Useful In A Pinch

[WeberHome]

-
The Image And Likeness Of God

†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but
because humanity was created in the image of God.

James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally
wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.

I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was
created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no
more value than a gerbil or a garden slug. The image and likeness of God is
what lends human life a measure of dignity over and above the animal
kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness of God, people could go on
safari and hunt each other for sport, like human wildlife, and mount their
heads on walls and mantles.

Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness"
is the reproduction of one's self by means of engendering biological children.
However; humanity bears small resemblance to its creator because God isn't
physical. According to John 4:24 God is spirit, while according to John 3:6
humanity is solid. According to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according
to Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.

Though humanity obviously isn't God's biological offspring, it still seems to
me "children" is the best way to define humanity's image and likeness of
God: at least in a limited way; for example:

†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.

Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological
status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the
dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most
High by means of the Most High giving birth. So then; I think it safe to
conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a natural-born status; but
rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and likeness of God is conferred
rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing status it is too seeing as how it's
about as close to divine as a creature can get without actually having
biologically descended from God.

†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have
crowned him with glory and honor.

The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and
likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not
because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but
because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value
that no other species on Earth can match.

Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is
mankind so prone to evil?

A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip
off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a
status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the
character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically
related to God, it would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.

†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?

A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so
he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that
according to Gen 2:7 human beings are definitely not God's biological kin.
No; Paul simply appealed to Greek poetry to point out to the Athenians that
if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then the father of
human beings surely would be made of something other than metal and/or
stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a mite too
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Your Daddy

The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
all forms of life back to a common genetic heritage. The branch on that tree
that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to
the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age,
race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be identified with
a common ancestor.

†. Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And
the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,
and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.

The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23
contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's
translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other
twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"

In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as
was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated
from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently
any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human
father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his
mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to
Adam.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[everready]

-
The Length Of A Creation Day

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.

Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.

In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup
and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high
noon and sunset.

NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.

Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words:
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

Your calculations haven't factored in what conditions were like before sin entered creation, that would include animal vegetable and mineral.

everready

 

[WeberHome]

-
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers
because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800
years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his day, rather than death as the Bible thumpers understand it in their day.
In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die
normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It
can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz:
the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The
day ain't over yet"

†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[patrick jane]

Oh, which are you?

1. "nuts"
2. "roommate"
3. "poor thang"
4. "girly boy"
5. "mask"

Or was it the "whining" and "jammie party" that you identified with most? Let me know and I'll make sure I never use those words again on this forum....lest you get your tender feelings hurt.

Ganja. Look lady, I post to recent posts on the active board, even yours. If you weren't referring to me then maybe I was wrong, but maybe I was right. Don't worry about my feelings.

View attachment 20694

 

[glorydaz]

Ganja. Look lady, I post to recent posts on the active board, even yours. If you weren't referring to me then maybe I was wrong, but maybe I was right. Don't worry about my feelings.

Look, little whiney boy. :loser:

Are you not getting enough attention? :chew:


You go dig up a post from a week ago all to tell me not to worry about your feelings? Really? :mock: pj

 

[WeberHome]

-
Why Cain Was Rejected

†. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of
the soil.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to
the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed
and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by
tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

†. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord
from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the
firstlings of his flock.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought
were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min
khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically,
tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts
rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling
and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated
by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 8:20 and
Gen 22:2.

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 first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an
animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather,
responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way.
This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God.
The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing
gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point,
apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much
pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the
prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar
and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given
religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

†. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain
and his offering He paid no heed.

The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed
Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only
issue: Cain himself was an issue too.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't
carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink,
snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a
predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment
banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap
politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he
associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the
exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced
were correct and timely.

The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and
subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?

Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was
actually impious. (1John 3:12)

In what way was he impious? Well, my first guess would be friction between
him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the
worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

†. Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord
said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do
what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be
readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are
depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were
attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the
correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the holy days
of obligation. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was
unbecoming.

Bottom line: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct
was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because
Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that
the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at
the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are
a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really
ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their
lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.

†. 1John 1:5-6 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and
declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we
say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Why God Didn't Prosecute Cain For Murder

†. Gen 4:12-13 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to
you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth. Cain said to the Lord:
My punishment is too great to bear!

His punishment was actually very lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't
punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to
survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is
that fair?

Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he
executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for
murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num
35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Gal 3:17, law
enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law can't be enforced until after it's
enacted; which is precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, execute Cain for
murder. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
From Whence Cain Got A Wife

Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was
constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In
other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as
Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life,
rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped creation and has been on
sabbatical every since.

According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life descend
from a solo specimen.

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

The Greek word for "nation of men" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to
racial diversity.

Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.

An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three
sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's,
and Japheth's children married amongst themselves-- first cousins with first
cousins.

†. Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were
Shem and Ham and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from
these the whole earth was populated.

Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof
of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930,
and Noah to 950.

Now as to the sin of incest; according to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal
3:17; God does not enforce His laws ex post facto: viz: they are not
retroactive. So then, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to prosecute
pre-historic people for incest because it wasn't prohibited in their day; and
wouldn't be until later in Moses'.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
How The Critters Got To Noah

†. Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.
Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God
was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get
ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no.
They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

†. Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

†. Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the
earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life;
everything on earth shall perish.

†. Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of
each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female.
From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing
on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers.
God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which
implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went
extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because
Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2015, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1895-- eight years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and seventeen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably
reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many
species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure
points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for
example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was
once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's
crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into
the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they
cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form
mountain ranges and hill country.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter
forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the
waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the
sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys
sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a
boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover
the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for
showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any
geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land
bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's
diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway,
although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at
various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water.
That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but
those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who
has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological
processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[George Affleck]

Seems to be some interference.

I'm getting a Ma and Pa Kettle rerun in the background.

 

[glorydaz]

Seems to be some interference.

I'm getting a Ma and Pa Kettle rerun in the background.

I think your braces are picking up false signals. Just adjust your antenna, and you'll be back to normal in no time.

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark

†. Gen 8:3b . . 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 precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not
really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other
mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is
haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent
land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can
also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and
France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

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 mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of
Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains
near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above
sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea
level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of
one; it's just located up on high ground.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

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 is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific peak by the same name.

So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids 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/or logs used in its construction would've been
nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's very safe to assume 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.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[George Affleck]

Weber,

I found what you said about giraffes and heights interesting. I did not know that about them before.

This might be a clue that the ark rested in one of the valleys in the mountains of Ararat.

Thanks

 

[WeberHome]

-
Abraham And Hagar

†. Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac.

The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a
clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's
in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any
and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

†. Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin
of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then
sent her off with the boy.

The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves.In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's
eldest biological son.

Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.

†. Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.

†. Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do
nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from Me.

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons
(Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was
dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Who/What The Firstborn Is

†. Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.

Christ wasn't even the one born first in the human family let alone the entire
creation so what gives here?

Well; firstborn is just as much a rank as it is a chronological birth order; and
though the chronology is set in biological concrete; the title, and it's
advantages, are transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob
(Gen 25:23) from Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from
Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14). This situation can lead to some
interesting ramifications; for example:

†. Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose
son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how
does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit
at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then
calls Him "Lord" how is He his son?

Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words
for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second
is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to
simply indicate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12)
Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his
brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

So then; Psalm 110:1 could be translated like this:

"Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."

Anybody who knew the Old Testament in Jesus' day knew good and well
from Ps 89:27 that David has no superiors but God because he holds the
rank of God's firstborn; viz: no king that you might name is David's superior
other than Yhvh: the king of all kings.

So Psalm 110:1 suggests that David's rank-- and subsequently its
advantages --as God's firstborn has been transferred to another man; and
seeing as how Jesus' opponents agreed that the other man is David's son,
then the position has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to
one of his own posterity; so that now David has to bow and scrape to one of
his own grandchildren, which up to that time was not only unheard of; but
just wasn't done.

†. Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

Well; no surprise there. This was something not only strange to their Jewish
way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in black and white in their
own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to catch its significance until
Jesus drew their attention to it.

Now; here's something else that I'm 110% positive crossed the minds of
Jesus' learned opposition. To their way of thinking, David's position as God's
firstborn as per Ps 89:27 is irrevocable. Well; seeing as how there is no
intermediate rank between the firstborn position and the paterfamilias
position, that means David's son, about whom he spoke in Ps 110:1, is equal
in rank to God; which is a blasphemous suggestion to say the least.
(chuckle) Those poor know-it-all Pharisees were utterly baffled beyond
words.

"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows." (Ps 45:6-7)

If that passage has been translated correctly, it says one of two things.
Either God is speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a king of the Davidic
dynasty that has been promoted to a level of dignity and authority equal to
His own; which of course outranks David by a pretty large amount; and in
point of fact: is superior to the entire creation-- all of its forms of life,
matter, and energy --no contest.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Why David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

†. 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's
causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His
name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time.
(e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

†. 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .
.The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was
very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

†. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed:
Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern.

There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34.
Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in
that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the
children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating
Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with
Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of
his subjects.

The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because
the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom
5:12-18)

Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out
of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the
past; for example:

†. 2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the
Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites
to death.

Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the
conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He
apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them
for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and
sometimes those lives are very large in number.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:




There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.






It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?

A7 is very confused and I might add, Lost.

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

†. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under
law, but under grace.

NOTE: The law's mastery is played out in its power to control people's
destiny. For example when somebody commits grand theft, criminal justice
puts the thief behind bars regardless of how he might feel about it.

The "law" in question is the covenanted law that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The
important thing to note about the agreement is that it's a legally binding
contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations.

Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with
the covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize Christ's
followers for breaching it.

God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and
where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to
break, there are no indictments. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is

†. Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.

The koiné Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos')
which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially
defines a servant whose responsibility it was to take their master's children
to school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got
there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.

The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant,
it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for
example:

†. Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty,
henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient
with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.

†. Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly
reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His
commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed
entrance to the holy city.

†. Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it

†. Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they
may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into
the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.

The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that
if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their
own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming
away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away
dead.

†. Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death.

I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty--
we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our
friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would
be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the
time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's
not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy"
just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch
22.

Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?

A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.

†. Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak
lies go astray from birth.

That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that
although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie,
and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them
and will eventually have its way with them.

Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how
we're all natural-born liars?

A: Nobody can, it's impossible.

†. Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them
nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.

†. Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.

The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for liars. That
right there should make liars breathe a little easier in respect to the sum of
all fears.

†. 1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

†. Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned
to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=