Useful Q & A

[cjab]

In the beginning Adam was completely naked, which strongly suggests to me that
he made use of the tree practically every day for common conditions like sun burn,
abrasions, rash, and insect bites which, again, strongly suggests to me that in His
own time, the creator would've eventually gotten around to showing the people
how to make clothing, not so much for modesty, but primarily to protect their skin.
_[/SIZE][/FONT]

In the beginning, Adam wasn't cursed. So he wouldn't have experienced any of these maladies, so would have had no use for any medicinal compounds. Perhaps you're taking the "tree of life" a little too herbally. I think it rather reflects the presence of the kingdom of God, but what it actually denotes I'm not sure. Possibly it prefigures the salvation of Christ, or Christ.

Luk 13:18 "Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to?
Luk 13:19 "It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches."

 

[Dant01]

.
14» Why Is Joseph's Genealogy Given In The New Testament?

This matter is of little importance to the average Gentile, but very important to
pious Jews.

God appointed Jesus to take David's throne (Luke 1:32). However: successors have
to meet two prerequisites. They have to be directly related to David, and they have
to be directly related to David's son Solomon. These prerequisites are non
negotiable. (2Sam 7:12-16, 1Kings 1:13, 1Chron22:9-10, and Ps 89:3-4)

Jesus was directly related to David via his mother (Rom 1:3) but neither she nor he
were directly related to Solomon. However; Joseph was directly related to both
David and Solomon (Matt 1:6 and Matt 1:20).

Now whereas successors to the throne have to be David's biological posterity, they
don't have to be Solomon's biological posterity; they only have to be one of his
direct descendants; which made it possible for Joseph to pass the throne on to
Jesus by means of adoption: a process that gives children just as much standing in
the home as biological children, including the right to inherit, the right to their
adoptive father's name, and the right to be placed in his genealogy.

This is very important in matters related to not only the man's estate, but also his
status. In other words: it's possible for a child to circumvent blood, and go from
pauper to prince by just the stroke of a pen.

Jacob set the precedent for this procedure when he adopted his two grandsons
Manasseh and Ephraim in the book of Genesis; effectively endowing Joseph's two
boys with the status of tribal heads equal in rank and privilege to Jacob's original
twelve sons. So then, what Joseph did with Jesus was neither innovative nor
unheard of.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
15» What Is A Savior?

• Luke 2:8-11 . . And in the same region there were some shepherds staying out in
the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of The Lord
suddenly stood before them, and the glory of The Lord shone around them; and
they were terribly frightened.

. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good
news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David
there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.

The Greek word for "savior" in that verse is soter (so-tare') which means: a
rescuer.

Rescuers typically help people who are in grave distress and/or imminent danger of
death and/or serious injury, and helpless to do anything about it; e.g. Red Cross,
Firemen, Emergency Medical teams, snow patrols, mountain units, and the Coast
Guard and National Guard.

Wouldn't it be awful if those agencies refused to assist desperate folk until they first
proved themselves deserving? Well lucky for everyone that those agencies work on
the basis of need rather than merit or many of us would end up thrown back to the
wolves.

I think quite a few people are under the impression that Christ is some sort of
probation officer; viz: if people "endure to the end" as they say; then he grants
them a clearance for heaven. But God forbid they should fail to satisfy the
conditions of their probation, because then they're out the door.

Probation can be likened to a sword of Damocles hanging over people's heads by a
slender thread easily broken by conduct unbecoming. How dare the angel of Luke
2:8-11 describe his announcement as "good news of great joy" if probation were
actually what's meant by sozo instead of rescue.

On the other hand; if Christ is in the business of rescuing people from the wrath of
God in accord with the humane principles underlying normal emergency services;
then yes, I fully agree with the angel that the birth of Christ is something to get
excited about.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
16» Define An Angel

The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't especially indicate
a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a dispatched
deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who speaks for, and/or represents, another;
i.e. an ambassador and/or someone selected by God for a special purpose.

Priests are mal'ak. (Malachi 2:7)

The New Testament word translated "angel" is aggelos (ang'-el-os) which means
pretty much the same thing as mal'ak. For example john the Baptist is labeled an
aggelos. (Mal 3:1 and Matt 11:10) and his assistants too are labeled aggelos (Luke
7:24)

The heads of the seven churches to whom John penned letters in Revelation are
labeled aggelos.

All of which tells me we should never assume that the word "angel" in the Bible eo
ipso indicates a heavenly being. It could just as easily be a human agent on a
divine mission, e.g. Heb 13:2.
_

 

[cjab]

.All of which tells me we should never assume that the word "angel" in the Bible eo
ipso indicates a heavenly being. It could just as easily be a human agent on a
divine mission, e.g. Heb 13:2.

Good points. But I think Heb 13:2 refers to Genesis 18:1-15 and to heavenly beings in the context of Hebrews, which employs aggelos exclusively to refer to heavenly angels, as do all the espistles of Paul seem to take this approach (Hebrews contains certain similarities with other Pauline letters suggesting the author is Paul or one of his disciples.)

Other authors such as James take a different approach with aggelos.

 

[Dant01]

.
17» What Is Original Sin?

The so-called original sin was committed by the first man (Adam) relative to a
certain forbidden fruit. (Gen 2:8-17 and Gen 3:6)

The last ten verses of the letter to Romans explains that Adam's posterity are all
reckoned implicated in his act.

• Rom 5:13 . . Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

"all sinned" is grammatically past tense; indicating that the entirety of Adam's
posterity, from first to last, regardless of age, race, gender, and/or religious
preference, are implicated in eating the forbidden fruit. That of course includes the
first women Eve because she was constructed with material taken from Adam's
body.

Thus so everybody is doomed to die not for something they did to deserve death,
but for what he did.

• Rom 5:18 . .The result of one trespass was condemnation for all

The fairness of this situation is very difficult to accept, nevertheless it is what it is,
and futile to complain.

The good news is that the original sin isn't a sin unto Hell, rather, it's a sin unto
death. In other words; the proper punishment for the original sin is simply
mortality, i.e. everyone's demise.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
18» What Is The Fallen Nature?

In a nutshell: the so-called fallen nature is a preference for unobstructed,
unrestrained, self rule; i.e. deciding for one's self what determines right and wrong
and/or what determines good and evil. In that respect, the fallen nature tends to be
its own God and resists cooperating with the real God. (Gen 3:22 and Rom 8:7-8)
_

 

[Chalcedon]

Good points. But I think Heb 13:2 refers to Genesis 18:1-15 and to heavenly beings in the context of Hebrews, which employs aggelos exclusively to refer to heavenly angels, as do all the espistles of Paul seem to take this approach (Hebrews contains certain similarities with other Pauline letters suggesting the author is Paul or one of his disciples.)

Other authors such as James take a different approach with aggelos.

notice he/she avoids interacting with other posters and only wants to promote their own agenda. I tried engaging in the genesis thread and had no luck. its better off just ignoring the person leaving his/her to their own demise since he/she does not want any discussion or critique. an unteachable spirit.

good luck trying though I wish you the best.

 

[Dant01]

.
19» Did Jesus' Mom Expect Him Back From Death?

A search of the names of the women who went out to Christ's gravesite on Easter
morning doesn't find her mentioned among them, nor does 1Cor 15:1-8.

None of Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion,
so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's mom didn't believe either. It's not like
she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin. Her doubt was simply
status quo among Christ's followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out in the
cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

1) She didn't believe he was coming back

2) She didn't believe he could come back

3) She forgot he said he was coming back

4) She didn't know he said he was coming back

5) She was indisposed when he came back

6) She was out of town when he came back

In regards to No.1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own flesh and
blood, this reason seems to me the most likely.

In regards to No.2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes this a
likely possibility.

In regards to No.3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples-- but would
a normal mother forget something like that?

In regards to No.4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an important
matter with his disciples and not his own mom-- the alleged Queen Of Heaven and
the Mother Of All Christians?

In regards to No.5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting Christ's
mom was indisposed.

In regards to No.6; it's highly unlikely Christ's mom would leave Jerusalem if she
knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving mother would
want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his injuries healed.
Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous reunion as a son coming
home alive and well from Afghanistan.

I don't know if any hereabouts have children of their own, but I can tell you from
39+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if my son were
to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days; she would have been
camped out in that cemetery all three of those days waiting for him; and threats to
cut her throat wouldn't persuade her otherwise. Any normal mother would have
been out there in that cemetery even if there was only a remote chance their boy
might recover. I know, because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in
my own home.

If Christ's mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him to;
then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been out there at
the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and water and fresh
clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love her son; but simply
because she wasn't expecting him to be there.
_

 

[Dant01]

.

notice he/she

May I suggest that when in doubt as to the gender of your target; try using
nondescript pronouns like "they" "them" and "their" instead of the awkward
he/she thingy.

Nondescript pronouns suffice for not only male and female, but also for the non
binary, the gender neutral, and the questioning, et al.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
20» What Is Meant By Man As The Image Of God?

According to Gen 5:3 and Heb 1:1-3, image and likeness basically refers to
progeny, i.e. offspring.

Natural children are born in that position. But Man wasn't born from God-- i.e. via
procreation --rather, Man was created, viz: Man exists as God's handiwork, sort of
like how Geppetto made for himself a little wooden son named Pinocchio.

Now, Geppetto and Pinocchio both look human, though one is for real and the other
a doll. But Man's creator isn't human, nor does He look human. God is spirit
whereas Man is physical, and God is eternal whereas Man is temporal, and God is
self-sustaining whereas Man requires sustenance, and God is divine whereas Man is
a critter. So we have to be careful to keep the progeny aspect within reason.

It's likely best to reckon that the creator endowed Man with His image and likeness
rather than Man inheriting the status as a child born in the home.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
21» Why Is Death The Wages Of Sin?

It's my educated guess that the penalty is so severe because Man was created in
the image and likeness of God.

For example: according to Gen 9:5-6, murderers deserve capital punishment-- not
because murder is wrong per se, rather --because the image and likeness of God
lends Man a degree of honor and dignity as near the honor and dignity of God that
a creature can possibly get.

Had God brought Man into existence as just another organic species like meerkats,
lobsters, chickens, and microbes; then Man's conduct would likely be so
insignificant in regard to justice as to not even be worth God's notice. But the
image and likeness of God makes Man a near-deity and thus magnifies the
consequences of his actions.

The image and likeness of God is definitely a status to be grateful for, but at the
same time, it's definitely a status to fear.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
22» Why Didn't God Execute Cain For Murder?

God couldn't haul Cain into court for killing his kid brother Abel because according
to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; the laws of God aren't enforced
ex post facto, i.e. they're not retroactive. Seeing as God enacted no laws regulating
murder until after the Flood; then it was too late to indict Cain by means of Gen
9:5-6.

In other words; when there are no rules prohibiting a certain practice, then no rules
are broken when somebody does it.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
23» What is The New Man?

Adam was the first Man. His version of humanity became obsolete when Christ rose
from the dead. From thence, Adam became the old model and Christ the new and
improved model; so to speak.

A sampling of their differences are:

1) The old Man is made from the Earth, whereas the new is made from Heaven.

2) The old Man is susceptible to mortality, whereas the new is not.

3) The old Man is susceptible to temptation, whereas the new is not.

4) The old Man is somewhat righteous, whereas the new is completely righteous.

5) God can't depend on the old Man, whereas on the new He can.

6) The old Man's base nature is human, whereas the new's is divine.

7) The old Man tends to avoid God, whereas the new welcomes His company.

8) The old Man resents God, whereas the new admires Him.

9) The old Man fears God, whereas the new seeks His approval.

10) The old Man is an enemy of God, whereas the new is His ally.

NOTE: According to 1John 1:8, Christians do sin; whereas according to Eph 4:24,
the new man never sins.

People who've undergone the birth spoken of at John 3:3-5 are an amalgam of old
man and new man. However, the old and the new aren't joined at the hip. By
means of a special circumcision, performed by the hand of God, the old and the
new are separate (Col 2:11)

This is one of Christianity's mysteries that quite a few folk find very difficult to
accept; which I suspect is due to the fact that born-again Christians are readily
aware of the workings of their old man's sinful nature while not so aware of the
workings of their new man's righteous nature. Consequently, if the Bible were not
telling born-again Christians that they have the new man's righteous nature, it's
likely many would never discover its presence on their own.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
24» Why Was Cain's Offering Rejected?

Long story short: God rejected Cain along with rejecting his offering. This is
important because God still does business like that with mankind to this day.

• Prov 15:8 . . Jehovah detests the sacrifice of the wicked

Cain's situation is well illustrated by Isa 1:11-20 where Moses' people were offering
all the covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the
God-given feasts and holy days. God rejected all of it, even though He himself
required it, because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.

FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, judging by the fact that Cain later murdered Abel; my first guess would be
bad blood between him and his kid brother.

• Matt 5:23-24 . . If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that
your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.
First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

And Cain's attitude was deplorable too; he was insolent and rude; even to his
maker. (Gen 4:9)

Moral of the story:

"This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light; in
Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him yet walk in
the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. (1John 1:5-6)

NOTE: The Hebrew word for Cain's and Abel's offerings is from minchah (min
khaw') which aren't necessarily sin offerings like the 'olah (o-law') which are burnt
offerings. Minchahs are more like donations and or tributes; and usually bloodless
and voluntary.

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

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

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

 

[shnarkle]

Jesus is God thru and thru. He defended His disciples for profaning the sabbath day in Matthew 12:1-8 by Him being with them for how they were guiltless since He is Lord of the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

This claim is not valid. There is no prohibition against eating on the Sabbath. The text gives no indication that they went out into the corn fields in order to feed themselves. The Pharisees are ignoring WHY they're in the cornfield to begin with.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

What he's pointing out here trumps their claims because these examples are blatant violations while what his disciples are doing isn't even close to measuring up to an actual violation of the law.

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is not an invitation to profane the Sabbath, and the disciples are not profaning the Sabbath in the slightest. They're on their way through a field, and decide to have something to eat. If anything, it's more a matter of theft than anything else.

 

[Dant01]

.
25» Where Is Noah's Ark?

• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so
that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to
rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more
times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer
51:27. Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a country --never a
specific geological feature by the same name.

The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land mass
like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or
highlands; for example:

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego,
in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of
meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland
and quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept
about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains
of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or
Cuyamaca.

So; what happened to the ark? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the beautiful minds call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most
of the lumber and logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight;
which is perfect for putting together houses, cabins, fences, barns, corrals, stables,
gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the ark
over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires. Nobody
cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using refined fossil
fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody needed to keep on
hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.

There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of that
would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's lumber was
treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape and should have
been preserved for many years to come.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
26» Why Was Canaan Execrated Instead Of His Father?

The curse on Canaan wasn't personal, i.e. it was more or less collateral damage due
to his dad's exclusion from the blessings bestowed upon the other two brothers per
Gen 9:26-27.

As a result of missing that blessing; Ham's posterity became dependent upon
employment opportunities created by his brothers' prosperity, ergo: Canaan's line
became the Bible's very first working class, i.e. instead of moguls, they were
destined to become minions all because of their father's shameful lack of sympathy
for Noah's dignity. Had Noah been anybody else other than one of Ham's parents,
things may have gone a lot better for Canaan.

Canaan's fate seems terribly unfair to be caught in the middle like that, but it
wouldn't be the last time a man's posterity was effected by his conduct. For
example God dealt in a similar way with the evil king Jeconiah. (Jer 22:29-30)
_

 

[Dant01]

.
27» Why Was Meat Added To Man's Diet?

• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green
grasses, I give you all these.

It seems plausible to me that the inclusion of meat in Man's diet is evidence that
the human body's strength was declining seeing as how Noah lived to be 950, but
by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased considerably to 175;
which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7-8) so the human body was
obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in Abraham's.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York Times,
scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture all of its own
essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to manufacture all but K
and D.

Red meat has been demonized of late for a number of medical reasons, but it,
along with other sources of meat-- e.g. clams, swine, sheep, fish, and poultry --still
remains an excellent natural source of B12 without which post-Flood folk risk
contracting deficiency diseases.
_

 

[Dant01]

.
28» God "Came Down" To Inspect The Tower Of Babel?

• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man had built

That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make better
sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came" down? Why
bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower from
Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything up close and
personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an on-site eye
witness. He did it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.

• Gen 18:21 . . I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according
to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.

Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He had to
investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person as on-site
eye witness, before moving against Sodom.

In future, should someone challenge the Lord by saying: How do you know Sodom
was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes, He was there
and did actually see its bad for Himself.

And then there's the offering of Isaac.

• Gen 22:11-12 . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven: Abraham!
Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise your hand
against the lad, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you
have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me.

Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future? Then why
did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know everything there is to
know?

Yes; but knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing things
by omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in real time, as an
eyewitness.

Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his son,
but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He prefers to
be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.

So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the angel's
instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's compliance by
personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the bleachers, so to
speak, watching all the action from first to last.

NOTE: Some of the ancient rabbis were baffled by these passages as they seem to
imply there are two Jehovahs. So they nick-named one of them as Metatron: a
celestial being whose name is his master's. Roughly speaking; Metatron is
authorized to speak for God, speak as God, be spoken to as God; and be
worshipped, obeyed, and respected as God.

No human has seen or heard the real God at any time (John 1:18, John 5:37, and
1Tim 6:16). Till Christ came along; Metatron was the closest that humanity ever
came to associating with the ultimate supreme being.
_