[font=Georgia]-
Hello;
Seeing as how this area is set up for people with an urge to express their
opinions rather than argue back and forth in endless disputes that never get
to the bottom of anything; I'm taking advantage of the relatively peaceable
environment hereabouts to post my thoughts on a variety of Bible subjects;
beginning with the one below.
Light
In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb stated that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and
galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's
statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day
of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.
The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those
particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent
laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.
The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also
make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life,
centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms,
organic molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma
rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et
al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives
its origin passing mention.
†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep
That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.
2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
What I Think
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #11
[font=Georgia]-
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 is: 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.
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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 is: 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.
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #12
[font=Arial]-
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!
Cain's 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: God doesn't enforce His laws until after
their enacted; which is precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, execute Cain
for murder. (cf. Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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!
Cain's 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: God doesn't enforce His laws until after
their enacted; which is precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, execute Cain
for murder. (cf. Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #13
Yet shortly after HE judged the wickedness of the whole world and destroyed it in the flood. ???WebersHome wrote: [font=Arial]-
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!
Cain's 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: God doesn't enforce His laws until after
their enacted; which is precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, execute Cain
for murder. (cf. Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #15
[font=Arial]-
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.
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 years later in Moses'.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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.
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 years later in Moses'.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #16
[font=Arial]-
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 years old.
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 2016, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1896-- seven years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and sixteen 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 surface 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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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 years old.
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 2016, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1896-- seven years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and sixteen 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 surface 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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #17
Have you considered the logic of why the law was given as found in Romans 7:7 ... Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.WebersHome wrote:[font=Arial]It's complicated.ttruscott wrote:[font=Arial]Yet shortly after HE judged the wickedness of the whole world and destroyed
it in the flood.???[/font]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
AND
Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.??
Through the law we become conscious of our sin implies the law is given to sinners to open their eyes to their sinfulness but church forbid if we ever use it for that purpose especially with Adam and Eve.
The holy angels are not under commandment. The sanctified saints are not under commandment. Only sinful humans are under commandment.
Since death is a judgement upon sin, death given before the law indicates there was sin before the law, even as the commandment to Adam and Eve suggests they were sinners (naked) before they ate...especially as it had the proper effect upon them of convicting them of their sin so they sought repentance and redemption.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #18
[font=Arial]-
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #19
[font=Arial]-
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #20
[font=Arial]-
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
