Question
#1:
Reading your latest email postings on Gen 1:1, it's obvious the young earthers
are simple-minded. I think that demons creating or altering ancient land and
aquatic life so that there were monsters fits their MO. Since they can indwell
creatures and seem to get a thrill out of doing so, my guess is that’s what
motivated them to somehow manipulate genes to manufacture such monsters. May
have something to do with the lack of angelic physical sensation that possessing
an earth critter gives them. That they would do so to engage in violence and
death shows just how depraved they are; talk about being truly fallen. They
would do the same today to all of us if they were unrestrained. The writer who
was upset by what he perceived as mocking would freak out for sure if he
encountered Jeremiah or Paul. Continue the good work old friend for it is
appreciated, at least by this jarhead. Hard to believe that 40 years ago this
year we were on Oki time. Semper Fi to my XO.
Response #1:
Thanks!
Question
#2:
I saw that the last posting was on the Genesis Gap and I was reminded of
the question that came to me as I was explaining it - and that is the
origin of humanoids. I was wondering where did Satan get his
"inspiration" from to come up with creatures as similar bodily to us as
the humanoids were.
Response #2:
Personally, I have my doubts about the
fossil evidence (see the link). Radio-carbon dating is seriously
flawed (it assumes no great flood and changing of the earth's axis,
e.g.). Nobody really knows what those small batch bones are. I refuse to
take it for granted they are what scientists claim they are. I'm
reminded of "Piltdown man", all the rage in the scientific community –
until it was proven to be a hoax.
Question
#3:
Greetings Dr. Luginbill from the west coast,
Response #3:
Good to hear from you, my friend! Hope you are doing well out there.
Your coast has certainly has its issues in recent months and years. I
you and yours are surviving and thriving.
Question
#4:
Dear Professor
Response #4:
Excellent job, my friend! It is VERY hard for me to see how Genesis
7:10-24 could be any more specific in relating a worldwide flood which
destroyed everyone and everything not in the ark – which was, after all,
the purpose of the flood and the purpose of the ark. Any student of mine
trying to make a text such as this "symbolic" when everything is clearly
spelled out with careful measurements to make sure it is understood in
its literalness would be flunked.
(10) For the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, a day in which (i.e.,
over the course of which) the heavens will depart with a roar, the very
elements will ignite and dissolve, and the earth and everything which has
been done upon it will be laid bare [for the Lord's inspection]. (11) Since
the universe is going to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought
we to be, [walking] in a sanctified and godly way, (12) eagerly looking
forward to the coming of the Day of God (i.e., the day of eternity)? For on
that day the heavens will burst into flame and dissolve, and the elements
will catch fire and melt. (13) But we are awaiting new heavens and a new
earth just as He promised – [a world] where righteousness dwells.
So you are correct: the new heavens and new earth with New Jerusalem is
the place where only "righteousness will dwell" – even during the
Millennium, people will still have sin natures (which is made clear
enough by the Gog-Magog rebellion at the end of the thousand years,
easily stirred up by Satan in spite of perfect government and a thousand
years of bliss (Rev.20:7-10; cf. Ps.2:1ff.). "The day" begins at the
second advent (though it is foreshadowed by preceding events which are
sometimes associated with it), and only terminates with the destruction
of the universe and the last judgment, followed by making "all things
new" (Rev.21:5).
Question
#5:
Dear Professor
Response #5:
Well 'of course' the flood did not vaporize the earth – it was a
cataclysmic flood on planet earth, not an end of the universe event.
Peter's point is to equate the two only in terms of destroying life as
we know it and bringing God's judgment on the ungodly in the process,
physical in the first case but eternal in the second case – something
any sane person would respond to if accepting the truth of these two
events. So of course the second case is more profound. But just because
God did not annihilate the universe and cast the guilty into the lake of
fire on the occasion of the flood does not mean that's not exactly what
He's going to do at history's end. And it is exactly what He's going to
do.
(3) Keep this foremost in your mind: in the end times cynics will ridicule
[the truth], acting out of their own selfish lusts (4) and saying, "Where is
that 'return' He promised? Everything is the same now as it was since the
beginning of the world, since the time our forefathers passed on." (5) But
it escapes their notice in asserting this, namely, that there were heavens
long ago too, and an earth, which was [re-]established (Gen.1:2ff.) out from
under water (i.e., the "waters below") and through [the midst of] water
(i.e., the "waters above") by the Word of God – (6) [and that it was also]
through these two [sets of waters] that the world of that time (i.e., in
Noah's day) was deluged by water [from above and below] and destroyed. (7)
Now the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire by that same
Word (of God), preserved for the day of judgment and the destruction of
godless men (i.e., at the end of history). (8) Let not this one fact escape
your attention then, beloved, namely that one day is like a thousand years
in the Lord's eyes, and a thousand years like one day (i.e., the final "day"
will span a millennium). (9) The Lord is not delaying in the fulfillment of
His promise (as some think); rather He is exercising patience for your sake,
being unwilling for anyone to perish, but desiring all instead to come to
repentance. (10) For the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, a day in
(i.e., over the course of) which the heavens will depart with a roar (i.e.,
at the end of the Millennium), the very elements will ignite and dissolve,
and the earth and everything which has been done upon it will be laid bare
[for the Lord's inspection] (i.e., the last judgment). (11) Since all these
things are destined to disintegrate in this way, [consider] what sort of
[Christians] we ought to be, [devoted to] holy and godly conduct, (12) as we
wait with eager expectation and apprehension the advent of the Day of God
(i.e., the 2nd Advent). For on that day (i.e., at the end of it) the heavens
will burst into flame and dissolve, and the elements will catch fire and
melt. (13) But we are awaiting new heavens and a new earth just as He
promised - [a world] where [only] righteousness dwells.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Question #6:
We were discussing the nature of animals and the
change in them after the fall. Isaiah 11:6-9 describes how they will
behave under Christ’s Millennial reign. Isaiah. 11:9 says “They shall
not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be
full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (NIV)
From this verse could we say that the animals have their wild/ferocious
natures because they “do not have knowledge of the Lord?” In a way they
became cut off from God spiritually in the pattern of Adam and Eve when
they became spiritually dead after eating the fruit…which explains their
“bondage to decay” and “being subjected to futility” from Romans
8:19-23.
Response #6:
On Isaiah 11:9, in Eden, none of the animals presented any danger to
Adam and Eve, but outside of Eden, once the ground was cursed, that is
not the case. So I see animal kind as part of the earthly creation that
is cursed (the serpent receives a special curse, of course), but with
their original innocuous nature restored once this curse removed (there
will be no "kill or be killed" necessity for animal kind in the
Millennium either: cf. Rom.8:19-22).
Question
#7:
Last question! Is it possible that before the flood, the animal
population was being contaminated/engineered by the demons and the
nephilim? There are a lot of myths that exist about “…the heroes of old,
men of renown,” in many cultures and they usually contain fantastical
creatures (griffin, centaurs, winged horses, etc). Please correct me if
I am wrong: I can’t remember what email response it was from but, I
thought I remember you saying that the civilizations existing before the
flood could have been even more advanced than our own. Humans today are
already starting to manipulate and splice the genes of animals to create
genetic hybrids. If the demons were tampering with the genes of the
human race, what was stopping them from manipulating the animals as
well?
Response #7:
I definitely think that such was the case . . . before the
Genesis gap judgment. I don't think so after the flood since there's no
indication of it in the scriptures we do have of the period (and Noah is
not told to avoid certain polluted species, e.g.). It is true that there
were no doubt very advanced civilizations before the flood – scripture
tells us a bit about that (Gen.4:17; 4:22), but not necessarily in
modern technological terms (Noah built the ark out of wood).
Question
#8:
Dear Bob,
You probably have been asked this many times before so I apologize. But, I’ve
recently read about the Serpent seed doctrine and it sounds feasible to me since
there are many biblical verses to back it up. Do you advocate the serpent seed
doctrine? That is, that satan was the father of Cain and that the apple and the
serpent are symbolic. That the serpent was actually satan as a man and he had
sex with Eve to try to mess up God’s plan. And that the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil and the tree of life are really satan and Jesus. Thank you.
Response #8:
Good to make your acquaintance.
Question
#9:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
Response #9:
Always good to hear from you, my friend!
But as it is written:
Analogously, in Eden, there is no indication that Adam and Eve were
tired or bored or discontent – or anything but blissfully happy with
everything the Lord had given them and was doing for them. The fact that
we don't know much about the details doesn't matter because we probably
wouldn't be able to appreciate it with our present sin natures in any
case. And it took external temptation of the most devious kind to for
Eve (then Adam) to even consider anything else (cf. Ps.16:11).
Question
#10:
Thank you for answering my questions about the animals. Everything you
said makes sense to me, except that I am still confused about Genesis
1:28 on how to understand what God was commanding Adam and Eve to do in
paradise when He said, “…fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature
that moves on the ground.” Like you said, since no sin or curse yet
existed and there was no need to exercise authority, how were they
supposed to carry out this command? Do these two words have carry a
different meaning or a positive connotation since they are describing
relationships in paradise? It doesn’t make sense to use a negative
connotation, what we consider “ruling and subduing” in our fallen state.
I understand that Adam and Eve lived in harmony with every other living
creature, so could “rule and subdue” mean that they were to help God
guide/provide for the animals as the two creatures He made in His image
in the same way they were to tend and take care of the garden (Genesis
2:15)?
Response #10:
On Genesis 1:28, it's difficult for us living in this cursed world and
struggling with bodies of sin to imagine the situation in Eden. Indeed,
it's difficult for us living in a world where constant effort is needed
to survive and where people think in terms of "progress" to get their
minds around a world where there was no need and no necessity of any
kind. I think this is one of the reasons why some people imagine that
heaven (New Jerusalem) might be boring since there is nothing that "has
to be done or else" and nothing needing to be achieved. This is contrary
to our whole experience here and now. But I have faith that heaven
(eternity) will be wonderful beyond our wildest dreams. We just don't
know how as of yet.
Question
#11:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #11:
Always great to hear from you.
Question
#12:
Asked about Genesis 3:16. The phrase "your desire will be for your
husband" or "you will desire your husband" is rendered differently in
the NLT and the NET.
Then he said to the woman, "I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and
in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you."
I looked at the meaning of tsuqah and BDB explains it as meaning
"longing" and doesn't mention anything about control, which would mean
that both NLT and NET got it wrong.
Response #12:
I was not aware of these two very "weird" translations of this verse;
they are clearly wrong. The word in question means that women, outside
of Eden and because of their relative weakness and need for a spouse
will "desire a husband", even though, as I have observed, women can be
argued to have a tougher time of it in marriage – if they carry out
their duties in the biblical way. So without this "desire" imparted by
God, women would probably never have wanted to get married. Here is a
link to where this is discussed at Ichthys: "Your
desire shall be for your husband".
Question
#13:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #13:
The nephilim were, by
definition, a polluted strain of partial human beings resulting from the
angelic infiltration of Genesis chapter six.
Question
#14:
Lot is interesting, because he is still considered righteous even though
being in that environment must have made it difficult for him to be so;
and I don't see any hint that he was sinning by living there. You might
say it was a lifestyle full of impurity, but not full of sinning (beyond
the amount we all sin). Or that is my take right now on it.
Response #14:
Lot certainly suffers by comparison with Abraham. None of us is perfect,
and Abraham's example would be very difficult for any of us to match
(even though he was not perfect either), but Lot chose for himself the
valley wherein lay Sodom (as Abraham no doubt suspected he might), and
then eventually gave up sojourning to be city-dweller. That is more than
just symbolic. It's an example of choosing to embrace the world instead
of walking through it in a way that declares you are only sojourning in
it – "in it" not "of it" (Jn.15:19; cf. Heb.11:8-10). I also rather
suspect that his wife and daughters were instrumental in pressuring dad
to do something he would have rather not done. But after living there a
while, yes, he was reluctant to leave, seeing his happiness and security
– and good relations with his family – as bound up in that place . . .
when in fact the Lord is our only true happiness and our only true
security. Lot was "righteous" – which means he was a believer. How great
a believer he was, only the Lord knows (but we will all find out about
all of us at the judgment seat of Christ). And we all, from time to
time, do some of what Lot did. The world is very attractive, and the
lies it tells about needing worldly security are very persuasive. But as
we grow in the Lord, these distinctions get easier to make. It's not
about where we are or even so much what we choose in terms of truly
non-important decisions; rather it's the fundamental attitude we have
towards Jesus Christ and His truth and His Church that lies behind all
that which really matters.
Question
#15:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #15:
Your interpretation is "right on the money"! Why a fiery serpent? The
serpent is the origin of human sinfulness, so a symbol itself of sin;
and our Lord "bore our sins in His body on the tree" (1Pet.2:24).
Question #16:
Greetings!
Response #16:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
Yam Suph is the Red Sea
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Question
#17:
Good afternoon,
Response #17:
It is an interesting passage. One thing I think we can say is that the
tepid way in which Jehoash responded to Elisha's command is reflective
of his overall lack of faith and lack of enthusiasm for the Lord and His
truth, even for a wonderful prophecy such as the one he received. No
doubt God worked it out that way to demonstrate as much.
Question
#18:
I was wondering, do you think Jephthah's daughter would have been sinning to say
no to her father? Not to say no to God, just the father. I mean if my parent's
tried to bind my whole life to a certain path, I'd say no, they are not God.
Response #18:
It's a good question, but I'm not sure there is any helpful answer – because 1)
to the extent that we really understand what happened, it happened because of a
Jewish man making a vow under the Law of Moses (and that is not our situation
today), and 2) it's not clear to me that Jephthah's application would not have
been correct even under the Law, regardless of how "what happened" is
understood. Judges is a historical book – like the book of Acts. It tells us
what actually happened without commenting on the right and wrong of it most of
the time. In other words, we can't take it to either proscriptive or
prescriptive. And on top of that we do know that a great many things which are
recorded in the book of Judges were examples of "every man did that which was
right in his own eyes" (Jdg.21:25 KJV; cf. Jdg.17:6).
Question
#19:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #19:
The second passage merely means that the Lord brought about the
circumstances that resulted in Saul's death. He could easily have given
Israel victory or seen to it that Saul was not wounded or otherwise
escaped, but this was the end of the road destined for a man who
departed from the Lord (though he is saved: 1Sam.28:19).
Question
#20:
Dr, Luginbull,
Response #20:
The Israelites of the exodus generation showed by their complaining that
they didn't trust the Lord and were not grateful to Him for what He had
done in the past (1Cor.10:1-11; Heb.3:8-19 - Heb.4:1-8). If they weren't
unbelievers, they gave a very good impression of it. David is one of the
greatest believers ever. Yet he let his lust get the better of him and
in doing so failed to remember everything he knew and believed about the
Lord – as we all do whenever we allow ourselves to fall into sin. The
Israelites were deprived of water for a VERY brief time to test them and
demonstrate whether they were willing to trust the Lord and wait on Him
or not (Ex.15:25; 16:4). David had no need whatsoever on this score
(being married to multiple wives); the Lord's rebuke – which you
reference here – is meant to make it clear that if there WERE a need
(which there was not), He certainly would have supplied it.
Question
#21:
Hi Bob,
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan,
I think it's his words, Bob. They are so simple but so lovely. He wasn't afraid
of openly showing his emotions and his genuine love for his friend.
Response #21:
We can learn a lot indeed from David. He didn't have the permanent
indwelling of the Spirit as we all do today, he didn't have the New
Testament (or all of the Old), he didn't have many of the opportunities
to learn the truth that we have today – but he made the most of what he
had to walk with the Lord in joy at all times. Something, of course, we
all should do a better job with.
Ah Oki. Whenever I'm thinking life is closing in, I remember: It could
be worse.
Hope you are doing well. Getting over a nasty flu here. Think my
students enjoyed me even less than usual today.
Your pal in Jesus,
Bob L.
One hypothesis that came to my mind was that perhaps angels, although
immaterial, appear in human-like forms throughout the scripture and
despite some of these appearances perhaps being made in this shape for
the human benefit, it is at least possible that angels would exist in a
certain form even before the creation of man (even if this form would
not be discernible to us - ultimately they must have means of relating
to one another). What I mean here is that although we could say that
angels took a human form to appear to men throughout the scripture, it
is doubtful, for example, that the cherubim or angels in the third
heaven would be without some sort of form and from the scripture we know
that this form is at least reminiscent of a human being. I thought that
Satan could have drawn from that, but this is only speculation. What is
your take on this issue? This is perhaps my main question on the entire
subject - I'm a firm believer in the Gap, but I thought that this is the
main question that would be difficult to answer.
I pray that all is well with you and your family. I was just hoping to get some
clarification on a few points you make in a few paragraphs in section one in
regards to the structure and layout of the 3 heavens. In one paragraph you write
"However in verse fourteen of Genesis chapter one, the raqiyah, or firmament, is
now the place of the sun, moon and stars. Significantly, the exact Hebrew
terminology used in verse fourteen is raqiyah-hasshamyim, "firmament of the
heavens". The difference is a substantial one, for it suggest that these
shamayim, or "heavens", are in some sense distinct from those referred to
earlier...". Are you saying that only "now" or presently the place of the sun,
moon and stars is in the the place called raqiyah, or firmament, whereas prior
to Genesis 14:1, sometime perhaps after before the flood or before the Fall of
Adam the sun, moon and stars were not in the raqiyah but somewhere else or they
were in the same locality but not within the raqiyah?
On the raqiyah, I do not mean to say here that the essential
structure of the universe changed; it did not. What changed was the
provision of a firmament dividing out the waters now "above" (i.e., on
the outer edge of) the universe from those above the sky (in biblical
terms; see the link
"Waters Above"). This is not the easiest set of paragraphs to
understand, the way I've written them; but it was also not the easiest
section of this study to write. The thing is, the word raqiyah or
"firmament" refers both to the sky (the first heavens) and also to the
universe at large (the second heaven). The two are similar, as the
section explains, because from our earthly point of view – the point of
view from which the Bible describes these things – when we look up we
see no distinction between the first and second heavens; they appear as
one to us. So while it's not wrong to call everything under the third
heaven, everything above the earth, the "firmament", these first verses
in Genesis do make a distinction between the "atmosphere firmament" and
the "universe at large firmament". The latter is in view in the section
you quote, the place of the sun and moon etc. But before the seven days,
after the judgment on the universe, the whole had been flooded with the
tehom, the universal Abyss. This required that God make TWO
separators (or really a "two-part" separator, the "firmament" /
raqiyah) for life to be restored, one providing atmosphere for earth
("above" which is the moisture that waters the earth), and one that
separates the universe at large from the "upper waters" that divide the
third heaven from "this world/kosmos". It is within the later
that the luminaries exist and are "relit", as it were, at Genesis 1:14
where the light is gathered into these local receptors. Most of these
distinctions are lost on casual readers of the Bible – and indeed, even
on most theologians (who in far too many cases don't give the Bible
sufficient respect in the first place).
Please do feel free to write me back if any of the above is unclear – it
is, as I say, a somewhat complicated set of concepts to grasp,
especially inasmuch as there are so many unjustified preconceptions
about what these verses mean (which would be cleared up if they were
merely read carefully).
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
IF you have time, would you mind critiquing my explanation for JWs for
when I come upon them again.
I came across them in the town yesterday, without my glasses and they
were explaining how 2nd Peter is symbolic in that earthly powers are to
be dissolved, and not the physical earth which they say abides forever.
They said the earth was NOT destroyed by water, but only the ungodly
people, so we are meant to understand that the fire is also only
symbolic of the destruction of the ungodly and ungodly powers. NOT the
literal destruction of the earth.
My reasoning (without going into too many scriptures), would go along
the lines of:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
(a literal physical creation)
“ and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged
with water and perished”. 2 Peter 3:6
(people perished by literal water, and so did the world, that is, the
earth in the state it existed in previously)
“But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up
for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the
ungodly.” 2 Peter 3:7
(literal fire same as in the first case of literal water). If the water
is literal so the fire must be literal also!
10 “ But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the
heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be
burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it
will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved,
what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
waiting for and hastening the coming day of God, because of which the
heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will
melt as they burn!” 2 Peter 3:10 - 12.
All these scriptures are LITERAL. NOT symbolic. Starting with your own
admission: literal water, then ALL else that follows is also literal.
Water, roar, fire, burned up, dissolved, melt, burn. (Water floods, fire
burns)
Symbolism that is not explained in the Bible is fantastic for inventing
untold religions and doctrines, but NOT for establishing the truth.
(End of my intended brief reply, based on the scriptures they quoted me,
with exception of Genesis 1:1 being added). Want to keep it to point and
simple.
Another issue; at casual reading Peter does appear to say the total
destruction happens at the 2nd Advent. (verses 10-11). I take the total
destruction to be at the end of the Millennium.
Some say that it is not worth trying to crack hard nuts, though I feel
that it is worth it, even for the sake of one who may have their eyes
opened (literal spiritual eyes). Another benefit, when I am challenged,
is that it encourages me to search the scriptures for my own
understanding of these things to be in line with what the Bible actually
says. In the above example I feel that even from their OWN reasoning and
scriptures they quote; the truth is not what they proselyte here.
(This is becoming a pattern in my observation. Think, mormon seeking
validity from Anglican women priest in my previous email)
I have decided not to attend their Easter Sacrament tonight. Even my
teacher disencouraged me from doing so with 2John 10-11 (not receive him
into your house or give him any greeting). According to the JWs, the
“sacrament” is only for the 144,000. The rest of the congregation just
pass the trays and then the elders go out to another room to do what?
Partake in secret? (__ attended last year and gave that report and said
it felt weird)
It is a blessing beyond words to have Ichthys online where the truth is
taught from the Bible. Thank you. I pray for the success of your
Ministry and for you and your family.
In our dear Lord and Savior
Your student
Eschatology uses certain terminology, and
"the day of the Lord" is one such term frequently misunderstood (see
the link); that term often expresses the entirety of the end times
wherein our Lord defeats the beast removes the devil, then reigns for a
thousand years culminating in the end of history. "One day with the Lord
is like a thousand years", after all, a quote from Psalm 90:4 repeated
by Peter in this very context (2Pet.3:8). Here is my translation with
explanation based on this truth:
2nd Peter 3:10-13
Thanks for you stalwart defense of the truth, my friend – and for all
your good words.
In Jesus Christ who is the Truth.
Bob L.
Thank you for your reply.
I have accepted your explanation on this topic at first reading and it was good
to re-read as it fits perfectly well with my understanding of what scripture
plainly states.
I do not think the JWs were denying the LITERAL flooding of the earth. They said
that it did not destroy the earth - it only destroyed the people - the earth
remains - NOT destroyed. A symbolic destruction of the earth, which they say it
means that yes people were destroyed by the flood but NOT the earth. The earth
remains.
From there they extrapolate that the fire and dissolving, are the dissolving of
earthly governments and rule, and the wicked- the EARTH REMAINS INTACT = NO
LITERAL FIRE. The earth remains forever.
My simple reasoning was that if the WATER of the FLOOD were real (literal), then
so is the FIRE real (literal). I was trying to keep it simple (especially as I
was on the hoof and not having my specs).
To the JWs, the New heavens and New earth means new heavenly and earthly RULE.
The physical heavens and earth as they exist at present will remain for
eternity.
The FIRE is ONLY SYMBOLIC of the removal of current wicked powers throughout
heaven and earth.
Water is real. Fire is not real. (JW interpretations) So to a JW, “heaven and
earth will pass away” is SYMBOLIC. “New heaven and new earth is SYMBOLIC for the
new rule of Jehovah throughout the universe, and is NOT for a new creation. (JW
interpretations)
When confronted by these heresies, and comparing them to the Bible, the truth
becomes even more obvious than any symbolic imaginations of religious cults.
I pray for an awakening of many to the truth.
Thank you for your excellent explanation of this topic which I have always
believed to be the truth. Nice to have a grounding Ministry such as Ichthys that
is built on the Rock.
In Jesus the Rock of Truth.
Your student
Incidentally, the judgment on the original cosmos which flooded the
entire universe with the tehom or "great deep" (not merely planet
earth), did not annihilate the universe but it did wipe out all life and
light therein, requiring the seven days to restore things, especially on
earth so that mankind could be created and survive here.
So you are correct and your point about literal water = literal fire is
exactly the right one to make. The above merely underscores that,
pointing out that things are exactly the opposite of JW reasoning:
instead of being less severe the end-times' final destruction is total,
both in physical terms (resulting in the new heavens and new earth) and
in spiritual terms (not merely physical death but the last judgment and
damnation of all who resist and reject Jesus Christ as these people do).
Here's my translation and expansion of meaning for the entire context:
2nd Peter 3:3-13
Bob L.
I wouldn't call this a "doctrine". Genesis 3:15 tells us that antichrist will be
the devil's spawn. And that is all it says in this regard. There is no
justification, either from the text of Genesis or from proper canons of biblical
interpretation, to proclaim that the trees of life and knowing-good-and-evil are
symbols and not trees, or that the fruit of the latter was not actually fruit.
If that can be true without anything in the text even suggesting it, then any
verse in the Bible can be made to mean anything anyone wants it to mean (you
would just need imagination).
Trees are trees and fruit is fruit – unless the Bible specifically tells us that
we have to do with a symbol – as at Revelation 12:1ff. where the "red dragon" is
later said explicitly to be Satan (in Rev.12:9). There's nothing remotely like
that in Genesis chapter three.
As to Cain, the Bible specifically says that Adam is his father (Gen.4:1).
This is very dangerous false teaching, and I would strongly encourage you to
find a better source. You are welcome at Ichthys any time, my friend!
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
How are you? I hope you and your family are doing well! How are you
healing and how is the situation going with your contract?
Things have been a little rocky with my family lately, but God is
getting us through it all. [details omitted]
Despite all of the struggles I have increased my Bible study time to two
hours in the morning instead of one. I am spending an hour in Bible
study and an hour in apologetics. I am amazed by how much studying
apologetics has strengthened my faith. Before taking this on, I didn’t
know there was so much irrationality and inconsistency underlying
atheist beliefs which stands in such stark contrast to the consistency
and truth of God’s revelation to us. My __ is also really enjoying and
looking forward to Bible study each night, reading a couple of chapters
(and commentary) a day in the Old Testament and is already into 1 Kings.
Thank you for answering my questions about the animals! I have some
additional questions for you this week. I am sorry to be asking you so
many in one email, but they are all related.
1. On Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in
the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that
moves on the ground.” (NIV)
· What was there about the animals for Adam and Eve to rule/dominate in
paradise? In its perfection, did God build in some kind of “godly
wildness” into the animals for Adam and Eve to attend to? I know this is
a post-fall example but could we compare it to when our pets get a
little hyper or rambunctious we need to take steps to calm them down
(“sit!”). I think what I am trying to ask is that we really have no idea
how perfect creatures and nature before the Genesis curse acted/behaved.
Just because things were peaceful/perfect doesn’t mean Adam and Eve had
nothing to do – God had tasks/work planned for them regarding the
animals.
· When God guided Adam to start to name/classify the animals was it more
than just Adam learning about them? Being made in God’s image was God
going to let Adam and Eve, alongside with Him, continue to
change/develop/take care of creation?
· Do the Hebrew words for “subdue” and “dominate” have any other nuance
in meaning?
· Also, were both Adam and Eve were given the task of ruling/subduing
the animals, not just Adam? That is what Eve was his helpmate for –
helping him with this task?
2. On Genesis 2:19-20: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all
the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the
man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each
living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the
livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam
no suitable helper was found. (NIV)
· Was God not only showing Adam that none of the other creatures were
even remotely like him or could “help him” but that they had their own
mates so that he would wonder why he didn’t have one too? But, of
course, Eve was much more than just a mate. You said in your study on
the creation and fall of man: “But Adam was a human being, the exact
same divine mix of body and spirit that each one of us are, so that God
did not deem it appropriate merely to supply him with a mate in the
manner of animals. Adam is instead allowed to discover his need for
companionship through a heuristic process of observation (Gen.2:19-20),
with the result that he can appreciate both his own need and God's
gracious gift of Eve to him (Gen.2:23).”
· Also on Genesis 20: The verse states that Adam gave names to all of
the livestock, birds in the sky and wild animals. Does this mean there
was some differentiation between animals – some were created to be more
“wild” than others (i.e. the monkey more wild than the cow) or are these
classifications of animals more general just so we get an idea of all
the different kinds Adam had named – it doesn’t specifically mention
fish or swimming creatures, but I am sure God was guiding Adam to give
them names, too.
3. On God’s covenant with Noah after the flood:
· Before the flood did humans eat animals? If they did, were they
allowed or would this have been considered sin? In Genesis God gave the
plants/fruit to Adam and Eve to eat and they did not eat animals before
the fall (no death yet), but after the fall God instituted animal
sacrifice (the skins He gave Adam and Eve). People were
raising/domesticating animals (Able), so humans were using them in some
way. Were people only sacrificing animals to God or were they also
eating them? Would Able have eaten some of the animal he sacrificed to
God like the Israelites did later in time? The clean animals God
instructed Noah to take into the ark were meant to be sacrifices to Him,
but would God have also allowed Noah’s family to use them for food?
· Why did so much of this covenant have to do with God establishing
moral laws for the relationship between humans and animals? Was He
reestablishing or reaffirming the same human-animal relationship we had
before the flood or was He giving us new commandments? Did it have
something to do with the wicked behavior of the nephilim before the
flood (in relation to animals and their abuse of them in the same way we
suspect Satan had defiled the animals on the earth)? Or was it just
because Noah had acted in faith and did God’s will in delivering the
animals?
Thank you for answering my questions and praying for my family and me!
God is definitely answering them. He is really helping me with my
condition. [details omitted] Please let me know if there are any
special/urgent prayers I can pray for you, your family or anyone else on
the Ichthys prayer list. I have lost a little ground lately in how much
I pray, but I am working on being more efficient with my time so I can
have more time to pray. I hope you have a great week and, as always,
don’t feel like you need to rush in answering my questions or replying!
In Christ’s Love,
As to the specifics of Adam's (and Eve's) occupation in the garden of
Eden, we are only told that God was letting Adam name all of the
animals. So I can't give you specific answers to these first two sets of
questions. I can say that since the environment was perfect, there would
have been no need to correct or improve anything. I imagine that we are
talking about a relationship that mirrored Adam and Eve's – no need for
the exercise of authority since no sin and no curse yet existed. I think
there is also a parallel here to be seen with the eternal state. We are
very much creatures of this world we live in now, and it is hard for us
to imagine a world of no effort and no lack and no need for or point in
trying to fix or improve anything – i.e., no "progress" or "resistance".
It may seem to our limited perspective that there will be "nothing to
do" or that things might be "boring". I am confident that nothing is
further from the truth – God Himself is amazing beyond our ability to
imagine the outer edge of His infinity, and eternity is not long enough
to get to know about Him.
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
1st Corinthians 2:9 NKJV
On the Noahic covenant, I think we have to conclude based on Genesis
9:3-6 that animals were not given to be food for mankind before the
flood (otherwise there would be no need here both for the permission and
also for the prohibition on eating blood; whereas both would have been
necessary before the fact if such were permissible). I can't say it was
never done before this. After all, the reason for the flood was that
"the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually" (Gen.6:5 NKJV). The pre-flood population of the earth had
therefore to be wiped completely off the face of the earth, so I
wouldn't want to say that this not-yet-permissible action was not done
by the evil inhabitants of earth at the time anyway. Why the change? It
seems to have to do with the change of physical environment generally on
earth after the flood – a much more hostile environment with much
shorter life-spans, a rapidly expanding population which would quickly
cover the whole earth, bringing a greater necessity for survival and
consequent exploitation of animal resources, not to mention more intense
encounters with animals in the wild not the case in the relatively
benign pre-flood world.
Thanks for the update – and it's nice to hear about your growing
spiritual confidence and wisdom. Family relationships are never easy,
but you are handling things well. Good for you! I am and will continue
to be keeping your family in my prayers.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
I have a question about 2 Samuel 21. Was King David correctly carrying
out God's will in giving Saul's seven sons to the Gibeonites to be
executed? Unger thinks that David was acting in the flesh in this action
(Deut. 24:16 and Ezekiel Chapter 18) and when I first read that chapter
that was my initial reaction, but when David inquired of the Lord about
the three year-long famine He said, "It is because of Saul and his house
of blood, for he put the Gibeonites to death.” From this statement,
especially "house of blood," can we deduce that Saul's sons were guilty
of spilling Gibeonite blood, too? Or was their execution just in God's
eyes for other unjust murders they committed even if they had no part in
slaughtering the Gibeonites?
The hypothetical of what an expanding human race might have looked like
absent sin in Eden is one I try not to get to exercised about – because
it is only hypothetical. God knew what was going to happen and put it
into the perfect plan. If we were to ask Him about this in eternity, He
would be able to tell us how there would have been plenty of enjoyable
occupation for Adam and Eve and their posterity, and how the animal
kingdom worked into that – perfectly. And no doubt in heaven we won't
have to ask because we will be living a true parallel – only much more
blessed.
When Solomon had everything and used his wisdom and resources "to
accomplish things", he found that it was nothing but vanity and
pointlessness (Eccl.2:4ff.). But that is because of the world we are in
and who and what we are in this world. We don't live forever, so
anything we do and accomplish is, in the end, totally pointless – and
yet we are motivated by our sinful natures to strive for earthly prizes
anyway (Eccl.4:4). Christ makes that all different for we believers, of
course, because we are running to win an imperishable crown (1Cor.9:25);
even though the world thinks we are crazy, that is really the only way
to redeem our time down here (Eph.5:16; Col.4:5). But for Adam and Eve,
what they might have done would have been lasting as they would have
continued to live on hypothetically forever (without sin); and whatever
we are going to "do" in eternity will likewise be forever (and sinless)
since we will be forever. We will have to wait a little longer to get
the specifics, but I have no doubt that "the things which God has
prepared" for us are wonderful beyond imagination (1Cor.2:9; cf.
Ps.16:11).
On the execution of the descendants of Saul, it seems clear to me from
the context that David was carrying out what he thought to be God's will
in order to have the plague removed. Would things have worked out if
David had refused? We'll never know. But he was king and he was acting
in a judicial capacity here; he made a decision, and it's hard for me to
fault him for this decision, even though I might not have had the
stomach for it myself (and in that case the plague might not have been
lifted). A couple of things we can say: 1) God is just, even if we
sometimes don't at first see the ins and outs of His perfect justice (we
have faith that this is so); 2) David was a man of considerable wisdom
(he did make mistakes, but these are few and far between, and generally
recorded in scripture as such, which is not the case here); 3) if Saul
had not done what he had done against God's will, none of this would
have happened; 4) if Saul had not turned against the Lord as willfully
as he did in other respects, none of this would have happened; 5) the
one individual in the house of Saul of whom we know who was a believer
was spared; 6) therefore Saul's line was not wiped out utterly, even
though he certainly did much to make such an outcome possible and
understandable; 7) if any of those executed were believers, they are
saved; if any of them were unbelievers, they are not – irrespective of
the fate that befell them. Compared to the widespread injustice and
unjust death of our own times and of the last century in particular,
this incident at least was brought on by divine impetus and adjudicated
by a man who was close to God's own heart. If it had not been the will
of God (e.g., if this had been something horrific in God's sight), it is
not impossible to suppose that He might have let David know (e.g,
through Nathan), that this was not the proper way to proceed – for the
Lord certainly did know that this was what the Gibeonites would request.
Thank you for answering me so fast last week. I have been praying that your
contract gets approved and for God to help you and your family heal from the
cold/flu. I, too, cannot wait until it starts to get warmer. I like the snow but
I am anxious to start running outside instead of on the track at the gym.
The Lord is definitely giving me experiences with different types of unbelief in
the people that I cross paths with and who come into my life. I was thinking
about this the other night while walking. We are born cut off from God. In all
of the unbelievers I have met and spoken with about their faith, that deadness
to God is so apparent in everything they do/say and how they think, its almost
palpable. I can even see it in unbelievers who I think are searching for God and
suffering in their unbelief. The dots just don’t connect for them and the their
doubts are overwhelming. I know this is not an excuse for me not to work at my
evangelism ministry or learn effective apologetics, but it truly is the Holy
Spirit who makes the Gospel known to someone in their heart. Without Him I might
as well be speaking another language to unbelievers when I give them the Gospel.
I feel like I am trying to describe color to a blind person. They are never
going to understand it without that intervention from the Holy Spirit.
For the past month I have been using the time I usually spend studying God’s
Word in delving into apologetics. I know for sure that my ministry is evangelism
(and eventually teaching to women and children – especially teen age girls). I
have pages and pages of notes I have been taking for the past few years studying
your topical studies and Curt’s
verse-by-verse studies and I love God’s Word, but I have been “gnawing at
the bit” and praying to God about how to prepare to share the Gospel effectively
and how to chip away at the lies and hardness of heart in people I encounter.
Knowing God’s Word (my spiritual growth) is of the utmost importance, but now I
am being guided to contrast the truth believed in my heart with the web of
ungodly systems of thought that rule this world. That involves actually studying
the lies themselves.
I have a lot of experience with the new age teachings and atheism as defined by
Ayn Rand (Objectivism), but not so much with materialistic atheism. I may go
back and read some things by Ayn Rand because she was good at exposing the
inconsistencies of the beliefs of material atheists of which she rejected. The
book I am studying now by Dr. Greg Bahnsen is very helpful and I have started
taking notes on his 1985 debate with atheist Dr. Gordon Stein, observing how he
actually defended his faith against Stein using the principals/method taught in
his book.
I don’t expect to turn the heart of many atheists (anything is possible for
God), but I think the Holy Spirit is guiding me to witness on college campuses
(possibly through Eric Chabot’s organization) and secular/atheistic thought
dominates there. As with the teaching, I think I will be witnessing to a lot of
teenagers and young adults who are being exposed to atheistic reasoning, but may
not yet be completely hardened. Also, these ideas (moral relativism, macro
evolution, etc.) are also accepted by many lukewarm Christians and are working
to undermine the faith in believers, because they have permeated every aspect of
our culture.
There is so much to defend against! I feel like I have to constantly diverge
from my studies to pursue rabbit trails and make notes for myself to come back
to a certain subject later. I know I will never be able to cover everything, but
I need to identify the main lies, the ones that are doing the most damage and
the ones that are coming up the most in my conversations.
I really need to balance my time and energy because spending time studying all
these systems of unbelief almost always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I need to make sure I stay rooted in God’s Word and take a break from the
apologetics research to continue my own personal Bible study.
I do have a question about Romans 8:18-24a (your translation from Question #7 of
your email Q/A The Seven Edens and the Eden of Adam and Eve:
“For I do not consider these present hardships in any way comparable to the
glory destined to be revealed for us [at the 2nd Advent]. For all creation
eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the created world is now
subject to futility - not of its own choosing, but because of Him who subjected
it [as a consequence of Adam's sin] - but not without hope. For [at the 2nd
Advent] the created world will be liberated from its enslavement to decay at the
glorious liberation of the sons of God (i.e. our resurrection). For we know that
the whole creation has been experiencing intense pain and agony right up until
this present time. And not only the created world, but we too who have received
the Holy Spirit as a foretaste [of the good things to come] agonize within
ourselves as we eagerly await our adoption, that is, the redemption of our body
(i.e. resurrection). This is the hope with which we were saved.”
One part of question #7 was this: “I've always been lead to believe that the
animals in Eden were all herbivores and ate plants, then Adam sinned and they
became carnivorous like now. However, does scripture indicate that sin entered
only into mankind and the animals were like they are today even back then? Did
the food chain exist in the garden or outside the garden wherever the animals
were? Or did Adam's sin somehow change and affect the animals as well?”
Paul teaches that the animals did not “fall” like Adam and Eve. It’s not that
Adam’s sin affected them too, but God subjected the animals and all of creation
to futility as a consequence of Adam’s sin. My questions are…
1) What does Paul mean by “futility” here?
I just want to be sure: I think he is talking about the fact that they have to
suffer and die; most of them living brutal lives in nature (“enslavement to
decay,” ”intense pain and agony.”). He also compares the futility of their lives
with the futility we still have to put up with as believers living our lives out
in our dying bodies and suffering here on earth. Everything we see happening in
nature (the ecosystems, food chains, animals eating other animals) is completely
pointless/aimless because it eventually ends in death. But this Greek word is
also used to describe the thinking of unbelievers. Could Paul also be describing
the mental state of the animals as having been changed by God? We know from
Isaiah 11:6-9 that the antagonism between species and between humans and animals
will be eradicated, but is it possible that the nature/abilities of the animals
themselves will be enhanced/restored in some way during Christ’s Millennial
rule? You said (I think in a past email response) that in the Garden of Eden
when the serpent spoke to Eve she was not surprised that it could speak, so
there is a possibility that the nature of the animals was really different
before sin entered the world. Could it be that they were more
intelligent/sentient then they are now? I know they do not have free will like
humans and never will, but it will be amazing to see how everything changes when
Christ returns.
My corresponding question is this:
2) Why did God subject them to futility? What does this accomplish and how does
He use this to further His plan?
God definitely changed their natures in some way and their relationship with one
another and man. Was this change a necessity in punishing Adam (Genesis
3:17-19)? Did God create an antagonistic relationship between the animals and
future humans to correspond with the antagonistic relationship between the
ground/plants from which Adam was to now struggle with for his food? Or did God
have to make the animals more “brutish” so they could live in a world that would
now be controlled/influenced by the sin and wickedness of man? Humans horribly
abuse animals all of the time, but it would be so much worse for them if they
were docile or if they were more intelligent than they are.
The relevance of this question will definitely be helpful when talking to
unbelievers. It is surprising how often unbelievers will bring up examples in
nature and ask questions involving animals and pets when talking to me about God
and my faith. This may be the Holy Spirit using natural revelation to help guide
them to Christ and it gives me an opportunity to witness about God’s character
reflected through His created order. It also gives me an opportunity to convey
to them the hope of what life will be like once the Genesis curse is removed.
As always, no rush in writing back! I am going to have a lot on my plate this
week in studying for the Fire Fighter exam. I hope you have a good week and I
will continue to keep you and your family in my prayers.
In Christ’s Love,
Thanks for this wonderful insight on the unbelieving mindset and the
process of evangelism. You've done some great work, based on what I read
here. This sort of ministry is not something I personally could ever do
(certainly not well), but it is clearly important, and I can see how a
person who was actually prepared both with the truth and a detailed
understanding of the major lies abroad would have a wonderful toolbox to
help others. You are right that it takes the Spirit – but that is true
of all Christian ministries (certainly this one). So keep up the good
work. Getting the balance right is a never-ending struggle, one whose
parameters change as we change and our lives and their textures change.
So keep putting "first things first", and then divvy up what's left of
time and energy for the rest.
On your questions, I think they are impossible to disaggregate. I see
the wildness and mortality of animals as part of the Genesis curse.
After all, when the curse is removed, in the Millennium, this harmful
nature (and doubtless also the mortality) is removed (e.g., Is.11:6-9).
What precisely this will entail (as in being able to converse with
them), we can only speculate about. But the passage just cited promises
amazing changes. Making the world a hostile environment for mankind was
both a just and necessary consequence of the fall, and animal wildness
was an essential part of that (even though not specifically mentioned in
Genesis chapter three but verified as you note at Rom.8:18-24).
Mortality of all physical life clearly had to follow the fall, and that
is what futility in the Romans passage means. The "futility" is ματαιοτης / mataiotes, the
same "vanity" that we find throughout Ecclesiastes (this is the Greek
word used to translate הֶבֶל / hebhel in the Hebrew). Separated
from God and with death just around the corner, there is nothing human
beings can do that is not pointless – and the same is true for animals.
Of course, this is all turned upside down for human beings if and when
they turn to Jesus Christ. Analogously, since animals do not have the
free will choice of determining their eternal destiny, I have argued
that they will "be there" automatically. So creation at large, and also
the animal kingdom, and of course we ourselves "groan" now, but look
forward to the time when the present trouble passes away, in
resurrection for us, and in the removal of the Genesis curse from all
creation and for all creation when the Messiah reigns.
I would be circumspect about getting too deep into this with
unbelievers, however. I have used this approach when it was appropriate
and promising, but I think it's wise to quickly turn the issue back to
the person who needs saving: "So your dog will likely be in heaven – but
how about you? What think ye of Christ?" (As I said, I'm not very good
at all this.)
Keeping you and your career efforts and your family in my prayers day by
day, my friend.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Genesis 3:16 NLT
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain
you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but
he will dominate you."
Genesis 3:16 NET
Concerning the subject Rephaim: I understand that these originated when Angels
left their first estate, looked at the daughters of men and came to earth and
took these women and produced the subject beings.
I have a questions: Since the earth ; all but 8 people survived, the rest of the
people perished in the flood.
Were the Rephaim the descendants of the Nephilim, if so, how did the seed of
these Rephaim get passed on, since there were only three women left who could
have carried the gene. One of them, I'm thinking Ham's wife carried the gene?
Not really sure if my thinking cap is on straight or not.
Thanks again,
Reviewing your study containing Repentance. Excellent as usual.
Blessings to you,
Your friend,
These were all destroyed by the flood and not a trace remained. So, no,
the Rephaim are not descendants of the nephilim (I've heard this false
teaching before out there in the ether); the Rephaim were a race of
people who were abnormally large, relatively speaking. This happens,
after all. Vikings were larger than normal western Europeans in their
day, and pygmies are smaller than normal. But all are 100% human. The
name means "sons of Rapha", who was an apparently large specimen taken
to be their ancestor.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
One more thing on Lot: it is interesting that he tarried isn't it? What
if the angels had not basically forced him to leave, would he have been
burned up with the city? I suppose this is barely making it, and if so,
not what we would want to emulate. I was reading the link you sent about
believers who have been preparing being more likely to be alert and make
the right choice. I would think tarrying is the wrong one. So, even
though he is considered righteous, it seems he was right on the edge
possibly compromised due to living in Sodom. The whole being careful of
what affects us thing. Not sinning, but teetering on the edge towards
spiritual catastrophe (living in Sodom not sinful, but unwise and too
much negative affecting) maybe. A little more and maybe that would have
been it for him.
This portion you wrote on the site is really good.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,,
Bob L.
In this morning's Bible Study with my wife, we don't attend any church, but
rather have our own, we are studying the Gospel of John and currently on Chapter
3.
We have a question on Verse 3 which says:
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness[found in Num. 21-6-9], even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have
eternal life". As I noted above this is quoted in Numbers.
We need some clarification on how these two verses correlate with each other,
that is if they do. It appears to me to be an analogy comparing those who looked
at the bronze serpent were healed, and those who look to[believe] in Jesus are
saved from their sins. Comparing the Verse in John to the Verse in Numbers sort
of give the impression that Jesus was trying to explain to John that, the same
way those who looked to the Bronze Serpent were healed, so those who looked
to{believe] in Jesus are also healed{spiritually speaking] of their sins.
What my wife and I don't understand is why did God tells Moses to make a fiery
serpent, when in Verse 6, God sends fiery serpents among the people and they bit
the people, so that many died.
What is the significance of the fiery serpent, and is the comparison I provided
correct in my assumption.
I also noticed in Numbers 21:14 that it mentions "the Book of the Wars of the
Lord". What is this book?
Thanks so much for your help on these questions and your clarification.
To Him Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come be glory always.
Your friend,
As to "the Book of the Wars of the Lord", this was a non-canonical book
which has not survived. Similarly in Classics we know of many ancient
works which have not come down to us except, as in this case, through
fragments quoted in other works which do survive. This is not, in this
case, a terrible loss since, as mentioned, it was not an inspired book –
but the Spirit saw fit to include this small part in the Bible.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
You are the best source of biblical information that I am aware
therefore would like to give you this query.
Normally when we think of the Red Sea (the Gulf Suez) as the location
where the Israelites escaped from Egypt. What confuses me is that in
several passages in the Old Testament they refer to the Gulf of Aqaba as
the "Red Sea".
First, please read Jeremiah 49:20 - 22. In verse 21 only two versions
(Good News Translation and Net Bible) refer to this body of water as the
Gulf of Aqaba. All others have it as the Red Sea and several of the
reputable Bible map makers refer to both bodies of water as the Red Sea.
Second, Deuteronomy 2:1 in most translations have a "Red Sea" which most
likely is the Gulf of Aqaba. Only the Good News Translation reads the
"Gulf of Aqaba".
Critics of the Bible have serious questions about biblical accuracy and
this might be one scripture to look at closely. I consider myself a
devout Christian and try to take the Bible literally in all scripture
references.
Ellicots commentary for Deu:1:1 is interesting but is above my
intellectual and spiritual level to comprehend!
Can you shed some light on this question?
Yours in Christ,
What all of the passages in the OT mentioning the Red Sea have in common
is that this is translating the Hebrew phrase yam suph, or "sea
of reeds" (Deut.1:1 is an exception in that the word "sea" is missing,
but that is what is being referred to in any case). So the question from
a historical point of view is not "what might the term yam suph
refer to if anything goes" (the theory of translation behind the "Gulf
of Aqaba" renderings and also weird anti-Bible theories about marsh
lands and such), but really "how was this phrase actually used so that
we can figure out what body of water is being referred to". When one
adopts the latter, correct methodology, it will be discovered easily
enough that this refers to what today we call the Red Sea. Now the Gulf
of Aqaba is part of the Red Sea, so I wouldn't want to say that this
translation is definitely wrong in terms of geography each and every
time it may be employed, but it is an interpretation; and there is a
school of thought out there (a wrong one) which assumes that the
Israelites fled from Pharaoh across the Gulf of Aqaba (they did not:
their path took them across what is called today the Gulf of Suez).
Since the phrase yam suph always refers to "the Red Sea" without
designating what part of the Red Sea, "Red Sea" is the better
translation in my view. There are a lot more ins and outs about the
geography of the exodus and the forty years of wandering than may first
meet the eye. For one thing, modern assumptions about the locations of
ancient localities are often very wrong. Here are some links to where
you can find the details at Ichthys:
Why "beside the sea" in
Exodus 14:2 means the Red Sea
The route of the
Israelites in crossing the Rea Sea
Bob L.
What do you think is going on in 2 King 13:18?
Respectfully,
Wishing you a happy 4th, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
So while it is an interesting question, since the events related are several
steps away from the Word of God and also how things stand today, I'd be worried
that a definitive answer would do more harm than good (you can see what I've
written before on this
at the link). Today, every Christian is responsible to the Lord for his/her
choices. Parents have a great deal of control over their children up until their
maturity – and it is clear that scripture expects children to obey their parents
(Eph.6:1; Col.3:20), which is different from suffering abuse, let me add (cf.
Eph.6:4; Col.3:21). But in our culture that control is far less than was the
case in the ancient world.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
In 1 Chronicles 10, the scripture states in Verses 4 & 5 says:
" 4Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me
through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his
armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword,
and fell upon it. 5And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he
fell likewise on the sword, and died. 6So Saul died, and his three sons,
and all his house died together.
But, in Verses 13& 14 it says:
13So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the
LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for
asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;
14And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the
kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
I don't think this is a contradiction, but perhaps a mis-translation.
Or, maybe there is some other explanation of these verses that I am not
seeing nor aware of.
Can you clarify for me.
You are always a great help.
Thanks again,
To Him who paid the price we could never pay,
To Him be Glory and Honor, etc.
Your friend,
In Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
I was thinking about the difference between when the Israelites
complained about not having meat vs when God said to David that if David
had asked for more God would have given it. I suppose the difference is
their attitude towards God. That it was asking from a heart that didn't
believe or like Him at all. But David did believe and loved God. So it
would have been different from him. In the NT it says not to complain
like them. I suppose this doesn't mean we can never ask God for more
than basic necessities, just to do it in faith and love, and accepting
of whatever the answer is.
Yes, it is a frequently noted phenomenon among believers that the Spirit
will use what we know of scripture to inform and encourage us. That is
also true – and even more importantly true – of the truth we have
believed and committed to our hearts by faith (so as to become
epignosis rather than mere "knowledge"). Hence the importance of
spiritual growth.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I was thinking - of all the things you could say about David and of all the
Psalms you could pick out, for some reason when I read this verse just recently
it really got me.
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.
(2 Samuel 1:26)
He seemed to feel things deeply and have a deep, intimate relationship with God.
He was so wholehearted and enthusiastic towards the Lord. I know he made his
mistakes and he suffered for it, but he's just open and real and genuine. He's
just himself and I absolutely love that. I can see why God called him, "a man
after my own heart."
I really like him!
Your friend in Jesus
Working in the yards here this week, so no jogging today – but plenty of
exercise.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.