least one of our sins is a blessing worth the entire world
– and Jesus died for every single one of them. No matter what we suffer
here in this world, five minutes in the next one will blot out every
pain and wipe away every tear. And whatever happens here, the plan is
perfect. Our Lord is working everything out for us for good – whether we
choose to see that or not.
Question
#37:
Good afternoon Bob,
Response #37:
On Proverbs 3:5 et al., I was thinking about this and you when I did the
weekly posting last night and wrote:
New subject: our group got to annihilationism. (Imagine, ANOTHER “out”, if the
Pre- Trib Rapture does not work for you). Friend quoted some scriptures to do
with the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden as proof that only those who are
saved, live in eternity. The remainder obliterated. I will text him for the
references so that I may look at them. I said from my understanding the lake of
fire was a permanent place for unbelievers as well. Revelation indicates this to
be so. Of course, I was not able to quote scripture off the top of my head, as
he was able to. Impossible, in my mind, to ignore the plain language here in
Revelation. (Even for a novice).
His reply: "Genesis 3:22-24. eternal life only by access to the tree of life. In
revelation only those saints in heaven have access to the tree of life."
Yes, I agree that only those in the Book of Life have eternal life. However, the
beast and false prophet tormented forever in the lake of fire. Non believers
also tormented forever. Rev 20:10-15. (End of my reply to him)
Only believers are saved (link;
Jn.3:18). Our salvation does not depend upon eating of the tree of life.
That tree in the garden is different from (and has a different purpose
from) the one in
New Jerusalem (see the link). Eternal life is something we have now
as believers, but which is hidden away from sight with the Lord until we
are with Him, until we are resurrected. In a nutshell, having a
resurrection body of glory (rather than one of infamy as unbelievers
will have) is eternal life – for we shall live in that perfect body with
our Lord and the Father and all of our brothers and sisters forever.
Eating of the tree will be a blessing, not a necessity. Everyone, every
human being that is, begins with their names in the book of life. They
remain therein until a) they willfully and immutably reject Christ in
this life or b) die without accepting Him. Christ died for all, so the
plan of God makes salvation possible for all. Salvation is the default
position, so to speak, and made available to the point that all are in
the book. But the number who are willing to stay there by accepting that
gift of eternal life (by accepting the Gift Himself) is depressingly
small (or would be depressing if we didn't understand that choice is
what "all this" is all about).
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Thank you for your reply with the links. it is always good to refresh
what I have read at your site and am grateful to you. I have not
received a reply yet. Revelation 20:10 is very plain language
(I am glad it hasn’t got into that convoluted argument you had to endure
from one of your correspondents). Rev 20:14 also seems to my layman
understanding to unequivocally equate being cast into the lake of fire
AS the second death. Not obliteration, but being tormented forever.
If I can just refer to Mark 13:23 once more;
“But take heed: behold I have foretold you ALL things”
And then in verse 29 “So Ye in like manner, when ye shall see these
things come to pass, KNOW that it is nigh, even at the doors”. KJV
This strikes me as our Lord being full of GRACE. He has FORETOLD us. We
only need to watch. So He has seen to it, that we only need to be of
little faith. We already have the KNOWLEDGE of future events.
Of course, using that faith to ENDURE to the end.
Your prayers are so much appreciated. [details about troubles with
family member omitted]
While we live we have hope. I want him to live and have hope too. A bit
close to home, there have been people who have taken their own lives so
I pray for him and check on him to help him in his trouble.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
In our dear Lord Jesus Christ.
Your student
Yes, people love to concoct their own personal "theologies" based upon
what suits their fancies rather than on what scripture actually says. On
the specific issue of issue the false doctrine of annihilationism, here
is an additional link:
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
As to your question, here is what I read in the Bible:
Genesis 1:1 NKJV
I have some other things written on the grammar of this passage, but for
a believer in the scriptures such as yourself, the above is probably
sufficient. Here are the links:
Bob L.
The bible says (Psalm 103:12) that God forgives and "forgets" our sins
as far as east is from the west. Or casting it into the sea of
forgetfulness. I'm trying to understand that since God is Omniscient,
then how can He "forget" about something (e.g., our forgiven sins)? I've
heard differing opinions and views on this. Such as He doesn't forget in
the sense that we as humans were to understand it. That forget means God
never bringing it back to our remembrance as if we never sinned a
particular sin. I can't see any other way regarding God forgetting
something, especially since He is Omniscient. Can you help me understand
and reconcile these seemingly paradox? Thank you in advance!
God Bless,
1st John 1:9 NKJV
Bob L.
Hope you're doing well. I've been reading Leviticus again and I'm trying to
understand more about the death of Nadab and Abihu for offering unauthorized (or
strange) fire.
At first I thought it seemed the Lord was quite harsh in taking the lives of
these two priests but then because it was early on and the Israelites were still
getting to know God did He use this as an example to them? Was the Lord teaching
them that these men knew better but they had disregarded the commands of God and
there were consequences for doing this. That He is a holy God and they were to
honour and obey Him on His terms and not their own. The Lord was showing His
love and concern and trying to stop this sort of thing from happening again.
It reminded me of how out of His love for us the Lord still disciplines us today
if we are wilfully disobedient to Him. And if we continue He can even remove us
from this earth.
I was thinking then about how Christians today could offer 'strange fire' before
the Lord. The spiritual disciplines that are all the rage today came to my mind
again like contemplative prayer, meditation and other forms of prayer that
originate from mystic Roman Catholic monks or mysticism from the East. Prayers
where they repeat a word over and over again (mantras) when Matthew 6:7 says:
And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think
that they will be heard for their many words.
Could this be classed as 'strange or unauthorized fire' Bob? This is disobeying
His Word or ignoring it or twisting it and is dishonouring the Lord and
approaching Him in a way He detests. Rather than worshipping Him in the way He
commands us to and treating Him as holy.
I might have got this completely wrong Bob! Thanks ever so much for your help.
Your friend in Jesus
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Thank you for your help with this. In the past I've struggled a bit to
get through Leviticus with all the regulations and sacrifices. When you
think of it as the Lord's desire to have fellowship with His children
and live with them then it puts it in a whole different light.
The 'strange fire' story made me think again about how the Lord does
want us to approach Him. Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit, A broken and a contrite heart - These O God, You will not
despise. And Romans 12:1,2 and lots more. It's a good thing to remind
myself and keep myself in check!
It's been difficult here but I'm sure everything will be alright. Life
is never without its challenges but the Lord will look after me.
Thanks again Bob.
In our dear Lord Jesus
An excellent application here too! Yes, our sacrifices now are spiritual
(cf. Rom.12:1-2), but even in the OT that Psalm you quote (Psalm 51:17)
makes it clear what has always been most important to the Lord, namely,
what is going on in a person's heart. The presumption of Nadab and
Abihu's action merely revealed their arrogant and disrespectful attitude
toward the Lord and His authority which had been there all along.
A good point about fellowship as well. In the inauguration of Aaron and
his sons which directly precedes the "strange fire" incident, a sin,
burnt and fellowship offering are commanded: 1) emphasizing our sins
being forgiven; 2) emphasizing the sacrifice of Christ in paying for
them that they might be forgiven; 3) emphasizing the fellowship we have
with Him as a result of His sacrifice and our acceptance of it. But
"strange fire" distorts the entire symbolism and thus equates to a
trampling of the precious blood of Christ by those who least should do
so, the priests who are to represent the people before the Lord. No
wonder there was little patience with such effrontery.
I hope you don't get a suitable opportunity TOO soon, but only after you
are ready to teethe your way back into it. I'm running / jogging again
now, but I'm not ready to do the same distances I used to do . . . yet.
That will come (I hope), but I know if I strap on too much too soon it
could end up sending me backwards. There is a fine line between not
doing enough and doing too much often, but that is the sweet spot we aim
for.
Keeping you and your situation in my prayers, my friend – and thanks so
much for yours as well!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I noticed something else in the same chapter. Nadab and Abihu's deaths
were as a result of their own rebellious actions. Their hearts were not
right with God. Then afterwards Moses was upset with Aaron and his
remaining sons for not eating the sin offering as the Lord commanded but
chose to let the sacrifice burn up instead. Then Moses was satisfied
when he heard Aaron's response and realised he wasn't acting out of
rebellion but trying to be obedient to the Lord. He did what he thought
would be pleasing to God - he had good intentions even if it wasn't
quite the right thing to do. The difference was that his heart was right
with God which as you said is what has always been important to the
Lord.
It reminds me of when I was getting myself all worked up because I
didn't think I was doing the right thing as far as helping my friend.
And you reminded me that we try to apply scripture to our lives the best
way we can but we'll never do it perfectly. And that there's no point
second guessing.
Thinking back now I was wanting to obey the Lord from what the Bible
says but acting like if I got it wrong and I hadn't made the perfect
choice then I was suddenly going to be consumed by the Lord's fire! I
wasn't QUITE thinking that way but you'd have thought it by how worked
up I was. It's definitely a heart thing isn't it Bob. As long as our
hearts are right with the Lord and we're trying our best to keep
learning and growing and progressing then we're pleasing Him.
I've loved what the Lord has taught me this week and all out of just one
chapter in the Bible - and Leviticus! A book I usually find hard going.
Thanks as well Bob for your help and encouragement.
It's great that you're making some progress and able to run/jog no
matter how small it may be at the moment. I definitely know what you
mean about finding that sweet spot. If you don't do enough then you
don't progress and if you do too much then you end up having a setback,
then trying to find out where you're at and starting again from there. I
remember reading about the 'envelope of function' which is the same sort
of thing as the sweet spot. It's finding out how much load or exercise
your joints can cope with and sticking with that for a while (maybe even
a couple of months in my case) and then very gradually building it up.
It was a delicate balancing act to begin with but once I reached a
certain point the healing did start to progress quicker. I had to listen
to what my body was telling me. It's so tempting to ignore it and carry
on (which I did a few times) but it just prolongs things in the end. I
kept a diary of what I did every day and how I felt afterwards.
Sometimes I felt ok while I was doing the exercise but then I really
felt it the next day and had to adjust it. It's good looking back at the
diaries now and seeing how little I could do to begin with and what I
can do now. You're in my prayers and with the Lord's help you'll get
there in the end.
Thank you for hoping that I don't get a suitable opportunity TOO soon
until I'm ready to "teethe" my way back into it.
In our dear Lord Jesus
On "fire", it is very common for believers, especially in the early
going or in the process or turning around after a trip to that "far
country" away from the Lord to focus on the "fire" side (His perfect
justice) and forget about the love side. But the true "fire", as in
"hell fire", is reserved for those who reject Him completely, and is not
at all meant for those who belong to His Son, bought by Him with His own
blood sacrifice on the cross. Whatever our earthly fathers were like,
because of the fact of families and fathers we all have a good idea of
what a perfect father would be like. He would clearly be someone who
dealt fairly and lovingly with all of his children, wanting the best for
them in every way, only punishing/disciplining them when they really
needed it to keep them from straying into dangerous activities, and
never disowning them – unless they completely and unalterably rejected
him. And that is what our heavenly Father is like too! He is not looking
for reasons to curse us; He is tapping His foot in anticipation of
blessing us:
Isaiah 30:18
Keeping you in my prayers!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I have a question I think you wont like. [details omitted about bad,
questionable, and sexually related language in common parlance in our time]. And
in the Song of Solomon, there are a couple of passages that if you took them
out, they would be literary porn (Song of Solomon 4:5, 7:3, 7:7 to 7:8).
Literally. I guess, my question is, are all the Christians who put on a show of
fainting at dirty words wrong? Because if the military and mainstream society
uses them, it seems like a stupid show they are putting on. Even a bit
narcissistic, because they are acting more pure. Is that wrong?
As to the Song of Songs, it is very difficult to interpret, but we can say a
couple of things: 1) it is allegorical referring symbolically to the Lord and
His Bride; and 2) it is beautiful poetry (in the Hebrew), demonstrating the
blessings of a godly relationship wherein God made a woman for a man and vice
versa.
Apologies for the delay, but Saturdays are posting days.
Hope you have a nice holiday ahead, my friend!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Thank you so much for you explanations. I was really blessed through
reading them and I will read them over and over and over again for a
better understanding.
When I have any more questions, I will be sure to ask you. Please, say a
prayer for me that I have a better understanding of what the Bible says
and in the mean time, what is sin? Is it a violation of the ten
commandments? Sometimes it gets confusing.
In Christ,
As to your question, "what is sin", in a nutshell, sin is anything that
God forbids, anything, that is, which we do not do in faith (Rom.14:23).
I will say some more things here, but for the details, I would recommend
that you begin by reading the extensive BB 3B
Hamartiology: the Biblical Study of Sin (at the link).
The ten commandments provide an all encompassing rubric for how a
believer who fears God should live, but they are frequently
misunderstood (see the link). The first three deal with our sanctified
walk in regard to God – how we should think about Him, act towards Him,
and speak about Him respectively; commandments 5-10 have to do with how
we should comport ourselves in the world in response to the system of
authority God has set up to preserve human life and freedom (so that all
have a fair chance to be saved), dealing with the sanctity of life,
family, property, justice, and freedom generally. The fourth commandment
stands in the middle between these two sets, and has to do with the
believers peace and rest in the Lord here in the middle of the devil's
world. We are not of the nation of Israel (that divinely constituted
nation-state does not exist, at present), so there is no longer any
physical Sabbath to be observed in the land; rather, we are to rest in
the Lord at all times, trusting Him no matter what betides (see the
link:
"faith rest").
Galatians 5:19-21 NKJV
The good news is that Christ died for all of our sins, whether we
recognize them as such or not. He paid the entire price for each and
every one. When we consider that His death for our least sin, one we no
doubt never even noticed, cost Him a price far greater than the entire
world – and that He died for ALL of our sins and for ALL of the sins of
all of humanity – we have some small idea of the magnitude of His
sacrifice for us . . . and just how much we owe Him (everything).
More good news: we have been forgiven everything when we believed and
thus redeemed from all of our sins so that we may have eternal life with
Him. And if/when we sin after salvation, all such sins are forgiven the
moment we confess them to the Lord (e.g., 1Jn.1:9).
There are two wrong approaches to living the Christian life, each of
which is very common. The first is to be completely unconcerned about
our behavior because we are saved and forgiven. The second is to agonize
over things we have done that particularly stoke our guilt, even though
we have confessed them and been forgiven. The Christian life is a fight
to the finish. We are here for a purpose, to carry out a mission for the
Lord. That purpose is spiritual growth, spiritual progress in passing
the tests that come to the mature, and production for the Lord in
helping others to do likewise through the ministry He gives to us. On
the one hand, we can't allow our witness to be sullied and ourselves to
be bogged down by divine discipline and natural consequences of sin
(especially the more egregious behavior that often results from having
no fear of God as in the first false approach above), not if we are
going to win the three crowns of reward and please our Lord; on the
other hand, we can't be looking backward and ever agonizing about past
defeats and failures (there is nothing we can do about them except to
confess them), or be making our life all about trying to avoid sin when
1) no one will ever be completely without sin, and 2) the way to get
better at warding it off is to keep growing closer to Jesus Christ
through His truth. In other words, focusing on defense makes for lousy
defense, focusing on offense without neglecting defense is the only way
to win this fight.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
This is a short article from the my site found below. It has been
adapted from Part 1 of a power-point presentation presented in eight
one-hour sessions. The survey is meant to highlight the reading of seven
chapters of Genesis a week over seven weeks. I would be blessed by your
comment if you've seen something new, or even something you didn't like.
The survey has its roots in years--really decades of prayer, study, and
meditation on the Old Testament from the perspective of its Hebrew
background. I hope to follow this with seven other articles as God
wills.
Why do we follow God with a whole heart...because we can trust every
single word of His Word for it a part of God.
Truly,
For what it's worth, overviews of this sort do serve a very useful
purpose, getting folks to think about what it is they've read or are
going to read, and offer an opportunity to salt in tidbits of truth that
otherwise a lay-reader would indubitably miss.
On the nephilim, you are absolutely right, of
course. It's always good to point out when talking about the Numbers
reference that the ones who call these Canaanites "nephilim" are the
cowardly ten who are trying to convince the people NOT to enter the
land. So they are lying (or panicked into a stupid and wrong conclusion,
to put the best spin on it).
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Here's the thing. The speakers in the passage are the cowards who talked
the people out of doing God's will to go immediately into the land,
resulting in 40 years of wandering in the wilderness instead. Caleb and
Joshua say nothing about "Nephilim". The other passages you mention
don't say anything about "Nephilim" at all. There have been and are
today exceptional large individuals (Yao Ming, e.g.); doesn't make them
non-human. Besides, the thing about the Nephilim was not size but all
manner of "mightiness" which no doubt involved exceptional powers not
known today. Links:
Bob L.
OK so the 10 who brought the bad report are the ones who suggest in
Numbers 13:33 that "There also we saw the Nephilim". If I understand you
correctly these 10 only inflated the nature of these giants as Nephilim
because they, the 10, were cowards but if that be the case then why does
Moses, the writer of the text add in parentheses (the sons of Anak are
part of the Nephilim)? We know Moses was not a coward and he is writing
by inspiration of the Holy Spirit so it appears that the plain reading
of the text suggest some Nephilim DNA made through the flood.
One of my former professors at Bible college said a good rule of
biblical exegesis is that "when the plain sense of a text makes common
sense, seek no other sense", was he wrong?
For example:
1) We know that the nephilim were wiped out in the flood. So why would
we think these are nephilim?
2) We know that when Joshua and the Israelites entered the land 40 years
later, they didn't encounter any such impossible creatures. So why we
would think there really were nephilim present 40 years before?
3) We know that Joshua and Caleb didn't say anything about nephilim or
how to fight them; they only assured the people that it was definitely
possible to enter the land and defeat the people living there, which
would not have been possible if they really were super-human. So why
would we assume that Joshua and Caleb were wrong and the ten cowards
were right?
4) And we know that the whole purpose of these ten was to dissuade the
people from entering into the land – a feat that they accomplished
through this spin. So why we would we assume that they were being
truthful?
The devil told the Lord, "All these things I will give You if You will
fall down and worship me" (Matt.4:9 NKJV). Was he telling the Lord the
truth? NO! He is the devil. He was lying, as is his wont.
Liars lie. That's what they do. Not seeing that when the scripture is
read is missing the "plain sense" of the text entirely.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for showing concern for my old friend
even though he seems to have turned his back on the only living truth which is
our freedom from bondage and salvation in Jesus Christ. Every day Bob, I think
to myself, how best can I serve my Father in Heaven. Every day I try to die to
the self and focus on Christ and walk towards Him.
I am very grateful that God risked the 99 sheep to come back for me. I know that
many, many others feel the same way. I will get back to doing my videos soon but
in the meantime I have started a twitter account to upload copyright free images
with bible verses to spread the Word.
Here is a link https://twitter.com/BibleVersesUK
I wanted to ask you about Genesis. Is it true that we only became omnivores
after the flood? I saw a video that suggested that the two animals that were
killed in Eden to provide skins for Adam and Eve were atonement for their sins.
Do you think this is a correct interpretation? Would this be a foreshadowing of
Christ atonement then? This video suggested that death would have been both
foreign and alarming to Adam and Eve and that to see animals killed for clothing
would have shocked them, especially as Adam had named the animals and were
friends with them. Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden so that they
couldn't eat of the tree of life as well. I heard another interpretation, that
what the serpent said was proven to be a lie, as not only did eating of the
fruit mean spiritual death but also physical death. Something about a thousand
years being one day to God and that Adam and Eve died just within that thousand
year lifespan so the interpretation is that they died within the same day of
eating the fruit (in God's terms).
Would you agree that these two animals killed for skins were the first
atonement? Some people say that they were provided skins without the death of an
animal. It is interesting that this person suggested that Abel killed an animal
as an offering because he learned this from Adam because of those other two
animals killed. At this point, animals weren't being killed for food but then
again, Adam and Eve would know that animals could be killed for clothing (to
hide their nakedness and shame)
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this. I am getting so much from
reading the bible! I have many copies now and reading studies around it all the
time.
Next week, I am attending a bible study meeting that I'm really looking forward
to.
Hope this finds you well.
God bless you Bob.
In our loving Saviour, Jesus Christ,
On your question, indeed, the coats of skin did require the slaughter of
animals and that is the first animal sacrifice demonstrating that our
sin (represented by their knowledge of their nakedness) is covered by
the death of a Substitute, the animals' physical blood and death
representing Christ's spiritual death in paying for the sins of the
world (here is a link on this:
"The protoevangelium").
God gives human beings animals for food after the flood (at Gen.9:3); we
are only required to abstain from the blood which, in animal sacrifice,
is a symbol of Christ's work on the cross.
I'm very encouraged by your positive report, my friend! Keep fighting
the good fight. I'm keeping you in my prayers every day.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.
Isaiah 52:13 NASB
So His appearance was marred more than any man
And His form more than the sons of men.
Isaiah 52:14 NASB
Isaiah 52:13-14
So His appearance was marred more than any man
And His form more than the sons of men.
Isaiah 52:14 NASB
15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
For what had not been told them they will see,
And what they had not heard they will understand.
NIV SB: 52:15 sprinkle many nations. With the sprinkling of cleansing (see
Lev 14:7; Nu 8:7; 19:18–19) and/or of consecration (see Ex 29:21; Lev 8:11,
30). But see NIV text note. kings will shut their mouths. In astonishment at
the suffering and exaltation of the servant (see 49:6–7 and notes). Cf. Job
21:5. For what … understand. Quoted in Ro 15:21. Even though they have not
heard the prophetic word, kings will understand the mission of the servant
when they see his humiliation and exaltation (contrast 6:9–10).
Unger takes this verse as applying to the millennial rulers astonished
at our Lord’s exaltation following His second advent - “so overwhelming
will be the impression of the Servant lifted so high from such a low
depth of ignominy”.
I’m still not sure what specifically do the words “or what had not been
told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will
understand” refer to – conversion at the point of Christ’s coming?
Acts 14:16 NIV
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people
everywhere to repent.
Acts 17:30 NIV
That is very good news indeed. I have been praying for your full recovery. Did
you find today to be the beginning you hoped for?
I was told to check back on Friday but I asked to be given time to check back
since I would be traveling. The official I was speaking to offered me his phone
number to check with him to know when I can return to continue the process. Yes,
my fiancée and her family are fine. Thank you very very much, Sir, for
continuing to pray for them. It means very much indeed to me. We have been
seeing each other everyday since I got here. I will be leaving for my hometown
again on Wednesday evening.
I meant to ask you about this:
[12]God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had
corrupted their way upon the earth.
[13]Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the
earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to
destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 6:11-13 NASB
Also, is it reasonable to say that Noah and his family were the only pure humans
left on earth? Or were they just the only ones who were not only pure humans but
also feared the Lord? By my calculation Lamech died in the year of the Flood, so
either believers who were resisting participating in the infiltration of the
Nephilim and their activities were getting killed (which seems to me to explain
the violence) until only Noah and his immediate family were left or else there
were other pure humans who simply did not care either for the Nephilim or for
God. What can you tell me about this, Sir?
Your student in the Lord
On the question, I think when it says that Noah was "perfect in his
generations" it is talking about his truly human status, and the way
it's put indicates to me that his family is, if not the absolute last
truly human family, certainly part of an ever shrinking minority. As to
sinfulness, well, human beings have proved throughout history that they
have no problem excelling in this area, even without such genetic
contamination. There was evil of the first order involved in allowing
the contamination in the first place as well. But you do make a good
point that it was no doubt accelerated by this process. The reason for
the flood, however, is clearly not only to wipe out evil but also to
prevent the elimination of the true human line – otherwise there could
be no Messiah.
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
-----------------
I know how the word Jehovah came about. But the bit about shu and the
Egyptian sounds nutty to me. I looked up the etymology for both Yeshua
and Joshua and both sources say they come from Yehoshua. So, I told this
lady that none of us has stated that Yeshua means God. Yeshua is a name.
She said both Yeshua and Joshua are different etymologically, and that
Joshua is correct, but Yeshua is not. Something about the "J" and "y"
sounds changing. Eve said she doesn't do etymology as I do...apparently
she thinks she is correct and everyone else is wrong. She seems to think
that using Yeshua for Jesus is some new New Age Egyptian Yeshua cult!
Yet, haven't Messianic Jews used Yeshua for Jesus, for centuries?
I have no patience with mysticism, Christian or otherwise. What they
write is too esoteric, and almost unintelligible to anyone except
themselves, and, if you ask me, robs us of the simplicity that is in
Christ Jesus our Lord.
Thanks for your help. God bless and Happy New Year!
Hebrew has nothing whatsoever to do with Egyptian, and the names are NOT
of Egyptian origin.
You could prove absolutely anything you wanted to with this methodology.
It really doesn't even deserve a hearing.
On Josephus, note that he says nothing whatsoever about Egyptian. So
whatever in the world he thought he meant has nothing to do with this
"argument". Josephus was "out to lunch" on 99% of the things he wrote
about the Bible. He was not above making things up because they were
interesting and pleased his Roman audience. He is a wildly overestimated
"source".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Just one clarification, though...both Yeshua and Joshua are correct and derive
from Yehoshua, correct? That is what I found out, looking online.
Thanks again.
There are two separate spellings of the name Joshua in the Bible, but
that is not unprecedented, in scripture or today (e.g., Robert and Bob
and Rob and Robbie, etc.). Both forms come from YAH (the Lord) and YASHA'
(to save).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I have been studying the subject of Godly Wisdom and have several
questions.
1. Why In Proverbs chapters 1-8 does Solomon refer to Wisdom using the
feminine, or so it has been translated.
2. Is he not taking about "Godly Wisdom" the same as Paul in 1
Corinthians?
Chapter 1, and James 1:5?
3. Why does the translation use the 'past tense was" in John 1 verse 1,
or so it seems to me. "In the beginning was... the Word was...with God,
and the Word was... was God.
Is there not a better word that could have been used, and what does it
mean in the Greek?
I gather that because I don't know Greek nor do I understand how they
think.
But in English, it is a bit confusing, especially when the "past" tense
is used. Even the word translated in English as "beginning" when someone
does not know that it really means, "before all else"?
It may sound that I am getting to "nit picky", but that is my nature, I
want to know. I do know what it means in both of these instances, I just
want to know how to explain the apparent problem in the choice of the
English words for the Greek.
By His grace and Mercy we have been saved and are being saved.
To Him be all the glory, honor and praise.
Your friend,
3) The verb in these cases is past tense (the imperfect of the verb "to
be"). John starts the gospel with the phrase en arche which is
the Greek equivalent of the first phrase in the Hebrew Bible
bereshith. These are often translated "in the beginning", but there
is no "the" present in either case – so you are correct that "before all
else" is a better way to put it. Because, really what this means is
"first", because in speaking about creation, God always "was" just as He
"is" and ever "will be". But from the standpoint of creation, we can
only look at things chronologically, because that is how He made us.
Time is a great gift because it is the environment in which we make
choices – the greatest of all being to accept the Gift of Christ. From
our point of view, no matter where we are on the spectrum of the seven
thousand years given to humanity, the initiation of creation was "back
there" in time. But as these two phrases indicate, the reference is to
before time even began, because time is part of the creation.
Hope this is helpful to you, my friend!
Best wishes for your Bible class this weekend.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
This helps a lot. It clarifies things that I should have already known
if I would have given it a little more thought.
Hopefully next week, I will begin a Bible class on the Book of the
Gospel of John with two Catholic ladies, one who lives next door and her
friend. I have had Catholic's in the past in Bible study. Most are
wanting to learn. They told me that they have no Bible Studies in the
church they attend. One even remarked, you will probably think I am
really dumb because she said has no Bible knowledge at all. Her friend
is also eager to learn.
Thanks for thinking about that. I know you are always praying for me, as
I do for you.
How are things at the University?
Hope you are doing well and are extremely blessed.
God is always faithful.
Your friend,
Also, great news about the Bible study. Having folks who want to learn
is a blessing not to be underestimated. No doubt the Lord is leading
them to you because you are "willing and able" to teach.
Classes went well today. I'm still having some issues as after effects
of the flu/cold with my system; hip is pretty much the same (but hard to
tell since I've not been able to test it with much serious exercise for
the better part of a month), but I'm feeling a lot better today.
Thanks for your prayers! Keeping you and your in mine every day as well.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Before His works of old.
Proverbs 8:22 NKJV
4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other
gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart
of David his father had been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess
of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6
Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the
Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place
for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of
Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8 Thus
also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to
their gods.
Hebrews 6:9-10 NKJV
13 However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give
one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the
sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.”
22 Then Pharaoh said to him, “But what have you lacked with me, that
behold, you are seeking to go to your own country?” And he answered,
“Nothing; nevertheless you must surely let me go.”
NIV SB: 11:22 What have you lacked here …? Because Egypt had by this
time established relatively good relations with Israel (see note on
3:1), the pharaoh was reluctant to see Hadad return to Edom and
provoke trouble with Solomon.
41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon and whatever he did, and his
wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
I have a question about Leah, Jacob's other wife. Most of the takes that
I read on her was about her bad hand, being the unloved one. But, as
someone who has a serious disability myself, I don't see it like that.
Really, what was the likelihood a man would marry her (someone with a
visible problem)? She is not out anything. I hate to say it, but unless
she found someone who also had a disability (and even then, there's no
surety he wouldn't have gone for a 'normal' girl), she I think likely
would have ended up alone, childless, and unwanted with nothing. But
this way, yes it was painful, but she got sons out of it. And when she
was older, she was the only wife. And when she was really old, it wasn't
abnormal (given that we tend to lose sight/hearing/etc as we age). At
least that is what I think. She only got in because he was kind of
tricked into it. But marriages of a transactional sort can end up
romantic, and are not inherently sinful. Anyway. Not just sons but the
firstborn and the next several, and the tribe and Levi and Judah
(thinking of the Lord of course). Not saying it mustn't have hurt to be
unwanted by her husband. But it would also have hurt to have been alone
in old age with no children or legacy, and with a father who exploits
and doesn't treat you with love either.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
So onto to question for you. Can you explain to me what Proverbs 3:5
means?
Yesterday was my Birthday and my mom emails me saying she would have
loved to bring me my Bday present but she couldn't due to not wanting to
drive on bad roads. She said she was able to find someone to drop it off
at the feed store for me to pick up there. So I did..... I brought the
package home and opened it. I was really surprised to find a hat in
there that said Relax God is in control. Proverbs 3:5 and then on the
side it said I love Jesus. I was completely shocked. I didn't know what
to think. I had a million things going through my head. First of all I
thought well this was nice thought but I don't wear things like this. I
never in my life have. Then I thought well nothing wrong with a Bible
verse but I'm seriously really uncomfortable wearing this. Then I
thought, I don't need to advertise that I love Jesus, he knows. I don't
need to advertise that God is in control, he's got this! So I sat there
pondering. I thought well that was a nice message. I've heard this many
times though. I still can't see how she thought this was something I'd
wear as I've never been one to wear anything that made a statement. I
then thought ....gosh I just can't wear this what am I going to do with
it? I sat there looking at it and then decided to look up the scripture.
I knew it had to do with God was in Control but what was the rest of it.
What was said before and after. I googled it. It hit me like a ton of
bricks. I remember the part from when I was little sitting in church
where it says "lean not into thine own understanding" I was like oh my
goodness, my brain was all of the sudden going back to a time I thought
I completely forgotten. The people in that godless 'church' were
teaching us kids that since our own human reasoning can't be relied upon
we must rely on them and that they are the authority. Joseph Smith was
the one to follow. He was the one who knows and follows the will of God.
Human reasoning shouldn't be trusted and so God has sent Joseph Smith.
We aren't to rely on our own understanding. ( Big red flags of Occult
practices)
I see how the devil has spun this scripture. The Mormons use it to
support their agenda. At this point I had my mind going in completely
different direction. I knew this was something they knew I wouldn't
wear, it didn't add up.
Yes, this is one of those verses that people like to quote "at you"
instead of "for you" (especially if you are doing something THEY don't
like). I have observed in my life that oft quoted verses are almost
always misunderstood and misapplied . . . and sometimes not in the Bible
at all (such as "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" and
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" – both interpolations
which are NOT part of scripture.
I know plenty of people who use this verse like a club to say that you
shouldn't bother with trying to learn what the Bible actually means. In
fact, of course, the verse means the precise opposite! It means that
instead of trying to figure things out by means of human wisdom, we need
to rely on the Lord. Since He is at present not appearing to us and
speaking to us personally, the way to do that is to learn as much about
the Bible as we possibly can and learn how to listen to the Spirit's
promptings which come through the truth we have believed. I've something
written about this verse and these principles in BB 6A at the link:
"The process of discernment".
I'm with you. I don't believe in wearing T-shirts with, e.g., "John
3:16" on them. If other Christians want to do that kind of thing, I
leave that between them and the Lord. But I've always disliked anything
"gimmicky", even when I was pretty far from the Lord. Back in the mid
'70s there was a billboard campaign that proclaimed "I found it!" and
had a telephone number to call. The brother of the girl I was dating at
the time – a solid Roman Catholic – called the number and found out that
it was an evangelical gimmick to get people on the phone and "witness to
them". He couldn't get them off the phone quickly enough. I lost touch
with that bunch many year ago (praise God); they were all very nice
people, but had no interest in being saved. No gimmick is going to
change that. When we deliberately call attention to ourselves by wearing
or displaying Christian symbols, what are we doing? It reminds me of the
Pharisees praying loud in public and blowing trumpets when they gave
money (like millionaires who hold press conferences today when they do
so – and somehow deserving people with needs never seem to be the
beneficiaries). I've no doubt mentioned before the very savvy comment of
my favorite Hebrew professor in seminary who remarked that it seemed to
him that every time he got cut off in traffic on the freeway it was by a
car with a fish bumper sticker. Too true. Most Christians today are
lukewarm and immature and really have no business calling attention to
themselves as models of Christianity. In all such things, it's always so
much better to let the Lord do that – if and when He deems us worthy of
it.
So once again, your spiritual common sense is top notch!
I do wish you a VERY happy birthday, though, my friend!
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.