Hold These Thoughts
Hello; and welcome to a collection of odds and ends from the Bible that come in
handy now and then for just about everybody that's just starting out.
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New
The Length Of A Creation Day
Infinity And Beyond
Day And Night
The Image And Likeness Of God
Non Binary Identification
The Forbidden Fruit
Why Cain Was Rejected
Why God Didn't Execute Cain For Murder
From Whence Cain Got A Wife
How The Critters Got To Noah
The Fate Of Noah's Ark
Abraham And Hagar
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
Abraham And The Stars
Who/What The Firstborn Is
David's Little Boy
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"
What/Who The Schoolmaster Is
The Brazen Serpent
The Sin Nature
When To Obtain Eternal Life
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New
This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
a (very small) nutshell:
1• The simplest difference is chronological, i.e. the Old Testament focuses
upon the Jews' religious history prior to Christ's birth, while the New focuses
upon the world's introduction to Christianity in connection with Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection.
2• "Old Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
3• "New Testament" refers to the covenant that Yhvh's people will eventually
agree upon with God as per Jeremiah 31:31-34.
The Everlasting Gospel
This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.
● Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel
flying through the sky, carrying the everlasting gospel to preach to the people
who dwell on the earth— to every nation, tribe, language, and people. Fear God!
he shouted. Give glory to Him! For the time has come when He will sit as judge.
Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the springs of water!
It's easy to mistake the everlasting gospel for the gospel of Christ but neither
Christ's name nor his crucifixion and resurrection are anywhere in the angel's message.
gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:
is a supreme being.
There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and
cosmos— all of its forms of life, matter, and energy —is the product of
● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said
there be light" and there was light.
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 the laws of
nature to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic
Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of
lengths and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons.
And though light has no mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also
quite invisible. For example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and
you can see the Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of
the Sun's light is visible in the void between them and that's because light
isn't matter; it's energy.
The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate
electromagnetic radiation 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, color,
radiation, refraction, reflection, 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 planet's condition prior to the
creation of light; and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that
make light possible, the earth's 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.
It's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily
conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural,
e.g. the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the
stars, aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.
But when it comes to creation's light they choke; finding it
impossible within themselves to believe that Genesis just might be
consistent in its description of the creative process. I mean, if all those
other things are natural, why wouldn't creation's light be natural too? In
point of fact, without natural light, planet Earth would become a cold dead
world right quick.
1Tim 6:16 mentions a light that no man has seen, nor can see.
Back in that day, the only light that people knew much about
was visible light. We today know of several kinds of light invisible to the
human eye: radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. However, those
are all natural forms of light. The light spoken on in 1Tim 6:16 is a
supernatural kind of light for which humans have no means of detection thus
That light is further described by the Greek word
aprositos (ap-ros'-ee-tos) which means: inaccessible. In contrast; all
natural light is accessible in one way or another.
The Length Of A Creation Day
● Gen 1:5b . . And there
was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
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. Well; that right there gives
us a clue to the length of a creation day because scientific dating methods
have easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million
So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour
events. 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."
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.
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.
Chronologically speaking; physical evenings and mornings indicate overnight,
i.e. the days of creation would include no daytime, plus they'd be only
twelve hours in length rather than twenty-four.
Evenings and Mornings themselves are just as ambiguous as
yowm. There is no specific word for afternoon in the Bible, so evening can
indicate the hours from high noon to sunset, while morning can indicate the
hours between sunrise and high noon. In that respect, an evening and a
morning together would indicate twelve hours of daytime. (cf. John 11:9)
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 estimated 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
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.
To Infinity And Beyond
Gen 1:14-18 . . God said: Let
there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish Day from Night; they
shall serve as signs for the set times— the days and the years;
and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the
. . . And it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And
God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to dominate the
day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.
At that point in biblical history, "stars" no doubt indicated all objects in the
heavens that blazed with light (other than the Sun and Moon) seeing as how it would be a very long time before
humanity began categorizing some of the stars as planets.
I think it's important to emphasize that in the beginning God "set" the stars in
the sky just as he set the Sun and the Moon in the sky, i.e. celestial objects
didn't arrange themselves all by themselves sans any intelligent supervision
whatsoever; no, they were placed; and not only were they set in place, but also
set in motion— nothing in the entire cosmos is standing still, though many
things appear to be.
According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the Earth on the day that God made
Well; the only stars whose shine is of any practical use as
illumination on the Earth are those of the Milky Way; which is estimated 100,000 to 180,000 light years in diameter. Of course light from stars nearest
our location in the galaxy would begin dousing the earth with illumination long
before those at the far side.
For example, light from Alpha Centauri takes only about 4½ years to reach Earth
while light from Alpha Orionis (a.k.a. Betelgeuse) takes about 640. There are
quite a few stars whose illumination reaches Earth in less than 50 years. But
whether 4½ years, 50 years, 640 years, or 180,000 years; the time involved is
insignificant if we but allow the days of creation to be epochs of indeterminate
length rather than 24-hour events.
But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork." (Ps
Celestial objects make better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning for
them. The universe is simply a magnificent work of art— just as intriguing, if
not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer,
and da Vinci —testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist without peer. I
doubt the stars were ever meant to be a home for Mr. ET.
Sadly, a number of very intelligent people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse
Tyson look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Personally, I think it's futile to
look to the sky for SETI reasons. Why not just look to the
sky for inspiration instead of intelligent extraterrestrial life? What's so bad
about visiting the sky as a Metropolitan Museum of your maker's many-faceted
"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident
to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of
eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what
He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)
Day And Night
● Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light
from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Day and Night simply label two distinct, and opposite,
conditions— the absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Defining
those conditions may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing the
chronology of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, it's essential to keep days
and nights separate. When people attempt to define "day" as a twenty-four hour
amalgam of light and darkness, they invariably come up with some rather
convoluted interpretations of Matt 12:40.
● Gen 1:14 . . God
said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish Day from
On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light;
and defined Night as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined
that Day, as pertains to life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is
when the sun is down.
These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they
easily escape the memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive
habit of always thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for
calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical
schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.
● Gen 1:15-18a . .
God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the
lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God set them in the
expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to dominate the day and the
night, and to distinguish light from darkness.
That passage not only defines "day" as when the sun is up,
and "night" as when the sun is down; but it further defines night as when
the stars are out; and yet people still don't think God means it.
Christ defined Day and Night as they were practiced when he was
● John 11:9 . .
Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours in the day? A man who walks by
day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.
"this world's light" is the sun; which Christ defined as "by
day". So if Christ's "day" was defined as when the sun was up; then Christ's
"night" had to be defined as when the sun was down.
So then, when Christ predicted his death to last for three
days and three nights, he obviously meant the hours of daytime and nighttime
as they were understood when he was here rather than some other era
otherwise the people in his own time wouldn't have known when to expect his
crucified body to come back to life.
Daytimes divided into twelve divisions were regulated by what's known as
temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time of year.
There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when daytime consists of
less than 12 normal hours of sunlight, and sometimes more; but when Christ
was here; the official number of daytime hours was always 12 regardless.
I don't know exactly why the Jews of that era divided their
daytimes into twelve divisions regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it
was just a convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil
affairs; including the Temple's activities (e.g. the daily morning and
Image And Likeness Of God
● Gen 1:26a . . And God said:
Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.
Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who
believe that man's creator is a human being; or at least resembles one. But
according to Christ, creation's master mind is non physical.
"God is spirit" (John 4:24)
According to Luke 24:36-39, spirit isn't solid.
Moses warned Yhvh's people to avoid making any kind of
mannequin, figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has
any true concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex
There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically
resembling its creator; except maybe the air in front of your face— neither
Man, nor beast, nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out
in the void (Rom 1:21-23). Concepts that portray the supreme being in human
form are purely fantasy. (Rom 1:25)
● Gen 1:26b . . 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.
Humanity's right to dominate the earth is where we find at
least a portion of its image and likeness of God. In other words: Man's
image and likeness of God takes into consideration sovereignty, power,
control, and authority. (cf. Gen 44:18)
The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and
means: to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.
I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that
went like this:
We are not above the Earth;
We are of the Earth.
Well . . I respect the Native American cultural feelings
behind that statement; but the cosmos' designer and builder decreed that
though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the
God-given right to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its
forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air,
its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its tectonic plates and
the earth's very atmosphere itself. And that's not the end of it. According
to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to take control of even more.
Another aspect of humanity's image and likeness of God is
● Ex 3:13-14 . . Moses said unto
God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto
them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to
me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I
am that I am: and He said; thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
"I AM" hath sent me unto you.
In other words: God always was, He always is, and He always
Although it could never be said of humanity that it always
was, in the beginning it could at least be said that humanity always is and
always shall be; because according to Gen 3:22, the human body was meant to
God created all manner of living things in swarms and herds
and flocks; no doubt to keep their numbers up because they weren't
apportioned the tree of life for nourishment. It was located in the garden
of Eden; to my knowledge, the tree was located nowhere else on Earth. In
addition; the Hebrew word for "garden" indicates it was walled; probably to
keep out foraging animals. In point of fact, I seriously doubt that the tree
of life would've helped extend the life span of non human creatures even had
they eaten from it; viz: the tree of life was strictly human food: a sort of
ambrosia, so to speak.
● Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are
gods; you are all sons of the Most High.
Humanity is as close to divine as a creature can possibly
● Ps 8:4-8 . .What is man, that
thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that thou dost care for
him? Yet thou hast made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with
glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to rule over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the
beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
Non Binary Identification
The non binary political movement consists of people who shun labeling their
gender as either male or female, and prefer to speak of themselves with neuter
pronouns, for example: it, its, that, they, and them.
I've no reservations whatsoever that humanity's creator regards non gender
people as freaks of nature; in other words: non gender people are not of His
making because His making was two genders: male and female.
● Gen 1:27 . . God created Man in his own image, in
the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
● Matt 19:4 . . Have ye not read, that He which
made them at the beginning made them male and female?
If people can't agree with humanity's creator on something as elementary as
their gender designations as per Gen 1:27 and Matt 19:4, then I have to assume
that they disagree with Him on many other issues far more important than that.
There's a term for people unable to accept themselves as the person they really
are. I think it might be called Dissociative Disorder. Political correctness
requires that they be "included" but God-honoring Christian churches dare not
accept into their official membership roles someone known to be non binary.
● Heb 12:15 . . See to it that no one misses the
grace of God, and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
A bitter root is one belonging to a species unfit for human consumption. When
you find noxious vegetation sprouting in your garden, you've got to get out
there with a hoe and dig that stuff up before it spreads out of control.
Hebrews 12:15 doesn't apply to the world at large. It only applies to the
official membership roles of a Christian congregation, i.e. non binary folk can
come to church on Sunday and listen to the choir and the pastor's sermon as
visitors if they like; no harm in that.
Prince Rogers Nelson (a.k.a. Prince the entertainer) at one time decided he
didn't want to be known by a name spelled with letters and so created an
unpronounceable symbol for himself; but of course he continued to be known as
Point being: though non binary people wish not to be described as boys and girls
and/or men and women and/or males and females, nor referred to by
gender-specific pronouns; they are still seen that way by everybody else. The
quest to disown their gender is not only a fight against nature and common
sense, but also a fight against God. They might succeed in gaining a measure of
legal protection; but never in a million years will they gain people's honest
respect; which is a very good reason to disqualify non binary folk applying for
the office of elder in a Christian church.
● 1Tim 3:7 . . He must also have a good reputation
with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the Devil's
A non binary Christian church elder would be seen by the world as a bona fide
hypocrite; which can be roughly defined as somebody who should be standing for
the Bible but at heart does not care to live by it. With a church officer like
that; you couldn't help but wonder where else they've compromised the faith.
● Titus 1:7-9 . . He must be blameless, as the
steward of God . . holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught
The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
all forms of life back to a singular genetic heritage regardless of species. In
other words; if you started with a raccoon, and followed it's branch down the
tree far enough, you'd eventually intersect with another branch that you could
then trace to mushrooms. The tree is sort of the equivalent of a Big Bang of
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 linked
to a common ancestor; which of course is no surprise to Bible students.
● 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 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's flesh and bone were derived from Adam's flesh and bone;
consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's flesh and bone is
biologically traceable to Adam's flesh and bone.
● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve,
because she would be the mother of all people everywhere.
● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one man every
variety of mankind to live on all the face of the earth
So then, it was 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. (Gen 2:7)
The Forbidden Fruit
● Gen 2:8-9 . . Now the Lord God
had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had
formed. And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—
trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the
garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
● Gen 2:16-17 . . 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 evil, you must not eat of it;
for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.
● Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent
said to the woman: You are not going to die,
There we have the beginnings of what's known as a half-truth;
which Webster's defines as a statement that is only partly true and that is
intended to deceive people. In other words: half-truths contain a kernel of
truth but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Serpent somehow knew that the forbidden fruit itself
wasn't lethal, i.e. Eve wouldn't die from eating it like hemlock or a Night
Cap mushroom. He was 100% right about that. Her death, though related to
eating the fruit, would come upon her from a very different direction; one
that Eve apparently never suspected; though it was right under her nose the
● Gen 2:16-17 . . as for the
tree of knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat of it; for in the day
you eat of it, you shall die.
The first thing to point out is 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 own day rather than death as modern Sunday school
classes construe it in their day. In other words: Adam's concept of death
was natural rather spiritual.
As far as can be known from the Bible, the tree of life was
located only in the garden and nowhere else on Earth; plus the Hebrew word
for "garden" indicates that Adam's food source was fenced; i.e. walled, no
doubt to protect it from foraging critters.
Both those points suggest very strongly to me that only human
life was meant to continue indefinitely; viz: humanity is the only species
that God created with the potential for immortality; as a result, expiration
was common in Adam's world by means of plants, birds, bugs, and beasts so
that "death" wasn't a strange new word in Adam's vocabulary; i.e. God didn't
have to take a moment and define it for him.
● Gen 3:6d . . she took of its
fruit and ate.
You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as
she realized the Serpent was right after all— she didn't drop dead. So the
woman brought it home and convinced her man to try it too.
● Gen 3:6e . . She also gave
some to her husband, and he ate.
Eve didn't drop dead the instant she tasted the fruit, and
neither did Adam. 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
The catch is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he
tasted the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"
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; and
according to Rom 5:12-19 the day of everybody else's death began at that
moment too; making human death universal regardless of age, race, gender, or
● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them
were naked, the man and his wife, yet they felt no shame.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a
feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's
psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and
actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They
weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their
innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated
by, their appearance in the buff.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by
frontal exposure at first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest
respect because as yet they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they
infected yet with a guilt complex about sex and the human body; and concepts
like vanity and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking
whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they
even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties
yet at this point.
That was an interesting time in early human development. They
had neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code.
Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt
have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
Some expositors label this era in the human experience as the
age of innocence; which implies not just an ignorance of morality; but
primarily a lack of self consciousness— which Webster's defines as
uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.
● Gen 3:6-7 . . She took of its
fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes
of both of them were opened.
According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17
when she tasted the fruit. But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right
away. In other words: up till Adam tasted the fruit, its effects upon Eve's
health were nil; and in point of fact, there's really no good reason to
believe that Adam's eyes were opened the very instant he tasted the fruit;
it's effect upon him may have been delayed too.
● Gen 3:7b . . and they
perceived that they were naked;
Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad
kicked in with an intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as
the quality or state of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is
socially acceptable in conduct or speech.
In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to
initiate a dress code due to finding themselves slaves to a humanistic
conscience so powerful that even if Almighty God himself told them it was
okay to remain disrobed they would not have believed Him; and even had they
believed Him, they would still put something on because at this point, they
● Gen 3:7c . . and they sewed
together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.
But why not bosom coverings? Why not derrière coverings too?
Why only loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? They
developed a guilt complex over sex and the human body that continues to this
day; and I sincerely believe that complex is the very reason why so many
people feel that the male libido is naughty and sinful. (Those same people
rarely, if ever, condemn the female libido.)
Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the
changes in human consciousness that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so
sure. According to an article in the Oct 8, 2011 issue of the Oregonian; new
research reveals that some, if not all, the plants we eat actually change
the behavior of human genes in ways never before imagined.
A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University,
found that fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up
swimming in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA
that somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come
from rice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts,
cauliflower and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human
gene expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of
designing plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic
structure for the better (or the worse).
And it's well known what happens to kids when they move into
adolescence. Hormonal chemicals kick in, and their childish innocence
vanishes; right out the window. They lose interest in kid's toys and begin
to take an interest in things more appropriate for their age; including a
very noticeable interest in themselves, and in the opposite sex; and most
especially in what others think about them. In other words: they become
self-conscious; which Webster's defines as: uncomfortably aware of oneself
as an object of the observation of others.
Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes— they're
totally natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a
natural kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in
their own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam
and his wife to morph and develop an intuitive sense of propriety; and that
"sense" can't help but influence people's interpretation of Matt 5:28. In
other words they want male libido to be naughty because their
forbidden-fruit intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.
At any rate, the pending dialogue, between God and Man in the
next few verses, implies that God himself had no hand in making those two
people change. On the page of scripture, their altered human consciousness
is directly related to the fruit and to nothing else.
So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a
complex spiritual explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with
the biological one and let it go at that.
● Gen 3:8a . . They heard the
voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day;
The Hebrew word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not
only indicate a vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g.
horns, crackling, snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring,
whooshing, hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.
● Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and
his wife hid from Yhvh God among the trees of the garden. Yhvh God called
out to the man and said to him: Where are you?
Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to
mean: Adam; come out, come out, wherever you are!
● Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I
heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked,
so I hid.
Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that
degree of undress lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of
right and wrong. But the thing to note is Adam's unease in the presence of
God while lacking what he thought in his own mind to be appropriate
This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic
dancer— normally comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men —would want
to put something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the
dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)
● Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who
told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had
forbidden you to eat?
In other words: where'd you get the idea that undress is
indecent? Well; nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that
it's indecent— the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No;
they just "felt" it's indecent. In other words; it was their intuition
telling them that undress is indecent.
Where did they get that intuition? Not from their maker,
that's for sure; no, they got it from the fruit of that tree. Unfortunately,
their newly acquired moral compass was unreliable; the reason being they got
it from nature, viz: it was a natural sense of right and wrong rather than
God-given; therefore it couldn't be trusted to guide them into absolutes.
● Gen 3:16a . . To the woman He
said: I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing;
The Hebrew word for "pangs" is 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone')
and means: worrisome-ness. Webster's defines worrisome-ness as: causing
distress or worry or inclined to worry or fret; viz: anxiety, insecurity,
and perhaps melancholy.
For many women, the preggers stage of motherhood is often
characterized by bloating, illness, nausea, depression, anxiety, insecurity,
and irritability. For them, pregnancy is more like a curse than the intended
blessing of Gen 1:28.
● Gen 3:16b . . in pain shall
you bear children.
It's difficult to imagine child bearing without pain because
that's the way it's always been right from the beginning, even with Eve's
very first child. Apparently before Man's fall, having a baby would have
caused no more discomfort than doing one's business in the ladies room— and
just as lacking in danger to mom and baby.
The thing to note is: this particular punishment was
unexpected; viz: it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence
for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Something else that's notable is that the tree's chemistry
played no role in Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make yada, yada,
yada, yada". In other words; the pangs and pains of child bearing are via
the hand of God rather than the hand of nature.
● Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall
be for your husband,
The Hebrew of that passage is very difficult; not even the
great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were in agreement how best to interpret it.
But it appears to me simply the very first prohibition against sex outside
the bonds of matrimony.
And then there's this:
● Gen 3:16d . . and he shall
rule over you.
That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole
Bible. Eve's daughters do not like to be subjugated to and/or dominated by
men. It really goes against their grain; and if the women's suffrage
movement that took place in America's early 1900's were to be thoroughly
analyzed, it would not surprise me that women's right to vote wasn't really
an equality issue: it was a rebellion against male domination; which of
course is to be expected in a world gone mad with evil.
Gen 3:16d isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's
place in church too— all churches.
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should
remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says." (1Cor 14:33-35)
"Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire
submissiveness. I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
man, but to remain quiet." (1Tim 2:11-15)
How long the Adams cohabited sans the imposition of a gender
hierarchy isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. But the incident aptly demonstrates that
manipulative women can quickly lead men to ruin in no time at all because
it's all too easy for them to persuade men to behave themselves in ways
contrary to their own better judgment; which reminds me of a really cute
line from the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".
Toula Portokalos complains to her mother: "Ma, dad is so
stubborn. What he says goes. Ah, the man is the head of the house!"
Toula's mom, Maria Portokalos, responds: "Let me tell you
something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck; and she
can turn the head any way she wants."
That's humorous but it's not a laughing matter. Many a man
has been led like sheep to the slaughter by women who got them to do things
contrary to their own better judgment.
● Gen 3:17a . .To Adam He said:
Because you did as your wife said, and ate of the tree about which I
commanded you; "You shall not eat of it"
A portion of God's gripe with Adam was that he put a
subordinate creature's wishes over and above the wishes of the creature's
superior; thus forcing God to compete for Adam's affections; i.e. a rival.
Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between pleasing women or pleasing
God; men all too often sell their souls to the women.
● Gen 3:17b . . Cursed be the
ground because of you
That was unexpected; it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17
as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Not only would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the
ground, but every living thing that depends upon the ground for its survival
would be effected too; from lowly nematodes and earthworms right on up to
the top of the food chain. The whole animal world, and all the seed-bearing
plant life too, would suffer collateral damages for Adam's mistake.
God somehow manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now
no longer produces as well as it did in the beginning. The abundant swarms
of life that God created in the beginning would, at that point, begin to
thin out as the competition for available natural food-stuffs would begin to
● Gen 3:17c . . By toil shall
you eat of it all the days of your life
Adam was no stranger to work because God already had him
tending the garden. But matters worsened with a new ingredient. The word for
"toil" is from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means the very same
thing as it did in Gen 3:16.
The element of 'itstsabown took some of the pleasure out of
Adam's existence. Where before his daily routine was relatively care-free,
now he'd begin to worry and fret over things that are especially pertinent
to farmers e.g. weather, insects, and plant diseases; which, among farmers,
are common causes of anxiety and feelings of insecurity.
● Gen 3:18a . . thorns and
thistles shall it sprout for you.
God finished the entire cosmos in six days; and no more
creating took place after that because He's been on sabbatical ever since
day 7: so thorns and thistles already existed prior to the events of chapter
But in the beginning, noxious plants doubtless weren't so
dominant. Today they're a nuisance because if ground is left fallow, it will
soon be covered with dock, mustard, dandelion, chaparral, wild flowers,
brambles, reed canary grass, and stuff like that. Those kinds of plants may
be okay for wildlife, but humanity needs something quite a bit more
● Gen 3:18b . . and your food
shall be the grasses of the field;
Apparently Adam was a fruitarian at first, and then his diet
later expanded to include other kinds of vegetation. However, I don't think
humans are supposed to graze on pasture like buffalo or deer and elk. Many
of the grasses God intended for Adam to eat fall into the food group we call
cereals; which are raised primarily for their grain; e.g. corn, wheat, oats,
and rice; et al. In their natural form— whole grain —cereals are a rich
source of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein. After
refinement grains are pretty much good for nothing but carbs.
● Gen 3:19a . . By the sweat of
your brow shall you get bread to eat,
Whereas the Adams before had a beautiful productive farm
complete with orchards that required minimal maintenance, they became faced
with stubborn soil that needs plowing, sowing, and weeding. Very few natural
grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in any
sizable amount, Man has to farm.
Those of us who live in 9 to 5 leisure-intensive America
really don't appreciate just how laborious and time consuming the work is to
grow your own food. Early humanity's days were hard. They're still hard in
many developing countries. Adam had to get out there with a hoe and a plow
to provide for his family. Today, only about 2% in the USA work the ground
for a living.
● Gen 3:19b . . until you return
to the ground— for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you
Did God have to smite Adam in order for him to stop living?
No; it was only necessary to deny Adam access to the tree of life and let
nature and hard work take their toll; in other words: it was only a matter
of time before Adam simply gave out and passed away from wear and tear and
It's often assumed that Adam was created immortal; but no so.
Adam was created an air-breathing creature. Smother him and he'd die. Hold
his head underwater and he'd die. But as long as Adam supplemented his diet
with nutrients form the tree of life, he'd not die of natural causes.
But what happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did
he return to dust too? No; and that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic.
The human body came from the ground; but according to Gen 2:7, human
consciousness came from God. The afterlife disposition of human
consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck, even the origin of
human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone where it goes when
people pass away.
● Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God
made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
Precisely what species of animal God slaughtered in order to
make the Adams their first suit of real clothing is unknown.
That day, humans learned something about the advantages of
leather goods. Most of it is produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin,
kidskin, sheepskin, and lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those
of the horse, pig, kangaroo, deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and
of late; python. Humans have used animal skins for a variety of practical
purposes since ancient times, and to this good day leather is still a useful
material all around the world.
The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified;
the Hebrew words kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth)
just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder.
A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's
topless days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the
possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day
and created some interesting necklines.
The garments actually facilitated the people's association
with God. They were unbearably uncomfortable around their creator in the
buff, even in the semi-buff, and that was principally the reason they hid
from the Lord when He came calling. However, fig leaves aren't very durable;
they're merely an expedient. God showed them a much better way— actually a
way they would never have thought of all by themselves because who would
have guessed animal hides could be used for clothing until God showed them
The point to note is that the clothing humanity's maker
crafted for the Adams didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to
contribute even the slightest bit of labor to its construction. God
slaughtered the animals, treated the hides, and fabricated the garments
Himself; and gave the clothing to them for free, out of kindness; and free
I believe God went to all that trouble because He didn't want
anything hampering His association with humans. In other words, Adam's
felt-shame over undress was a barrier between himself and his creator so God
showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way that greatly enhanced
Adam's limited survival skills.
● Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God
said: Now that Man has become as one of us
Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen
1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other
words: humanity didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though
humanity was given the status of divine beings; humans aren't actual
deities— gods are impervious to death, humans die like flies.
"I said: You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most
High. Nevertheless you will die like men." (Ps 82:6-7)
Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then
we're safe to conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made
itself a deity. Unfortunately, humanity, as a deity, isn't God's associate,
rather, His competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak.
From the limited amount of information we're given, it's
readily seen that it's fairly easy to make one's self a deity; it's only
necessary to rebel against constituted authority; viz: go your own way
instead of complying with the laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power,
especially humanity's creator.
● Gen 3:22b . . discerning good
Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is;
if it's an instructed discernment rather than a natural, intuitive
discernment. (Rom 12:2 and Heb 5:13-14)
● Gen 3:22c . . what if he
should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and
The Old Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't
always indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in
perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact
The thing is: God predicted Adam's passing; so in order to
ensure that the prediction came to pass; God had to cut off his access to
the tree of life; which is a pretty interesting tree seeing as how it's not
only an elixir, but also a remedy for whatever ails a man. (Rev 22:2)
The tree of life didn't contain enough nutrients to give Adam
eternal life. It couldn't even give him immortality. But the tree could have
given Adam perpetual youth; but even then, only so long as he supplemented
his diet with regular doses of it; for example: I have an under-active
thyroid gland that if left untreated would eventuate in my untimely death.
But so long as I continue to supplement my diet with a prescribed daily dose
of a medication called levoxyl, I can expect to live to a normal old age.
However; I can't get by on just one dose of levoxyl, nor can
I take a lifetime of doses all at once. Levoxyl has to be taken a little at
a time on a daily basis. What I'm saying is: as long as Adam supplemented
his diet with nutrients from that tree on a regular basis; he wouldn't die
of natural causes; thus he had the potential to remain forever twenty-one.
But that was not to be since God had already decreed that Adam die for
eating the forbidden fruit.
● Gen 3:23-24 . . So the Lord
God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was
taken. He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the
cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of
People could probably go and see that cherubim and its sword
for themselves up until the time of Noah; but no doubt the Flood wiped Eden
off the map.
The thing to note is that the cherubim and its sword blocked
not only Adam's access to the tree but everybody else's access too; thus
dooming everyone to an eventual expiration no matter whether they're rich or
poor, young or old, male or female, righteous or unrighteous, holy or
unholy, pious or impious. Even Jesus would have eventually died of natural
causes had he not been crucified. If the human body, as God created it, is
to remain strong and healthy indefinitely, it has got to have that tree in
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
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 standard explanation is that Cain brought the wrong
offering; but I suggest there's something the experts are missing.
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. 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
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.
God Didn't Execute 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 relatively 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 wrong, yes; and it's intrinsically a sin, yes; however;
it hasn't always been a capital sin. According to Deut 5:2-4,
Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz:
law can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is
precisely why God didn't have to execute Cain for murder.
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 the work and has
been on a creation sabbatical every since.
According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from
● Gen 3:20 . .
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the
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
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
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 all married amongst themselves.
● 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
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 Deut 5:2-4, Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; God doesn't 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'.
The Critters Got To Noah
● Gen 6:3 . . And the Lord God said: My Spirit
shall not strive with man forever. Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty
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
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
If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move towards
it since 1897— six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and
fifteen 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. That's going
on right now in the region of Yellowstone National Park.
For example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was once
the Vale of Siddim. In its early history; the valley was home to the Sedom
Lagoon. Back then, water from the Red Sea was able to ebb in and out of the
lagoon because the region hasn't always been land-locked like it is today. At
one time the Jordan River had an easy outlet to the gulf of Aqaba. But over
time, tectonic forces altered the region; preventing drainage into the gulf and
trapping water in a huge basin from which they cannot escape.
Another biblical example (Gen 2:10-14) tells of a river system that once
supplied water to Arabia, Ethiopia, and Iraq. That's not so today.
Gen 1:9-10 is 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
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
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.
Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico,
are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen
thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit
different in the ancient past.
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; including things like gravity, thermodynamics,
inertia, and the speed of light, etc.
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 Mary's cousin Elizabeth
"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
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 cabins, sheds, 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 with 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.
● Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and
his sons, saying to them: Everything that lives and
moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and edicts. In
other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat meat, but He
didn't say they had to.
● Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him
to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man
who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
People are often curious why God revised humanity's diet after the Flood. Well;
the Bible gives no reason for it that I'm aware of, but according to an article
in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York Times, scientists believe
that the early human body was able to manufacture all of its own essential
vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to manufacture all but K and
That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old, but by
the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased considerably to 175;
which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7 8). Well, Noah at 175 was
about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human body was obviously a whole lot
stronger back in Noah's day than it was in Abraham's.
Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human body's
gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential nutrients;
much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic supplements in order
to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.
People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often eat
lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients that
most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's kind of
humorous that in their care to avoid meat. vegans sometimes end up dining on bugs.
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 "boy" at this moment in time was near 18 years old if he was circumcised at
fourteen and Isaac was weaned at three. (cf. Gen 16:16, Gen 21:5, Gen 21:8)
The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that speaks of divorce as well as 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 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
● 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.
Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen 25:9)
but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when the
old boy 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.
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 birth order; and though the
latter 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
● 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 sandwiched in 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 cosmos— all of its
forms of life, matter, and energy —no contest.
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; you probably already know
because it's very popular: "How can God call David a man after His own heart
when he was nothing but a premeditated murderer and adulterer?"
Behavior like David's also causes
the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His name. That
too is a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time. (e.g. Isa 62:5,
● 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' impiety. 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;
● 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.
The US Government has marginalized and/or dishonored several of its treaties
with Native Americans. I sometimes wonder if a number of this land's woes
because of that.
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"
● Rom 6:14 . .
Sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under
The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5).
He and his fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses',
a.k.a. the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The important thing to note about the covenant is that it's a
legally binding contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to
Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God
to comply with the Jews' covenant, then neither is God contractually
obligated to penalize Christ's followers for breaching it.
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; which brings into
focus principles related to the priesthood of Melchizedek.
He was a priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)
Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law
that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to the
Bible, law enacted ex post facto isn't retroactive.
● Deut 5:2-4 . .Yhvh our God
made a covenant with us at Horeb. Yhvh did not make this covenant with our
fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
● Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath.
And where there is no law there is no transgression.
● Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not
imputed when there is no law.
● Gal 3:17. .The Law, which came
four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant
previously ratified by God.
That being the case, then Melchizedek's constituents— among
whom was Abraham —were immune to the consequences specified for breaking the
covenant's law as per Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut
Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps
110:4, Heb 5:5-6). So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents
were immune to the curses specified for breaching the covenant, then Christ
and his constituents are immune to the curses too. In a nutshell: neither
Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for breaking the Ten
Another advantage of Christ's priesthood is its continuity.
Take for example the Aaronic priesthood. No one has benefited
from its services since Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad. Which means of
course that 1,900+ years worth of Yom Kippurs have been merely for show
because the Day Of Atonement cannot be observed properly and effectively
without a fully functioning Aaronic priesthood.
In contrast: Christ's priesthood isn't effected by wars,
and/or geopolitics. He officiates in heaven where nothing happening on earth
can reach to either interfere with, or interrupt, his services (Heb 8:1-4).
And seeing as how Christ recovered from death immortal (Rom 6:9, Heb 7:3,
Rev 1:18) then health, old age and/or death will never be a factor in either
the length or the effectiveness of his priesthood tenure.
● Heb 7:24-25 . . He, on the
other hand, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood permanently.
Hence, also, he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through
him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Melchizedek's office is a High Priest's position (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20). Well;
the office of High Priest isn't a fraternity; the Bible limits the number in
office to just one at a time; and the man stays in place till he's either
dead or incapacitated before being replaced— which of course won't happen
with Christ seeing as how he's currently immortal.
Point being: Mormonism's order of Melchizedek is
over-staffed: and so, for that matter, is its order of Aaron seeing as how
Aaron's is the office of a High Priest too. In addition; Aaron's order is
the official High Priest of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with
God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. So then, every male
in Mormonism's Aaronic order is under the law; a very dangerous position to
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the
man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.
The grammatical tense of the curse is present tense,
indicating that the curse is immediate— no delay and no waiting period.
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
● Gen 26:5 . . Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My
Some construe God's statement to indicate that Abraham was included in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But Moses' statement below excludes him.
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did
the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today."
Were Abraham included in the Jews' covenant; God would have placed Himself in a
serious dilemma. The
problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12). The
covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9,
Under the terms and conditions of the Jews' covenant; men who sleep with their
sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically
present tense— no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
"Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's
daughter." (Deut 27:22)
Well; were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then
God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return.
"The one who curses you I will curse" (Gen 12:3)
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a degree of immunity. In other
words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted
long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38,
Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
Abraham complied with God's requirements; His commands, His decrees and His laws
voluntarily rather than by compulsion because he wasn't in a covenant with God
that demanded him to do so like his posterity would be in the days of Moses.
The promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not
sustained by Abraham's piety. In other words: once God made those promises,
neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously
established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is
based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to
Abraham by means of a promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
"promise" in question reads like this:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the
entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a
god." (Gen 17:8)
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law
has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon
their entitlement to it.
Abraham And The Stars
● Gen 15:4-5 . .The word of The Lord
came to him in reply: That one shall not be your heir; none but your very own
issue shall be your heir. He took him outside and said: Look toward heaven and
count the stars, if you are able to count them. And He added: So shall your
In Abraham's day, prior to the invention of optics, the only stars that people
could see with their own eyes were those in our home galaxy; the Milky Way;
which consists of an estimated 100-400 billion stars. But many of those
estimated billions of stars appear to the naked eye not as stars but as
glowing clouds; viz: they cannot be individually distinguished by the naked eye
so those didn't matter to Abraham when it came to actually tallying the heavens.
The entire global sky contains roughly five or six thousand stars visible to the
naked eye. However, we can't see all those stars at once; only the ones when the
sky is dark. So then; in Abraham's day, he could see at most three thousand
discernable stars from dark till dawn. God had said "if you are able to count
them". Well; even at only three thousand, the task would be difficult.
Abraham's posterity exceeded three thousand long ago. By the time of the Exodus,
they numbered above six hundred thousand. (Ex 12:37)
19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for
them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which essentially
refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet
dough rather than sour dough.
In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible
means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two
terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for example:
"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)
there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is an old
wine and a new wine; for example:
● Matt 13:33 . .The kingdom of heaven is like
leaven, which a woman took, and mixed in three measures of flour, until it was
woman's batch was a blend of fresh dough and spoiled dough; i.e. the spoiled
dough made her fresh dough into a batch of new leaven.
Old leaven then refers to dough that's gone bad, i.e. fermented; which, given
time, pure dough will do on its own because all flour, no matter how carefully
it's milled and packaged, contains a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi.
12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their
kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.
That gives an
idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after slaying all the
firstborn. They had made bread with fresh dough for that night's dinner in
accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of Exodus and
it had not yet spoiled; which fresh dough will do in short order if it isn't
Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made
with fresh dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting
around for a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we
know that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have
been a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests
unleavened bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people
your best, rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of
● Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard
that it was said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that
everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with
her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about
adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well;
she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary
carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or
between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words;
in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the
participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o)
which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different
than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon
something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes
under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian
Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to
covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after
something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male
libido, no, it condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's
instead of getting your own. (cf. 1Kgs 21:1-20)
Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision
for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of
being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man
can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it,
turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom
wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her?
No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It
implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead
of getting his own.
As an illustration: in the movie
The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married
Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with
free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up
till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was
an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in
her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a religious man sincerely believes it really and
truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women— any woman, whether
somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels,
then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly normal men
out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due
to their religion instilling within them a guilt complex related to their
God-given attraction to women.
● Gen 1:28 . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be
fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married
people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for
any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a
law; especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures,
and the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or
empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be
merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not Gen 1:28. It was neither requested nor
was it earned— it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing
asked in return.
Q: Why then do people feel so guilty about their
libido if it's God-given?
A: In the beginning, that wasn't so.
● Gen 2:25 . .They were both
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Then Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, and one of its side
effects made him sensitive about his midlands.
● Gen 3:7 . . Then the eyes of
both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed
fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
The Hebrew word for "coverings" indicates aprons; i.e. they
made themselves loin cloths. Apparently Eve was comfortable topless at
first, but not bottomless; which suggests to me that they were compelled to
cover up their midlands right away due to a newly-acquired sense of decency
brought on by something in the chemistry of that fruit.
However, their newly-acquired sense of decency wasn't
God-given; it was man-made; viz: humanistic rather than divine; i.e. of the
flesh rather than of the Spirit.
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is
● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be acquitted 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 get 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
● 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
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
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; i.e. a natural predilection, and that's what makes them
wicked because that inborn inclination 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 only to frighten liars
and make them nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their
On the night Jesus was born, a heavenly messenger made the
● Luke 2:10 . . Don't be afraid.
I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice
for all kinds of sin, including dishonesty. That right there should make liars breathe a little easier in
respect to the sum of all fears.
● 1John 2:2 .
. 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.
FYI: The June 2017 issue of
National Geographic magazine contains a very interesting article titled:
Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done about this.
The details of Yom Kippur as per Lev 23:27-32, Lev 16:29-34,
and Num 29:7 don't really matter all that much to Christians because the New
Testament only concerns itself with the ritual's limitations.
In the letter to Hebrews; it's explained that Yom Kippur
addresses sins committed during the past year; i.e. the very moment that the
high priest completes the full and complete ritual, new sins immediately
begin to accumulate on the books that require yet another Yom Kippur; and
another, and another, and another, ad infinitum; viz: Yom Kippur doesn't
address sins once and for all. In other words: the annual ritual is always
and only for addressing the people's past sins; it doesn't extend to sins
that the people are on track to commit in the future.
Never wish Jewish people a happy Yom Kippur. It's okay to wish them a
satisfactory Yom Kippur but never a happy one because it is not a day of
pleasure like Christmas and birthdays; no, it is specifically a day of
sadness and self-affliction as per Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31, Lev 23:27, and Lev
23:32, which is from a Hebrew word meaning to mistreat, humiliate, oppress,
break the spirit, demean, abuse, weaken, injure, abase, etc. Jews that fail
to be unhappy on that day accrue an instant curse upon themselves as per
The Brazen Serpent
● John 3:14-17 . . As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man
be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so
loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes
in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num
21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the
time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically,
petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became
hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.
In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His
providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which
began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.
After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses
and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to
fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so
that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.
The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given
remedy for the people's bites— not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing,
not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of
obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible
study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the
Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The
image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.
As an allegory, the brazen serpent indicates that Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the
world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people
accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a
transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion for the sins
of the worlds as the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears are
already on the docket to face it.
● John 3:18 . .Whoever
believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands
condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and
His son's "name" in this case is relative to the brazen serpent
The Sin Nature
The term "sin nature" found in some versions of the Bible, is actually an
interpretation rather than a translation. I suspect somebody coined it as a
substitute for the flesh that Paul often spoke of in his letters.
● Rom 8:8 . .They that are in the flesh cannot
The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates
the meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of
course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within
humanity's bony little skulls sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that
difficult to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.
The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's human nature
and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1) the ways of
thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people, and (2) the nature
of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans.
Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms of
life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very" good
In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just exactly as
He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.
When people do something contrary to their better judgment; it's very common to
hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well; the thing that came
over them was their own body exerting its fundamental dispositions and traits;
viz: the human body literally has a mind of its own; it constantly, and
perpetually, competes with its host for control of their thoughts, their speech,
and their conduct, and more often than not wins.
When I was a growing boy my dad was always telling me that I was my own worst
enemy. I think that maybe the apostle Paul would have agreed with my dad because
he too was his own worst enemy.
● Rom 7:18 . . For I know that in me (that is, in
my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing
● Rom 7:24 . .What a wretched man I am! Who will
rescue me from this body of death?
Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.
Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body
impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.
Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit
kind of life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life prior
to obtaining immortality.
For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2)
but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality till he rose
from the dead.
Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here (John
5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25, 1Cor 15:51-53, and 1Thss 4:14-17 they won't obtain
immortality until their resurrections.
So then; I think we can safely conclude (in a nutshell) that immortality is
something that can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.
properties of eternal life are a little easier to understand when juxtaposed
with creature life.
Human life was created.
Eternal life wasn't created.
There's a large variety of created life.
There is only one eternal life.
Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.
Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.
When people in possession of eternal life pass away, they are fully prepared to
go straight to heaven because God has devised a way to strip them of their human
nature and leave them with only the fundamental dispositions and traits of the
supreme being (Col 2:11). That's quite an advantage, and emphasizes the importance of
obtaining eternal life now, today, while it's available.
When To Obtain Eternal Life
In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs. They're
in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have eternal life
right now— no delay, and no waiting period.
● John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life
● John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say
to you, he who believes has eternal life.
● John 5:24 . . I assure you, those
who heed my message, and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life.
They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed
from Death into Life.
● 1John 5:13 . . I write these
things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know
that you have eternal life.
According to those passages, people lacking eternal life, are lacking it because
1) they are unbelievers, 2) they are not paying attention to Christ's message,
and 3) they don't trust God.
The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's
testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to Christianity;
people lacking eternal life do not have God's son. In other words: they are
currently quite christless.
● 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified:
He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's
son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.
People that argue with God's testimony, are insinuating that He not only doesn't
know what He's talking about, but also that God is a dishonest person of
marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.
● 1John 5:10 . .Whoever does not believe God has
made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about His son.
When people do that— when they insinuate that God is dishonest —they imply that
He belongs in hell because according to Rev 21:8, hell is where all liars are
Anyway; I should think that it goes without saying that christless people are in
grave danger of the sum of all fears.
● Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
We can be sure that there are millions of christless people throughout the
world; but are there any christless Christians? Well; for starters: Roman
Catholicism— known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world
—currently consists of approximately 1.2 billion followers who
all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that nobody obtains eternal life till
sometime after they die and cross over to the other side.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those 1.2
billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's
expert testimony they are currently christless, and they will pass on christless.
You can safely apply that rule to any, and all, denominations, religions, and/or
spiritual ideologies insisting that eternal life cannot be obtained prior to
Jesus Christ's Human Origin
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's
mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human
father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".
● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord
God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his
ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the
rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and
Gen 2:21-22 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" which is really how it
should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from
Adam's body included a portion of his flesh, which is notable; here's why.
God constructed Adam's body from the Earth's dust, and then
breathed into it the breath of life. He did neither of those two things with
Eve. Her body was constructed from Adam's body, and she got her breath of
life from his breath of life. In other words: human life is a transferrable
kind of life that can be, and is, passed on to succeeding generations.
The result is: none of us are discreet creations; everybody
that biologically descends from Adam is just simply more Adam; viz:
reproductions, i.e. our body is his body, and our breath of life is his
breath of life. This is very important in regards to Jesus Christ's human
There are people, even a number of Christians, who
desperately want to biologically disconnect Jesus Christ from Adam; their
case relies heavily upon Jesus' virgin conception, which is a losing case
seeing as how the flesh and bone of Mary's parents biologically descended
from Eve's flesh and bone; and from thence Adam's flesh and bone; ergo:
Mary's flesh and bone were Adam's.
Opponents have even attempted to biologically disconnect
Christ from Adam by insisting that his conception was an implant, i.e. Mary
was Jesus' surrogate mother rather than his biological mother. But that idea
is not only a theory concocted right out of thin air and a fertile
imagination, but it's also spurious and unbiblical.
● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have
found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall
fulfill all my will." Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise,
raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our
Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is
sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive
stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according
to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's seed
according to the flesh sans Mary sleeping with a man, she had to be one of
David's biological granddaughters or else her child would not have been
David's actual progeny, and the angel's announcement would've been untrue.
● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive
in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his
I can think of no sensible argument that would successfully
break Christ's biological lineage to David, nor of one that would
successfully break David's biological lineage to Eve.
So then; unless somebody can prove— clearly, conclusively,
and without ambiguity; air tight and iron clad— that Jesus Christ's mother
wasn't biologically related to Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion that
Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male ancestors;
the final one of course being Mary's biological father.
It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary
for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However,
seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of male flesh
and bone; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a woman's flesh and bone.
And seeing as how every woman's flesh and bone descends from
Adam's flesh and bone, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from a
woman's flesh and bone would essentially be Adam's Y chromosome seeing as
how Eve's flesh and bone were Adam's to begin with.
Q: But doesn't 1Cor 15:45-47 say that Christ is a
second Adam rather than a reproduction of the first?
A: I'm going to deliberately misquote a portion of
that passage so's to bring out a point.
"And so it is written; "The first man Adam was made a
living soul"; the last Adam was made a life-giving man."
According to the actual language, the last Adam was made a
life-giving spirit rather than a life-giving man. When 1Cor 15:45-47 is
considered along with John 1:1-4, it becomes readily apparent that the last
Adam was God prior to becoming an h.sapiens.
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny-- and thus
Adam's --then wouldn't his mom have passed the consequences of Adam's sin to
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's
posterity--regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for
tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating
that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which
included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own
body) became culpable-- in real time --including those of his posterity yet to
● Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one
man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
● Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one
man, the many were made sinners.
However: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it didn't make
them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the
so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in
Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction
of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his
posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how
can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes;
but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal
sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only was
he Adam's progeny, but Christ was also God's; and I think that most people would
agree that divinity is easily able to overcome humanity.
● Col 2:9 . . For in Christ all the fullness of the
Deity lives in bodily form
How Christ Became Solomon's Successor
Q: Seeing as how Christ was virgin conceived; how did
he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?
A: Via a patriarchal precedent.
At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons
Manasseh and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank,
honor, and power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding
additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children
born of her maid Bilhah.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's two sons was in sympathy
for his beloved wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim
and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by Bilhah,
and two by Asenath.
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The
Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take part in naming
Mary's out-of-wedlock baby.
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)
"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)
So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's
how it worked in those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child.
In other words: Christ became Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as
Ephraim and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.
Q: But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Jesus
was Joseph's foster child rather than adopted child?
A: Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving,
or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal
ties. In other words: foster children have no inheritance rights nor a
legitimate place in their foster father's genealogy, i.e foster children are
In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily
(a child of other parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted
children have inheritance rights and a legitimate place in their adopted
father's genealogy, i.e. adopted children are permanent.
Jesus' adoption was essential because though he was born
David's progeny, he wasn't born Solomon's; and that was a rub because God
chose Solomon to inherit David's throne. Well; Mary's father Eli wasn't
related to Solomon, rather, he was related to Solomon's brother Nathan.
Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men. Mary could
provide Jesus a biological connection to David, but she could not provide
him a royal connection; that had to come thru Joseph.
John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer are often unaware of the
strict biblical conditions that dictate ascendance to David's throne and so
are easily led to believe that Joseph was Jesus' foster father instead of
his adopted father.
Just in case there's a man looking in on this thinking about adopting his
wife's children from a previous marriage; should the two of you later
divorce; she can legally make you pay child support for another man's kids
because when you adopt them, the law and the courts regard their status as
your own biological progeny.
● Matt 12:39-40 . . As Jonah was three days and
three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The Lord paralleled his own afterlife journey with Jonah's. Well, seeing as how
Christ was dead for most of the time that he was in the tomb, then I think it's
valid to conclude that Jonah was dead for most of the time that he was in the
According to Jonah's second chapter, there were moments during his nautical
adventure when he was in two places at once: the fish's belly and the bottoms of
Seeing as how the Lord paralleled his own journey with Jonah's, then I believe
it is valid to conclude that there were moments in Christ's adventure when he
was in two places at once too: the tomb's belly and also the bottoms of the
mountains; i.e. the heart of the earth.
doesn't take much education to know that the bottoms of the mountains are
situated in neither a fish's tummy, nor a tomb.)
Jesus appropriated the story of Jonah to predict his resurrection. Unfortunately
people are typically distracted by the time element; consequently totally
missing the parallel's purpose. The average rank and file pew warmer is
convinced that Jonah was alive the whole time he was in the fish. Well, had he
been, then Jesus would had to been alive the whole time he was in the tomb;
otherwise the parallel fails.
Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and also a sign to Jesus' generation (Matt
13:39-40, Luke 11:29-30). The word "sign" is translated from a koiné
Greek word that's sometimes used in the gospels to indicate miracles. Now, had
Jonah merely survived the fish's tummy, that would not be the kind of sign that
Jesus had in mind. He needed a miraculous event that would adequately depict his
own; the reason being that Jesus was not on track to be resuscitated, no, Jesus was on
track to be resurrected because he would be quite dead from crucifixion. (John
According to Jonah 2:6, the prophet was spared putrefaction. Well; according to
Ps 16:8-10 and Acts 2:25-31, Jesus too was spared putrefaction. Thus it all came
to pass just as the Lord said: As Jonah, so the Son of Man.
Q: Why make a fuss over whether Jonah was dead or alive?
A: Because Jonah's adventure gives us a clearer concept of the scope of
hades; the location to which Christ retired during the three days and nights
that his corpse reposed in the tomb (Acts 2:25-31). No doubt hades refers to the
grave, but that's not all. According to Jonah, hades also refers to the
Commentators smarter and better educated than I posit that Jonah 2:3-7 recounts
Jonah's demise via drowning. In other words: Jonah was dead before he was laid
to rest in the fish's tummy just as Christ was dead before he was laid to rest
in the tomb.
(A Second Version)
● Jonah 1:17 . . Yhvh provided a
great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and
Jonah's nautical adventure provokes quite a bit of scoffing
and ridicule because people are so sure that it's impossible for someone to
exist inside a fish's tummy for very long before suffocation would take its
toll. Well; the scoffing and ridicule are misplaced because according to the
Bible; there were some moments when the prophet was actually quite dead in
Q: Well; was Jonah ever alive in the fish?
A: Yes (Jonah 2:1).
Q: But not the whole time?
A: That's correct.
At some point in Jonah's adventure he went to a place called
sheol (Jonah 2:2) which he sited at the bottoms of the mountains.
The bottoms of the mountains aren't located in the tummies of
fish, no; they're located down deep in the earth. So in order for Jonah to
be in the fish and in the earth simultaneously; he had to die so that he and
his body could part company.
One more thing. Just before being cast ashore, Jonah prayed
● Jonah 2:6 . .To the bottoms of
the mountains I went down. As for the earth, its bars were upon me for time
indefinite. But out of the pit you proceeded to bring up my life, O Jehovah
The Hebrew word for "pit" in that verse is the very same word
for "pit" in Ps 16:8-10; which Acts 2:25-31 verifies is speaking of
putrefaction; viz: Jonah 2:6 is the language of resurrection.
● Jonah 2:10-3:3 . . Yhvh
commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land. Then the word of
Yhvh came to Jonah a second time: Go to the great city of Nineveh and
proclaim to it the message I give you. Jonah obeyed the word of Yhvh and
went to Nineveh.
Hell vs Common Sense
I watched an educational series on NetFlix some time ago called "The Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in
so many words; that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon
sense and accept discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic
they may seem.
The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out
to explore the planets came to the very same conclusion: they learned to
abandon their logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and
they encountered plenty.
The discovery of the cosmos' accelerating expansion was very
discouraging for cosmologist Alan Sandage— once a proponent of the theory
that the universe would eventually run out of explosive energy from the Big
Bang and gradually pull itself back together —and called the discovery of
the ever increasing velocity of the expanding universe a terrible surprise.
And of course it is because the known laws of gravity, combined with common
sense, demand that the ballooning universe slow down, stop expanding, and
shrink. If nothing else, the velocity of its expansion should at least be
steady rather than picking up speed.
In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and
planetary exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only
what makes sense to it.
admit that the idea of people existing in an altered state, consciously
suffering to time indefinite, makes no sense at all to my human mind's way
of thinking, and seems to totally contradict the nature of a divine patron
reputed to be kind, caring, and sympathetic. But just as science admits to
many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And there's no shame in that.
The shame is in pretending to have complete understanding of a supernatural
entity that by its very nature defies reason and common sense.
2:13-14 . . A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually appraised.
Ways To Describe Grace
● 1Cor 1:3 . . Grace to you, and peace from
God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Although grace is an important element in Christianity; I seriously doubt that
John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer have an adequate concept of it. I suspect that
quite a few are under the impression that grace is somehow a quantifiable
substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to God, grace is an abstract
noun that expresses personal qualities apart from substance.
New Testament Greek word for "grace" is charis (khar'-ece); which means:
Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
stresses warmth and heartiness
Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals
Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality
Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others
Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous,
kindly, and liberal in giving
Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz:
benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.
Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of
others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it
just feels good to do so.
Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to
maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary
Compassion defines a sympathetic awareness of others' distress, coupled with
a desire to alleviate it, i.e. empathy.
Old Testament Hebrew word for grace is chen (khane); and means pretty
much the same
as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).
When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good picture
of the bright side of God's personality. There's a dark side too; but
grace doesn't go there.
Knowing Your Religion Is Right
"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."
Mark Twain —
Every so often I get asked how I know that my beliefs are
true. My answer is: I don't know if they're true. Then of course they follow
up with: Then why do you believe your beliefs are true when you have no way
of knowing they're true?
Most of the people who ask me those kinds of questions are
genuine; they're not trying to trip me up and make a fool out of me. They
really are curious about it. So I tell them that though I don't know if my
beliefs are true, my instincts tell me they are; in other words: I cannot
shake the gnawing conviction that they're true.
"I have never seen what to me seemed an atom of truth that
there is a future life . . . and yet . . .
I am strongly inclined to expect one."
Mark Twain —
Twain logically concluded that there is no afterlife, but his
instincts did not agree with his thinking; and I dare not criticize him for
that because even my own religion requires that I believe in my heart rather
then only in my head.
Why does any believer believe what they believe? Buddhist,
Muslim, Hindu, Bahá'í, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Catholic,
Baptist, Judaism, Voodoo, Wiccan, Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc,
etc. The answer? It appeals to them.
It's a known fact that quite a few voters do their voting not
with their head but with their gut. In other words, they settle on a
candidate based upon how they feel about him, and then argue their decision.
Take for instance President Barack Hussein Obama. A large
block of Americans voted for him solely on the basis of the color of his
skin rather than his executive ability. (Ironically Mr. Obama isn't even
Black. He's what used to be called Mulatto prior to the era of political correctness,
but now called Mixed Race; viz: his father was Black, but his mother was
White. Lucky for Mr. Obama that his skin turned out dark or he may never
have been nominated for US President, let alone elected.)
"It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain —
Bigotry is rampant in the world of religions; and it's not
uncommon for someone to shriek; "That's a lie!" and/or "You're wrong!" I
like to tell bigots that they really ought to be a bit more circumspect with
their choice of words lest the hapless day arrives when they are forced to
It is of course impossible that all religions are right;
that's pretty much a given. But on the other hand, it's very possible that
none are right. So I would say that when settling upon a religion, don't
worry so much about picking the one that's right; instead pick the one
that's right for you; and if none are right for you, then in my estimation;
you're just as well off because if your heart's not in it; then let's face
it; your choice is no less arbitrary than randomly selecting cookies out of
a jar of 100.
The Rich Man, Lazarus, And Abraham
Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though untrue;
are plausible; viz: realistic.
Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are not only
untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.
For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story
about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and the
autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the other
is far removed from normal reality.
I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable— banquets,
stewards, weddings, farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets, women
losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the wheat,
leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.
Now; if Christ had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese; we
would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy; but none
of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his parables.
At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never fantasy because
none of them are so far removed from the normal round of human experience that
they have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that
the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable theory
has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life man;
the father of the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least three of
the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also
the friend of God (Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ— a man
famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity —would say
something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his
And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment
that prohibits bearing false witness.
There is something else to consider.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No, it
originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro-managed.
● John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's
● John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I
speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.
● John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative,
but I speak these things as the Father taught me.
● John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but
the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what
I should speak.
● John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not
mine, but the Father's who sent me.
So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory
slanders God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who can't
be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own friends, which
is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.
God's impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more disturbing.
Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of sensible doubt, that Christ's Father is a
tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative was drawn from
real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based upon real life.
In other words: there really is an afterlife place of
conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their
loved ones are on a road to where they are and there is no way to warn them;
which brings to mind the survivors of the Titanic watching their loved ones
go to Davy Jones while utterly helpless to do anything about it.
People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought
up their children to walk in mom and dad's ideological footsteps and the
ideology turned out to be mistaken. How do
people in hell bear up under something like that on their conscience?
The God Begotten Of God
Q: One translation of John 1:18 speaks of the
only begotten god; while another translation of John 1:18 speaks of the only
begotten son. Which translation is correct?
A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying
the very same thing.
God has lots of sons; but only one is His son by means of
The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18,
John 3:16, John 3:18, is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a
combination of two words.
The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a
single channel rather than two or four in surround-sound stereo. Mono is
very common; e.g. monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide,
monochrome, monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.
The other word is genes; from whence we get the
English word gene; which Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a
part of a cell that controls or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of
a living thing.
In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set
rather than many.
Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's
sole biological child. If a parent has two or three biological children,
none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes
child, the child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an adopted child
can never be monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be the home's
biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12,
Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.
Now if God's monogenes son is really and truly His biological
offspring, so to speak, then we are going to have to admit that His son is a
chip off the old block; which in fact the Bible declares.
● Col 2:9 . . In him all
the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.
Webster's defines "divinity" as the quality, or the state, of
being a god.
According to the Greek version, "divinity" is modified by a
definite article; so that what we're looking at here isn't nondescript
divinity; rather, the divinity; viz: the quality, or the
state, of being Almighty God. (cf. Rev 1:7-18)
People have difficulty with the literal meaning of "only
begotten" because it's unthinkable to them that God is somehow able to
reproduce. Well; I don't know how God goes about it; but if single cell
organisms like amoeba can reproduce by means of a process called binary
fission; then we shouldn't be all that aghast at the prospect of God
multiplying Himself in a similar way. And if God actually did reproduce;
then His offspring is more of Himself; viz: God would produce God just as
humans produce humans.
Koran's Christ didn't pass away on the cross.
"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the
apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it
appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only
in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a
conjecture, and they killed him not for sure." (The Women 4.157)
Bible's Christ fully expired.
"And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into Thy hands I commit
my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)
"When they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break
his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,
bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given
testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he
testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:31-35)
Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the spear
point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text doesn't say which
side was penetrated, but from John's description, and judging from the intent of
the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death, the heart side was very likely
the side they cut into and the spear point would've entered just under his rib
The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium; which serves to
contain a serous material resembling water to prevent the surface of the heart
from becoming dry and/or chafed by its continual motion. It was very likely this
which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The point of the spear also
seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the heart, and the blood, yet
warm, rushed forth, either mingled with, or followed by, the liquor of the
pericardium, so as to appear to John to be blood and water flowing together.
Though not medically accurate in our day, John's calling the serous fluid
"water" was accurate enough in his own day.
Had Christ managed to survive the spear he most certainly would have died of
suffocation. According to the records, his friends covered his face with a
towel, wrapped him with strips of cloth like a mummy, and coated him with a
paste consisting of 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes: all of which served to not
only put him in a straight jacket, but also sealed him in an air-tight cocoon of
"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)
The koiné Greek word translated "napkin" is soudarion (soo-dar'-ee-on)
which defines a sweat-cloth; viz: a towel for wiping the perspiration from the
face, or binding the face of a corpse.
"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes" (John 19:40)
"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)
Greek word translated "wound" is deo (deh'-o) which means to bind
Greek word translated "linen cloths" is othonion (oth-on'-ee-on) which
"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and
brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took
they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the
manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40)
Myrrh is a gum
resin. The aloe of that day was a thick liquid taken from an aromatic tree and
used in medicines and cosmetics, etc. Blending those two ingredients together
produced a nice sticky goo that could be slathered and plastered all over the
deceased to seal the body and retard putrefaction and/or seal in odors and
thwart vermin. This was likely the final step just prior to wrapping the whole
affair in a shroud (Matt 27:59).
So all told— the crucifixion, the spear, the face towel, the wrappings, and the
gooey paste —I think it's pretty safe to conclude that Christ, as he is
depicted in the Bible, was quite deceased.
There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of
Christ's resurrection. Some say his crucified body came back to life. Some
say that his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body. Still others
say that Christ's crucified body not only didn't recover, but he came back
with a spirit body; and his post resurrection physical appearances were done
as an angel disguised in a fully-functioning human avatar.
It's evident that Christ has a glorified body at present (Php
3:20-21) but I really don't think such was the case out at the cemetery.
John 2:19-22 . . Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and I will raise
it again in three days. The Jews replied: It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? But the
temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his
disciples recalled what he had said.
Had not Christ's crucified body revived, then his prediction
would be easily proven false because the temple he spoke of was "this
temple" viz: the body he was standing in as he spoke with the Jews.
Q: If Christ didn't come back from death with the
glorified body spoken of in Php 3:20-21, then how and when did he obtain it?
A: The dead bodies of all Christ's believing followers
are on track to be revived and taken up to meet The Lord in the air (1Thes
4:14-17). On the way up, the bodies will undergo a sudden, miraculous
transformation (1Cor 15:51-53). I think it's pretty safe to assume that
Christ's body underwent the very same process while on the way up to heaven
as per Acts 1:9 so that today his body is no longer a normal human body; but
instead a superhuman body to which all his believing followers' bodies will
one day conform.
Q: What about the fact that he was able to pass
through a locked door? (John 20:19, John 20:26). Surely a normal human body
could never do such a thing.
A: The koiné Greek word translated "shut" in those
passages doesn't necessarily indicate a bolted door; merely a door that's
closed as opposed to a door that's ajar or wide open. But I think it might
be okay to accommodate those convinced in their own minds that the boor was
Well; Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, walked on water,
calmed storms, restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet,
healed blindness and leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water
into wine, instantly reattached a severed ear, restored the dead to life,
withered a fig tree, levitated into the sky, etc. Come on now; what's one
more miracle more or less for a man like that?
An interesting incident is recorded at Luke 4:28-30. A variety of opinions
have been offered to explain how Jesus escaped the hands of a hostile crowd
that day. I leave it to readers to decide for themselves what is meant by
"passing through the midst of them, he went His way."
Paul mentions in 1Cor 15:1-4 that Christ was raised from the dead according
to the scriptures; there's at least two. One is the story of Jonah; which
Christ appropriated as a "sign" of his own resurrection. (Jonah 1:17, Matt
12:40). Another is in the book of Psalms at 16:8-10 (cf. Acts 2:22-36)
● 2Tim 3:16 . . All
Scripture is inspired by God
The Greek word for "inspired" is theopneustos (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
which is a combination of theo which means deity (i.e. a god), and
pneustos which means to inflate: as in blowing up a balloon or a soccer
ball and/or filling a boat's sails with wind.
Theopneustos is probably about as close as you'll get for a
Greek word corresponding to Gen 2:7 where it's stated:
"Then Yhvh God formed man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
"breathed into" is pretty much what theopneustos says. But
the breath of life isn't artificial respiration. Pumping air into a corpse
doesn't work. It's been tried. The breath of life is a mysterious energy
with enough power to even make solid rock sentient. (Luke 3:8)
What all this means is: scripture is more than just text— God
has willed scripture to have a peculiar kind of life all its own.
● Heb 4:12-13 . . For
the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and
marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And
there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid
bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Scripture, then, is a divine agent: it speaks about God, it
speaks for God, and it speaks as God. In a manner of speaking then:
scripture can be thought of as a close encounter with God; not in person of
course, but as close to God as His spirit, teamed with the Bible texts, can
"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of
deep significance for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and
prophetic force of the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His
warmth over all men, in whatever historical or sociological situation they
find themselves." (Paulus PP VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)
Paulus PP VI said it well. So then: when people listen to the
Bible, they listen to God; and when they mock and ridicule the Bible, they
mock and ridicule God; not directly of course, but indirectly; which is
serious enough to warrant consequences.
The voice of God is set to be called as a witness in the
prosecution's case against certain individuals.
John 12:48-49 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has
one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who sent me
has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.
"Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
KJV's obsolete language is misleading. Here's that same passage in updated
● 2Pet 1:20-21 . . Above
all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the
prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of
man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
That passage isn't talking about one's own personal understanding of prophecy,
rather, the origin of prophecy. In other words: the sayings of the prophets
didn't arise from human reasoning and a fertile imagination. No, they got their
sayings directly from God.
Now, the sayings they got from God are not quite the same as the sayings that
you see in print. No, the sayings you see in print are the prophets'
interpretations of the sayings they got from God; viz: they translated God's
thoughts into common language and grammar; but that's not the end of it.
For example: Jesus once said that his words are spirit (John 6:63). Well that
right there is a bit of a problem because I don't have in my possession an
machine designed to decode spirit words; so were I not blessed with the
anointing as per 1John 2:26-27, I'd be sort of like a blind man in a dark room
looking for a black cat that isn't there when it comes to spirit words.
● 1Cor 2:12-13 . .We have
not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may
understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words
taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing
spiritual truths in spiritual words.
Sons And Bums
● Deut 21:18-21 . . If a man has a stubborn and
rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to
them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and
bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders,
"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a
profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to
death. You must purge the evil from among you.
Webster's defines "profligate" as completely given up to dissipation and
licentiousness; i.e. shamelessly immoral
"drunkard" refers to heavy drinking; which implies all-nighters and/or wild
parties and such.
Those words don't describe minor children, rather, of-age children, i.e. legally
adults still living at home and mooching off their parents instead of out on
their own, working for a living to support themselves.
There's a rule of thumb that says "When you live in our house, you'll live by
our rules". Well; the bum described in Deut 21:18-21 not only mooches off his
parents, but does whatever he pleases in their home, not caring how mom and dad
might feel about anything.
These days that's becoming more and more common when 26 is the new 21. Kids are
staying home longer than they used to. Well; there's nothing intrinsically wrong
with kids staying home longer, but when their lifestyle becomes intolerable for
their parents, it's time for them to move out.
is the punishment so severe for bums? Well for starters; it violates one of the
● Ex 20:12a . . Honor your father and your mother,
Failure to comply with that command merits dying before one's time.
● Ex 20:12b . . that your days
may be prolonged in the land which Yhvh your God gives you. (cf. Eph 6:1-3)
● Judg 11:30-32 . . And Jephthah made a vow
to Yhvh and said: If you will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then
it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I
return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's, and I will offer
it up as a burnt offering.
Some of the "houses" back in that day were constructed as an enclosed compound;
which included a courtyard. Around the periphery of the courtyard were the
family's living quarters and sometimes accommodations for certain of the
family's animals. The "door" of the house served not as an entry to the family's
living quarters, rather, as a gate to the courtyard.
Something very similar to that description is depicted in the Charlton Heston
movie Ben Hur. I rather suspect that at least of few of the animals were allowed
to freely roam the courtyard and were Jephthah's intended sacrifice rather than
his kin. That would help explain the bitter disappointment he expressed when his
daughter met him first.
As for giving his daughter to the priests
for a burnt offering; that just wasn't done. Human sacrifice isn't specified in
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; so offering a human on the Altar would have been a
Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away
from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you.
Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. Do
not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that the Lord
your God has enjoined upon you
However, seeing as how Jephthah's daughter was a devoted item;
then according to Lev 27:28 any personal ambitions she may have thought for
herself were over.
In the end, Jephthah's daughter didn't bewail the loss of her
life; rather, the loss of any hope of having a family of her own. I've a feeling
she joined other women of Israel dedicated to assisting with things in and
around the Temple vicinity (cf. 1Sam 2:22). According to 1Cor 7:34, that
vocation is better suited to unencumbered single women than married.
● 2Kgs 2:23-24 . . And [Elisha] went
up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth
little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou
bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and
cursed them in the name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of
the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
It would appear from the 1611 KJV that Elisha was guilty of criminal child
abuse. But to begin with, there's two different Hebrew words translated
"children" in that passage.
In verse 23, the word is na` ar (nah'-ar) which has a pretty wide
application; and more than one meaning: 1) a boy from the age of infancy to
adolescence 2) a servant (of either gender) 3) a girl (of similar latitude in
age as a boy)
The word in verse 24 is yeled (yeh'-led) which has even more latitude
than na` ar; and just simply means offspring, viz: the young of either man or
beast, e.g. Gen 30:26 where yeled indicates not only Jacob's sons, but also his
daughter Dinah. At 2Chron 10:8-10 yeled is the word for the young men from whom
Rehoboam sought counsel.
A far more rational scenario is that Elisha was accosted by a youth gang; not by
a posse of unsupervised little toddlers; as some have supposed. Youth gangs can
be dangerous at times; and Elisha was very lucky to get away before they
attacked him. The curse of the bears was obviously an act of self defense. They
ran interference for Elisha; distracting the youths; thus creating an
opportunity for Elisha to get away before the gang did more to him than just
taunting; and forty-two plus youths all at one time of any age are too many for
one man alone to stand against.
Here's a paraphrased way to look at it.
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some
youths came out of the town and jeered at him. Go on up, baldy; they said. Let's
see you go on up too, chrome dome. He turned around, glared at them and called
down a curse on them in the name of The Lord. Then two bears came out of the
woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
The incident took place in the vicinity of Bethel; which, at the time, hosted a
school for prophets (2Kgs 2:3). I've heard it proposed that the young men who
accosted Elisha were disciples of false prophets hanging around that area.
Until Christ returns to take the reins of this planet, there's always going to
exist an element out there that has made it their mission in life to stump the
Bible thumpers. Some have even gone to the trouble of writing books on the
subject; for example 101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible by Dr. Shabir
Ally. A response to Dr. Ally's book is located at the link below.
101 'Cleared Up' Contradictions in the Bible
Spiritual Body vs
● 1 Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a natural
body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a
Watch as I revise that passage because the difference is significant.
is sown a natural body, it is raised up a spirit body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spirit body."
it doesn't say spirit body but nevertheless that's what some people have decided
it ought to say.
The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily refer
to spirit. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no
resemblance whatsoever to the body chemistry of an angel or a demon.
Spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)
The spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no way composed of spirit. Of
what material it is composed I don't know; but I do know at least three things about it.
The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's body.
"Our citizenship is in
heaven. And we eagerly await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by
the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform
our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." (Php 3:20-21)
The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods and beverages.
"I have eagerly desired
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it
again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16)
"I tell you: I will not
drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew
with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt 26:29)
"You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a
kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table
in my kingdom." (Luke 22:28-30)
The spiritual body is capable of being seen by the naked eye.
"Men of Galilee, why do you
stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into
heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven."
"Behold, he is coming with the
clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him." (Rev 1:7)
God's Good Faith
Eph 1:13-14 . . Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the
Eph 4:30 . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for
the day of redemption.
The Holy Spirit of God is the seal; which is from the koiné Greek word
sphragizo (sfrag-id'-zo). The word has no reference whatsoever to a zip lock
bag, or a strip of tape, or a gasket, or that little widget that the power
company clips onto electric meters, or a cork, or a bar code, or a bottle cap, or a label, or a
tag, or the lid on a jar, or glue, or the ring of bee's wax that goes in between
the base of a toilet and the flange of the soil pipe it drains into.
Sphragizo refers to the impression that's made upon wax with a signet ring. In
other words: the Holy Spirit is God's own personal signature on the dotted line;
and it serves a very important purpose.
Holy Spirit is also the "guarantee" of a believer's inheritance. Let me explain.
The koiné Greek word is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which refers to a pledge;
viz: part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the
When we bought our home, I had to submit, along with the escrow papers, an amount
of money called a "good-faith" deposit. In the event that my wife and I backed
out of the deal, for any reason at all; we would've forfeited the deposit.
That's no doubt an incentive to make sure people mean business about buying a
Eph 1:13-14 explains a difficult spiritual truth by putting it into a context
easy to understand by anyone familiar with the process of buying a home. Another
context, also easy to understand, is located in the 38th chapter of Genesis.
Long story short, Judah left his staff and signet with Tamar as a pledge that he
would pay her with a young goat as compensation for sleeping with him (Gen
38:18). The Hebrew word for Judah's pledge is 'arabown (ar-aw-bone')
which is equivalent to the Greek word for guarantee.
Well; Judah was unable to make good on his promise because Tamar took a powder.
So his response was:
"Let her keep what she has or we will become a disgrace." (Gen 38:23)
You bet your bippy they would have been a disgrace because until such a time as
Judah paid Tamar what he promised; she had a legitimate right to keep his staff
and his signet because that's the way an 'arabown works.
Bottom line is: at this point in the plan of salvation, should God not spare a
believer's soul from the sum of all fears; then He has to forfeit the Holy
Spirit. In other words: should a believer end up in hell, they get to keep the
Holy Spirit and take Him down there with them because that's the way the
arrhabon and the 'arabown work; and believers have God's signature holding Him
How People Stay In Heaven
I should think that producing enough piety during one's
lifetime in order to get to heaven would be difficult enough. But people who
make it to heaven don't face a lifetime; no, they're facing eternity.
Producing piety for that long has to be even harder.
According to Rom 2:6-11, people's piety has to be consistent.
In other words: there's no reward for complying with some of God's wishes
some of the time, nor even most of His wishes most of the time. No, people
have to comply with all of His wishes all the time in order to stay in
heaven; no slacking off— people are expected to give it everything they've
● Mark 12:30 . . You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
Christ is the lucky one. Piety is second nature to him.
Christ doesn't even have to work at it because he was born with the nature
of God rather than only the nature of a human. That's quite an advantage
over the rest of us.
● 1John 3:8 . .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.
According to Rom 6:23, the wages of sin is death. Well; if
the wages of sin is death down here, wouldn't the wages of sin be death up
there too? I can't imagine why not. So then, it seems to me that people in
heaven are living under a sword of Damocles, hanging by a slender thread
easily broken by the slightest impiety; and thus finding themselves booted
out of heaven right quick.
Human nature being what it is, the obvious solution to this
dilemma is to take people right back to square #1 and route them through
birth all over again. Only the second time, instead of born the normal way;
they'd be born by the hand of God in such a way that piety would be second
nature to them just like it is for Christ; because unless God can say about
ordinary people "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" like He
says about Christ; they are not going to survive in heaven for very long.
Is what I'm talking about a possibility? Yes; it certainly
● 2Pet 1:3-5 . . His
divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness,
through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and
excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent
promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine
Routing through another birth all over again in order to
obtain the divine nature isn't optional. No; it's a must.
● John 3:3 . .
Jesus declared: I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born from above.
● John 3:7 . . Do
not wonder that I said to you: You must be born from above.
Female Pastors, Preachers, and Teachers
The comments below pertain specifically to Christians within a Christian
congregation, rather than to people in general throughout the
Christ's apostles speak for Christ; and obeying them is a
walk pleasing to God.
● 1Cor 14:37 . . If any
man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that
the things that I write unto you are the commandments of The Lord.
● 1Ths 4:1-2 . .We
beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have
received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound
more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
Seeing as how the apostles' commandments are Christ's
commandments, then refusal to obey an apostle is all the same as refusal to
obey Christ. It's a domino effect all the way to the top.
● Luke 10:16 . .Whoever
listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you; rejects me. And whoever
rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.
Therefore, these next commandments are not just one man's
opinion; but are Christ's wishes, and being so, are God's too.
● 1Cor 11:3 . . But I
would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of
the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
● 1Cor 14:34-35 . . Let
your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them
to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
● 1Tim 2:11-12 . . Let
the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
People who refuse to obey those commandments are no better
than pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu.
● 1Sam 15:23 . .
Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity
They're Christ's enemies.
● John 15:14 . .You are
my friends if you do as I wish.
And they're disloyal too.
● John 14:15 . . If you
love me, you will comply with what I command.
● John 14:21 . .Whoever
has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.
● John 14:23-24 . . If
anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who does not love me will
not obey my teaching.
Their insubordination insinuates that God's wisdom is absurd.
● 2Pet 3:15-16 . . Paul
also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
Q: What about Deborah? God appointed her to lead men.
A: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at
the helm, i.e. Christ's association with his church trumps Deborah's
association with the Jews. I do not recommend using her, or any other woman
in the Bible, as an excuse to defy Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to
the governance of Christian congregations.
Paul appeals to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul
speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Exactly
where in the covenant women are explicitly forbidden to preach, or teach, or
usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However, it's
quite obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not permitted
in either the priesthood or the Sanhedrin.
Hope For Pedophiles And LGBT, et al.
Everybody has problems with proclivities; which Webster's defines as
inclinations or predispositions toward something; especially strong inherent
inclinations toward something objectionable.
Everybody also has problems with predilections too; which Webster's defines as a
natural liking for something; viz: a natural tendency to do or to be attracted
Those definitions are keyed to the words "natural" and "inherent". So then what
we're talking about here are not conditioned responses, nor acquired tastes.
the passage below; Paul's pronoun "we" included himself as someone with
natural-born longings and desires for bad things.
● Eph 2:2-4 . .We too all formerly lived in
the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and
were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Paul's pronoun "all" torpedoes every Christian claiming to be born free of one
or more sinful predilections.
The point is: unless something were done to remedy human nature's sinful
proclivities and predilections, nobody would qualify for citizenship in either
the new cosmos or the holy city depicted in the 21st chapter of Revelation.
Everybody, no exceptions, even Christ's apostles, would be barred entry even
though Christ gave his life as a ransom to rescue their souls from the wrath of
The problem is: forgiveness isn't a cure; viz: forgiven pedophiles and LGBT go
right on as pedophiles and LGBT just like always and were they to attempt to
suppress their desires throughout eternity, I think they would eventually go mad
with a nervous breakdown because they would be fighting against nature; which
everybody instinctively knows is a fight that can't be won without suffering
serious psychological consequences.
So then, it's futile to tell pedophiles and LGBT to stop giving in to their
desires if they want to get to heaven and stay in heaven because that's not a
viable, long-range solution to their problem. The problem is not their conduct;
no, their conduct is merely a symptom; and as every informed person knows: you
don't treat an illness by treating its symptoms— that method has been proven
God's remedy for pedophiles and LGBT is radical, to say the least; but it's the
only way He can get them into heaven so they can stay in heaven.
First off: He doesn't remove their longings and desires; instead God regards
their natural-born condition as so far gone that it can't be treated. In other
words: God throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, and starts from
scratch with a new baby.
● John 3:3 . . I tell you the truth: no one
can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.
birth about which Christ spoke isn't an option; no, it's a must.
● John 3:7 . .You must be born again.
That goes for everybody, not just pedophiles and LGBT, because Christ said "no
one" can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again; which of course has to
include all the holy people in the Old Testament too or otherwise the words "no
one" are just hot air and serve no useful purpose.
Acts 11:26 . . in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called
Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes
belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
According to that definition; it isn't necessary to actually
believe in Christ's teachings in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only
necessary to say you do.
People don't even have to know what Christ's teachings are;
they only have to say they believe in them.
Nor is it necessary to put Christ's teachings into practice
in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only necessary to say you believe
Webster's is a very broad definition, but if all
denominations complied with it, I think they'd all be a whole lots more
tolerant; and get along a whole lots better too.
● Luke 2:8-11 . . And in the same region there
were some shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their
flock by night. And an angel of The Lord suddenly stood before them, and the
glory of The Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.
. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring
you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Greek word for "savior" in that verse is soter (so-tare') which means: a
Rescuers typically help people who are in grave distress and/or imminent danger
of death and/or serious injury, and helpless to do anything about it; e.g. Red
Cross, Firemen, Emergency Medical teams, snow patrols, mountain units, and the
Coast Guard and National Guard.
Wouldn't it be awful if those agencies refused to assist
desperate folk until they first proved themselves deserving? Well lucky for
everyone that those agencies work on the basis of need rather than merit or
many of us would end up thrown back to the wolves.
I think quite a few people are under the impression that
Christ is some sort of probation officer; viz: if people "endure to the end"
as they say; then he grants them a clearance for heaven. But God forbid they
should fail to satisfy the conditions of their probation, because then
they're out the door.
Probation can be likened to a sword of Damocles hanging over
people's heads by a slender thread easily broken by conduct unbecoming. How
dare the angel of Luke 2:8-11 describe his announcement as "good news of
great joy" if probation were actually what's meant by sozo instead of
On the other hand; if Christ is in the business of rescuing
from the wrath of God in accordance with the humane
principles underlying normal emergency services; then yes, I fully agree
with the angel that the birth of Christ is something to get excited about.
The Good Shepherd
of Christ's personal characteristics, in which I have complete confidence, is that he's
conscientious about doing what he's told.
"The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do
what is pleasing to Him." (John 8:29)
Were Christ to fail in any way— any way at all —pleasing the one who sent him;
then it would be dishonest of Christ to claim to "always" please Him. Christ
might be able to claim pleasing the one who sent him a high percentage of the
time, but certainly not always.
Here is one of the things that God wants from His son.
"This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of
what He gave me." (John 6:39)
The one who sent Christ has given him sheep (John 10:27-30). Were Jesus to lose
one single head of those sheep— even just one —he would fail to always please
the one who sent him.
Regarding those sheep, Jesus stated:
"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them
out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one
can snatch them out of my Father's hand." (John 10:28-29)
It has actually been posited that the sheep are an exception. In other words;
it's been posited that the sheep of their own free will can take themselves out
of Jesus' hand. But of course they can't because the Father's free will trumps the
sheep's free will.
"This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of
what He gave me." (John 6:39)
The posit is a vote of no-confidence in the good shepherd's determination to
succeed at pleasing the one who sent him; and reveals a belief that the sheep
have enough strength and cunning to overpower their shepherd and run off.
Were the good shepherd only human, then I would be inclined to agree with the
posit that his sheep might get past him and run off. But the Bible teaches that
Christ is not only human, but also the divine architect of the entire cosmos
with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. So then, the good shepherd
has at his disposal all the powers and abilities of the supreme being to utilize
in keeping the sheep right where he wants them to be.
Surely no one in a right mind would dare to suggest that sheep have sufficient
powers and abilities of their own at their disposal to overcome Christ. Were
that the case, the sheep would have no need of his services; the sheep could
But even were the sheep to somehow manage to escape Christ's hand, they would
still have his Father's hand to contend with; and good luck escaping
Now, seeing as how the good shepherd has all the powers of the supreme being at
his disposal to keep the sheep, then it shouldn't take too much more to persuade
the sheep that it's okay to fully trust in this next statement of his.
am the gate; whoever enters through me shall be saved." (John 10:9)
Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "shall be" saved; no,
he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him
some room for error. But when Christ says "shall be" he's claiming a 0.0%
failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what
his Father has given him.
The New Man
The term "in Christ" is widely misunderstood. In a nutshell;
everyone starts out born in Adam; in order to get one's self in Christ; it's
necessary to undergo yet another birth as per John 3:3-8.
John 3:7 . . Don't be surprised at my statement that you must be
Note that another birth isn't optional; it's a must.
● 2Cor 5:17 . .Therefore, if anyone is in
Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.
koiné Greek word for "creation" is ktisis (ktis'-is).
Ktisis makes its first appearance in the New Testament at Mark 10:6 where it
refers to intelligent design and the source of the current cosmos with all of
its forms of life, matter, and energy.
Ktisis is a subtle word. It implies that the current cosmos is an original
rather than a copy; viz: the creation spoken of in 2Cor 5:17 is an original too,
i.e. the first ever of its kind; unique. In other words: the new h.sapiens
isn't a renovation of the first version.
"old" is from the koiné Greek word archaios (ar-khah'-yos) which
basically means the first and/or primeval. In other words: the old man is the
Adam version of h.sapiens, i.e. a terrestrial human race as per Gen 2:7.
Natural-born humans are classified as "in Adam" which makes sense seeing as how
Adam is their progenitor.
Just as Adam was
the progenitor of the now-obsolete human race; so Christ is the progenitor of
the never-to-be-obsolete human race; viz: the new Man; which is a race of
heavenly people that has some pretty amazing advantages.
Adam all are reckoned joint principals in his disobedience.
In Christ all
are reckoned joint principals in his obedience.
Adam all are adjudged unrighteous.
Christ all are adjudged righteous.
Adam all are capable of sin.
Christ all are incapable of sin.
Adam all have the human nature.
Christ all have the divine nature.
Adam all have natural life.
In Christ all have eternal life.
Adam all are made to die.
Christ, all are made to live.
● 1Pet 3:15b . . Be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is
The koiné Greek
word for "hope" in that passage, and in others (e.g. Rom 8:23-25) is elpis
(el-pece') which means expectation; viz: elpis isn't wishful thinking, nor
crossing your fingers; no, elpis is a confident kind of hope that looks forward
to something, and fully expects to obtain it; ergo: elpis is an anticipating
hope; viz: it doesn't pray for the best, while in the back of its mind dreading
aren't 110% sure what the afterlife has in store for them— if there is even the
slightest concern, or unease —they can't possibly comply with 1Pet 3:15b nor
with Rom 12:12a for the simple reason that the hope that is in them, if any, is
the wrong kind of hope.
James Taylor / Country Roads