Bible in 90 Days: Day by Day [Archive]

Fish and Bread

31st October 2005, 08:21 PM

Welcome to the first ever "Bible in 90 Days" study hosting from the STR forum! As you're probably all aware by now, this is an effort to read the bible cover to cover in ninety days on the part of 19 members of the forum.

Those members are: Fish and Bread, Rev. Smith, Inside Edge, IowaLutheran, Higgs2, RedneckLutheran, Father Rick, Sunshine, RomanEagle13, Nice Dream, SeenandUnseen, Lel, svdbygrace, Lonnienord, loriersea, dutchessdinesout, pmcleanj, starelda, and SirTimothy. Included in that group are folks from a vast array of Christian backgrounds, one or more belonging to each of the following churches or denominations: Anglican/Episcopal, Old Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist.

We were inspired by a recently released publication entitled "The Bible in 90 Days: Cover to Cover in 12 Pages a Day" (Found here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031093351X/qid=1118938989/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-6879258-1521708?v=glance&s=books)). That is also the recommended course bible for our study. For those who are unable to obtain that, for whatever reason, the reading plan may be found by clicking on this link (http://www.biblein90days.com/files/NIV%20Reading%20Plan.pdf) (participants may want to print it out and keep it by their bibles). Since the recommended course bible uses the New International Version (NIV) translation, that's the translation we're recommending for those who can't obtain the course bible, presuming they can obtain a regular ole NIV bible. If they can't find that, we recommend they just use whatever bible and translation they can get their hands on! :)

This inside cover flap to the recommended course bible reads as follows:

"Sure you can! Of course you can read the bible in ninety days! You don't lack the desire. You just need an approach that makes sense. Here's the secret: Forget about reading the whole bible in three months. That's right - forget about so formidable a challenge. Instead, think in these terms:

-Twelve short pages a day.
-About 45 minutes of your time - less time than many people spend commuting to and from work

Suddenly, it's not so hard, is it? And this Bible is designed to help you accomplish your short-term tasks in a way that helps you not just achieve your ninety-day goal, but reap some real dividends spiritually and practically in the process"

The course bible recommends the following (optional) prayer before doing the readings each day. If you like, you may substitute your own prayer or skip the prayer entirely:

"Gracious father, thank you for the gift I hold in my hands. May your Spirit fill me and interpret your precious words for me as I read them. In your Son's name I pray, Amem."

The goal each day is to read the bible verses assigned by the study and then come here and post something (Anything!) about them each day. Some suggestions:

1. A basic overview with an opinion: i.e. "I love the story of Noah and the arc, it really illustrates both the concept of divine justice and divine love simultaneously, because we see how God vanquished the immoral, but preserved Noah and his family[...]".

2. An exegensis of a specific verse or a specific passage that you found interesting: i.e. "In John 3:16, the evangelist begins with 'God so loved the world'. I take this to mean [...]".

3. A question: i.e. "Levitus is really boring and contains mostly Jewish law. Why do you think the Church made it a part of the scriptural canon and why do you think it matters to us to today as Christians?".

4. A brief note to let us know you're still with us such as: "Hey, I don't have time to post much today, but I read the pages for the day and I'm glad we were able to read about King David. I love that wacky guy!".

Those are just recommendations, though. Post whatever the bible passage inspires you to post!

This part is really important:

This thread should host comments on and discussions about the readings of the day on the day they're assigned only. All "catchup" posts from folks who may have fallen behind on the readings, posts continuing discussions from the previous day or days, and general comments, concerns, and fellowship should be posted on the thread entitled "Bible in 90 Days: Catchup, Overflow, Fellowship, Etc. (http://www.christianforums.com/t2268532-bible-in-90-days-catchup-overflow-fellowship-etc.html)".

We're counting on everyone to police themselves a bit here to keep this thing on track. :) Anything that doesn't directly pertain to the day's readings should be posted to "Bible in 90 Days: Catchup, Overflow, Fellowship, Etc. (http://www.christianforums.com/t2268532-bible-in-90-days-catchup-overflow-fellowship-etc.html)". If you miss the deadline by a little bit for a given day's reading, don't sweat it, just post the stuff over on thread "Bible in 90 Days: Catchup, Overflow, Fellowship, Etc. (http://www.christianforums.com/t2268532-bible-in-90-days-catchup-overflow-fellowship-etc.html)" instead of posting it here on "Bible in 90 Days: Day by Day". :)

Day one begins November 1, 2005 at:

12am US Pacific Standard Time
1am US Mountain Standard Time
2am US Central Standard Time
3am US Eastern Standard Time

If you live outside those areas, please figure out the time that'll be in your area. :)

Day two begins November 2, 2005 at:

12am US Pacific Standard Time
1am US Mountain Standard Time
2am US Central Standard Time
3am US Eastern Standard Time

We just keep going like that. When each day begins, the old day ends and thus the old readings are off topic for that day.

Posts to this thread may begin in just under seven hours (Though if you're like me, you're going to probably wait until you wake up several hours later to read the beginning of Genesis and start posting :)).

If you missed your chance to join this particular study, stay tuned. It's possible we'll do another one several months down the line, depending on how we like this one (It'd probably be a variation on theme to keep things fresh ).

Good luck to everyone and God bless you all! I hope this study pays off with great rewards spiritually for all who participate and I look forward to cracking up my bible, posting some comments, and getting started!

John

lonnienord

31st October 2005, 09:01 PM

8 hrs until start time.

SirTimothy

1st November 2005, 06:26 AM

And we're started. I loved todays readings. Creation is such a magnificent thing to read about, that I'm going to go back and re-read it in the ESV later... Cain and Abel... rather sad, really.

The thing that interested me most is that men were only supposed to 'rule over' women after sin came into the world... could we produce an argument than since sin has been conquered, in fact women are not supposed to be 'ruled over' by men, but rather be an 'equal helper' as they were originally created to be?

Timothy

LiberatedChick

1st November 2005, 06:39 AM

Well I'm done for the day :)

I guess when I think of Genesis the things that automatically come to mind are creation, Adam and Eve and Noah....basically everything up to Chapter 10. Maybe that's because even though I grew up in a secular home I still had a childrens bible which had the stories of creation, original sin and Noah...there stories I loved reading as a child and I still love reading them now. So sometimes I forget there's another 40 chapters and so it covers so much more than that!

Anyway, I like how Genesis links from one story to the next. The way it starts right at the beginning and just flows seamlessly from one person to the next, showing how they all link together and hence all link right back to the start. For me that just helps get across that God made me, everyone and everything. Sometimes I sit and wonder how exactly, you know whether it's young earth, old earth, theistic evolution... but when I read over it again I realise that figuring out how isn't the main focus for me.

Nice Dream

1st November 2005, 11:11 AM

The creation story is interesting as it shows what everything was supposed to be like. I never really noticed before today that Adam and Eve did not initially eat meat and that God only permitted that after the flood when he speaks to Noah.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant seeding seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; it shall be food for you. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to all birds of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul, every green plant is for food. And it was so.

Genesis 9:3 Every creeping thing which is alive shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green plant.

Inside Edge

1st November 2005, 12:35 PM

Sidestepping the double-account issue for the moment...

...the big thing that stood out for me was a recurring theme of our (mankind's) responsibility. Man was given a paradise, and at least a basic choice between right and wrong (if not good and evil). He allowed himself to disobey God, and in doing so, things got tougher. Even then, God could have wiped the slate clean right then and there - instead, he appeared to avoid that and lay down consequences.

And so it continued - Cain advanced sin using his choice (and now the 'knowledge' of good and evil) and committed murder. Was Cain struck down? Was mankind erased because Cain's action was representative of things to come? No, instead things got tougher for Cain and his descendants (very tough). Cain didn't fulfill his responsibilities, and went even further and killed out of jealousy for one who did.

Even come the flood, God set out to destroy everything, but didn't really start completely clean. Noah and his family were still fallen humans like everyone else - just not as fargone as everything else, aparently. And again, God's covenant with Noah restates his and mankind's responsibility for just about everything.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 02:23 PM

You guys did such concise posts and I have so many questions!!! I'm going to just list them here and you can feel free to skip this post if you want. Please forgive me... I've read the Bible before, but not seriously, so what is pretty familiar to most of you is very confusing to me. :) ANyway, here goes...

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Throughout the rest of the Bible the word 'die' is generally considered to reference eternal damnation. I'm wondering if in this context it is a different word used or if, for the most part, when you see the word 'die' or 'death' in the Bible it is refering to our natural, physical death? The reason I ask is because it seems unlikely that in this context God is saying Adam will surely go to hell.

Genesis 3:6-7 & 17... In these verses God seems to make it pretty clear that the problem was more that Adam listened to his wife than that the fruit was eaten. In 3:6-7 it was almost as if the sin didn't count until after Adam ate. That was when their 'eyes were opened'. In verse 17, the ground gets cursed because "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree" So, was the problem the disobediance in general or the fact that Adam listened to his wife and subsequently disobeyed?

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I find it interesting that the clothes Adam and Eve made were not good enough and needed to be replaced. Is this a call to modesty of dress?

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

:) This verse seems like a good beginning to a vampire novel... just a thought. :)

Genesis 4:5 It never is specified why Cain's offering isn't good enough. That confuses me. Cain didn't seem to know that his offering wasn't what God wanted. How do I know if my offering is what God wanted?

Genesis 4:14 and 17. In v. 14 Cain is talking about the people who will kill him. Who are those people? In 17 his wife is mentioned. Where did she come from?

Genesis 6:2. Are 'Sons of God' angels?

Genesis 8:7 & 9 Are the Raven and Dove theologically/symbolically significant?

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Does this verse give God's approval for the death penalty for murder?

Genesis 9:12-17 I love this part. It really changes the way you look at rainbows. :) It also brings to mind the time I spent in Hawaii. There are rainbows practically everywhere you look there and with the location being so perilously in the midst of the Pacific, it's interesting to consider that maybe God is reminding them of this particular covenant.

The Tower of Babel The NIV doesn't seem to lead you to believe that they were building a tower to Heaven. In that translation, why do you think God would confuse their language? They were only building a city, right? In other versions where they are building a tower to Heaven, why would that bother God? Since it's impossible to do and all? This story just generally confuses me... :scratch:

In verse 12:17, God is going ballistic on Pharoah, but it seems like the culprits in this story are Sarai and Abram. Why go after Pharoah?

Genesis 12:19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife:...

and

Genesis 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian... and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Does God consider someone to be your spouse after you've slept w/ them? Does the certificate from the church/state really matter? Do these verses (and others like them that we haven't gotten to yet) make our concept of pre-marital sex moot?

Last question....

Have you guys actually read the geneology before? I usually skip those parts. I didn't this time, which leads me to wonder, what is the significance of those chapters?

Sorry so long...

Randi

karen freeinchristman

1st November 2005, 02:33 PM

I'm not part of the 90-day Bible study, but I had to say,

What great questions, Randi!!

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 02:35 PM

I'm not part of the 90-day Bible study, but I had to say,

What great questions, Randi!!

:clap: I was scared I sounded silly!

Randi

Inside Edge

1st November 2005, 03:11 PM

Sunshine!

1st November 2005, 03:38 PM

Randi, I thought your questions were great too! I'm interested in people's responses also. I'm afraid I don't have any of the answers myself, as this will be my first complete reading through of the bible. I'm excited to finally be taking on this challenge!

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 04:42 PM

I'm only about halfway through the reading for today. It's taking longer than I expected with all the noting taking! Anyhow, I thought I'd break up my comments into two sections, one now and one in a few hours. :) I took my notes by verse. I almost feel like I'm writing a bible commentary (Though just on a few select verses)! :)

Genesis 3:8; Notable here is that God walks and Adam and Eve duck out of the way. Mormons would undoubtedly take that as meaning "Ah ha, the Father does have a physical body!". I wonder what we as mainstream Christians, who believe God is a spirit, are to make of him doing something that is thought of as a physical act. I suppose it could be symbolic in some way. But of what? The other possibility that occurred to me is: Could Jesus Christ, who does have a physical body in our tradition, be the one walking here? We just see the term "God" used, which could be any part of the trinity and we've already at this point in the reading seen various references to the Holy Spirit, so we know that the trinity is active, and not just the Father.

Genesis 3:22; Two thoughts;
1. The use of the word "we" here has a lot of definition interpretations. Mainline Christian thought is usually that the reference is to the three being in one God (trinity). Jews consider this to refer to God and his angels. Mormons think it's the three seperate gods who make up the godhead (The same beings we believe make up the one God). I've seen some secular scholars posit that Jews at the time this scripture was written were polytheistic, with the one God in charge, Lord over all the rest.
2. Could God have been protecting us in not allowing us to have eternal life (Eating from the tree of good and evil) after we acquired knowledge of good and evil? Do we need formation before we can handle that without turning to the dark side (To use a little Jedi lingo)? After all, it's an axium that power corrupts.

Genesis 4:7; Here we see God's first moral admonition that could be seen as applicable to us today. Is God trying to shepard his people back to where they were morally before they had knowledge of evil? This could be seen as the beginning of the restoration that the cross completed.

Genesis 4: 14-17; Even in sin, Cain is shown mercy, protected from death, granted a wife, made founder of a greater city, a line of descandents goes through him, etc. Though God punishes us, this could be seen as evidence that his love is unconditional and he doesn't completely withdraw his blessings from those who sin against him. Question... Has Cain demonstrated repentence at this point? Or is it all just grace?

Genesis 4:24; This is the OT coda to a teaching of Jesus in the NT. The human tendency to avenge not seven but seventy-seven is answered by God in Christ with forgive not seven but seventy-seven.

Genesis 5: Is Noah descended from Cain? They seem to have a common ancestor, but I'm wondering if it's commonly thought to have been the same person reference earlier as a descendent of Cain or two people with the same name. If he's a descendent, it would be interesting to note that it was the son of Cain and not the son of Abel who was deemed righteous enough to carry on the human race.

Genesis 5-6:3: Age of humans is limited to 120 years. The text seems to imply that God gets sick of people after a while, but I don't think that's the right explanation. Can anyone offer an alternate one?

Genesis 6:2, 4: Is the distinction between "children of God" and "children of man" here Jew versus Gentile? Is the cause of the wickedness of the people which God decides to wipe out intermarriage with non-believers and thus abandonment of their faith in subsequent generations? Or is the one not related to the other (It's hard to tell if they're two seperate observations by the author of the scripture or if they're related)? Notably, I think some folks tend to think Ezekial, who was very opposed to intermarriage with non-Jews wrote a lot of the scriptures.

Alternate explanation: Could this simply be an explanation for how humans kept reproducing without excessive intermarriage and genetic deformities? Are the "children of God" children of Adam and the "children of man" evolved humans?

Genesis 6:8; One who is righteous ensures the continued existence of man. Precident for Jesus Christ?

Genesis 6: 13-14; God provides for his favored

Genesis 6: 18; Wife and children are saved through Noah's righteousness. We don't know if they were righteous themselves. We see St. Paul affirm this interpretation in the NT epistles. Goes back to marriage theology of the two becoming one, possibly?

Genesis 6:19-21: All creatures are important to God. This could be taken as a call towards good environmental stewartship.

Genesis 6:20; Important to follow God to the letter?

I'll be back later with more. :) What do you all think of the comments so far? Any insight into the questions?

John

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 04:46 PM

The creation story is interesting as it shows what everything was supposed to be like. I never really noticed before today that Adam and Eve did not initially eat meat and that God only permitted that after the flood when he speaks to Noah.

That's an interesting interpretation. What do you all think would account for God not permitting it initially and then allowing it? Does anyone have an alternate interpretation which would have pre-Noah believers eating meat and would still explain the verse Nice Dream cited?

John

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 05:06 PM

Throughout the rest of the Bible the word 'die' is generally considered to reference eternal damnation. I'm wondering if in this context it is a different word used or if, for the most part, when you see the word 'die' or 'death' in the Bible it is refering to our natural, physical death?

Personally, I think the majority of times the words "die" and "death" are used in the bible, they're references to spiritual death, i.e. moving away from God's grace and becoming dead to it. I don't think it's always necessarily referring to literal death or absolute spiritual death (i.e. hell), oftentimes I see it as a reference to making a serious wrongturn that prevents one from feeling God's grace and going in the Spirit. This may well be a minority view in Christianity, though, so I should definitely make sure to note that it's just my personal take on the issue! :)

So, was the problem the disobediance in general or the fact that Adam listened to his wife and subsequently disobeyed?

I think the problem was twofold: 1) He disobeyed and 2) He used someone else as an excuse for his disobedience instead of taking responsibility for himself.

I find it interesting that the clothes Adam and Eve made were not good enough and needed to be replaced. Is this a call to modesty of dress?

It could definitely be taken that way. What struck me about the passage, though, was that here Adam and Eve had just done this horrible thing and God was really mad at them, but he still provided for them! Right in the mists of his anger, he stopped and thought "I guess they should have nice clothes" and then created wonderful garmets for them! I think it tells us something good about God's love for us. :)

It never is specified why Cain's offering isn't good enough. That confuses me. Cain didn't seem to know that his offering wasn't what God wanted. How do I know if my offering is what God wanted?

I think what the passage is trying to convey is that God wants the best of the fruits of our labor, not whatever we just happen to have leftover.

In 17 his wife is mentioned. Where did she come from?

I've always thought that there must have been gentile people (Maybe evolved) created seperately from Adam and Eve to ensure genetic diversity. Afterall, inbreeding the whole world from two people wouldn't seem to work out based on what we know of science. Within generations, the mutations would probably be too severe for people to survive. But this is all just my theory, there's no biblical mention of that sort of thing. :)

Are 'Sons of God' angels?

Since angels are traditionally thought to be non-gendered, I would tend to think the reference in this passage was not to them, given the parts about marriage. However, without tradition, that might be a good way of interpreting things.

Does this verse give God's approval for the death penalty for murder?

It seems to do so, in the context of the time. Of course, that was back before we could ensure murderers would escape and kill again. We're dealing with a different world nowadays and I think an excellent Christian case can now be made for absolishing the death penalty. It is notable that God didn't kill Cain, who was a murderer, and still had a plan for him. So, God's example is one of leniency and, as human beings, we want to be careful not to interfere in God's plan for someone.

The Tower of Babel The NIV doesn't seem to lead you to believe that they were building a tower to Heaven. In that translation, why do you think God would confuse their language? They were only building a city, right? In other versions where they are building a tower to Heaven, why would that bother God? Since it's impossible to do and all? This story just generally confuses me...

Perhaps the idea is that they were attempting to get up to heaven on their own, through their own righteousness, without God's help? God's view seems to be that we need faith through grace and that God takes care of the regeneration, i.e. our own works are not sufficient. The problem probably wasn't that God thought "Oh no, they're going to make it up to heaven by climbing their tower", but rather that they felt equality with God was something to be grasped.

John

karen freeinchristman

1st November 2005, 05:18 PM

I've always thought that there must have been gentile people (Maybe evolved) created seperately from Adam and Eve to ensure genetic diversity. Afterall, inbreeding the whole world from two people wouldn't seem to work out based on what we know of science. Within generations, the mutations would probably be too severe for people to survive. But this is all just my theory, there's no biblical mention of that sort of thing. :).
This is a fascinating theory. I've never heard anyone express this before. Hmm...
Since angels are traditionally thought to be non-gendered, I would tend to think the reference in this passage was not to them, given the parts about marriage. However, without tradition, that might be a good way of interpreting things.Wonder why the ones that are named all have male names, then?
(Am I allowed to make comments or ask questions even if I am not doing the readings?)

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 05:22 PM

(Am I allowed to make comments or ask questions even if I am not doing the readings?)

NO! Your unwelcome... GET OUT!!! ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :holy:

Randi

Inside Edge

1st November 2005, 05:22 PM

Genesis 5-6:3: Age of humans is limited to 120 years. The text seems to imply that God gets sick of people after a while, but I don't think that's the right explanation. Can anyone offer an alternate one?
That the writers were trying to reconcile why contemporary humans always died a lot sooner than the ones in their legends?

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 05:27 PM

Wonder why the ones that are named all have male names, then?

Maybe the names given angels were original to them and humankind, being somewhat patriarchial at the time, automatically assumed that they were supposed to be used as male names and named men after them. :) It seems strange for us to think of Michael as anything other than male because it's been used exclusively as a name for men for thousands of years, but it isn't necessarily something that's intrinsically strange, or that would have seemed strange when the angel first interacted with humankind.

(Am I allowed to make comments or ask questions even if I am not doing the readings?)

Sure! I hope you'll join the study if we do this again sometime, though. We'd love to have you as a full participant.

John

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:28 PM

i am going to type my comments first then read the rest of this thread. so if i say something similar or the same as someone else then we both prayerfully read the same 12 pages.

Creation
sin
first promise (3:15)
Cain and Abel
populating the earth
the flood
the tower of Babel
Abram, Sarai, Lot
Ishmal

Are these stories all true? Are some of them true? Which ones? How do we know which ones? Does it matter? (it does to Seventh-day Adventists cause if the creation didn't take 6 days the GOD did not rest on the seventh and there is no reason for the Sabbath)

I grew up believing all the stories are true and, even though i no longer believe in Santa Claus, i believe the stories are true; cause i don't understand why GOD would tell us these stories if they aren't true.

higgs2

1st November 2005, 05:29 PM

That the writers were trying to reconcile why contemporary humans always died a lot sooner than the ones in their legends?
My thoughts exactly.

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 05:29 PM

That the writers were trying to reconcile why contemporary humans always died a lot sooner than the ones in their legends?

Could be! I suspect that many things in the scripture could fall into similar categories. I like to look at theological explanations first, though, since a lot of stuff is subtle and contains hidden meanings. Besides, who's to say that it couldn't be both theological and a rationalization? :)

John

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:30 PM

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 05:30 PM

This is a fascinating theory. I've never heard anyone express this before. Hmm...

I've heard it before on these forums. Maybe by Fish & Bread :confused:... It was too long ago to remember. Anyway, it makes an interesting point. Here is a picture that was posted previously on the subject of Evolution & Creation merging like that...

http://www.besse.at/sms/synthes.gif

Something I noticed about this picture and would like to point out is how smokin' hot the evolution ladies are compared to Eve. I don't know why that struck me, but it's pretty funny... :)

Randi

higgs2

1st November 2005, 05:33 PM

As I read these chapters I got such a sense of the antiquity and sacredness of these stories. I was moved by the thought of these stories being passed orally from genaration to generation, and then finally being written down in different ways, and the accounts knitted together into a narrative that finally became part of the pentateuch. It seemed very clear that there were different accounts (the two creation stories and orders of creation) and that there were distinctly different styles through the book of Genesis.

I was also struck by *how much* of what is commonly known about the bible is in the first book or two! Genesis is much referenced, and even the secular world knows something about some of the stories in it, and it is such a huge influence on our culture. I am excited about exploring the *rest* of the bible, and seeing if it is as familiar.

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 05:33 PM

Something I noticed about this picture and would like to point out is how smokin' hot the evolution ladies are compared to Eve. I don't know why that struck me, but it's pretty funny... :)

That is pretty funny! I wonder what exactly the guy who drew up the images was trying to imply! :)

Overall, though, I like the chart. That's a pretty good graphic depiction of the theory I was getting at. :)

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 05:35 PM

higgs2

1st November 2005, 05:36 PM

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:36 PM

:clap: I was scared I sounded silly!

Randiyou definately did not sound silly. i think questions help us focus. Later when we read the gospels you will find that JESUS often asked questions.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 05:38 PM

I was also struck by *how much* of what is commonly known about the bible is in the first book or two! Genesis is much referenced, and even the secular world knows something about some of the stories in it, and it is such a huge influence on our culture. I am excited about exploring the *rest* of the bible, and seeing if it is as familiar.

I noticed that also. It seems like I read today every story from the OT that I know from childhood... The only one that wasn't there got set up for us, that one being Sodom and Gomorah. It really makes me wonder how much I'll be reading that will be completely new to me... I mean, after the first 16 chapters everything I know has been almost entirely covered. WOW!!

Randi

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 05:40 PM

Are these stories all true? Are some of them true? Which ones? How do we know which ones? Does it matter?

They all contain great spiritual truth, which is what matters to me in the long run. :) The literalness and historiocity of the accounts or lack thereof is intellectually a very intriguing subject for me, but matters very little to my spiritual life, I feel. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a mix of metaphor and real history drawn together as a narrative which overall has a mythological character (By mythological I don't mean false, I mean "legendary stories which convey moral lessons and may contain some elements of literal history, along with possible exagerations intended to tell us something about the spiritual underpinnings of the universe").

John

higgs2

1st November 2005, 05:41 PM

They all contain great spiritual truth, which is what matters to me in the long run. :) The literalness and historiocity of the accounts or lack thereof is intellectually a very intriguing subject for me, but matters very little to my spiritual life, I feel. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a mix of metaphor and real history drawn together as a narrative which overall has a mythological character (By mythological I don't mean false, I mean "legendary stories which convey moral lessons and may contain some elements of literal history, along with possible exagerations intended to tell us something about the spiritual underpinnings of the universe").

John

I would agree with this.

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:42 PM

o by the way i read a head and we win!!

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 05:43 PM

higgs2

1st November 2005, 05:44 PM

o by the way i read a head and we win!!

:o Oh NO!!! You just ruined it for me!!!

;)

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:48 PM

Genesis 3:8; Notable here is that God walks and Adam and Eve duck out of the way. Mormons would undoubtedly take that as meaning "Ah ha, the Father does have a physical body!". I wonder what we as mainstream Christians, who believe God is a spirit, are to make of him doing something that is thought of as a physical act. I suppose it could be symbolic in some way. But of what? The other possibility that occurred to me is: Could Jesus Christ, who does have a physical body in our tradition, be the one walking here? We just see the term "God" used, which could be any part of the trinity and we've already at this point in the reading seen various references to the Holy Spirit, so we know that the trinity is active, and not just the Father.

did JESUS have a body before the incarnation. It seems to me that the FATHER being all powerful could choose to become a body to walk with Adam and Eve in the garden - which is what i believe happened.

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 05:57 PM

That's an interesting interpretation. What do you all think would account for God not permitting it initially and then allowing it? Does anyone have an alternate interpretation which would have pre-Noah believers eating meat and would still explain the verse Nice Dream cited?

Johnbefore the flood there was plenty of veggies so no need to eat meat. after the flood there weren't many veggies so we had to eat animals. Did you notice that the life expecendancy went down dramatically when we began eating animals???

I believe we were created to be vegetarians and wise people choose that lifestyle today.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:02 PM

Genesis 3:22; Two thoughts;
1. The use of the word "we" here has a lot of definition interpretations. Mainline Christian thought is usually that the reference is to the three being in one God (trinity). Jews consider this to refer to God and his angels. Mormons think it's the three seperate gods who make up the godhead (The same beings we believe make up the one God). I've seen some secular scholars posit that Jews at the time this scripture was written were polytheistic, with the one God in charge, Lord over all the rest.

I was going to ask about that too. I've also heard it said that he used the term 'we' in the way that a king would... meaning only Him, but in a higher way. That, my friends, was english according to Randi. Anyone who has an English to Randi dictionary can feel free to translate :)

2. Could God have been protecting us in not allowing us to have eternal life (Eating from the tree of good and evil) after we acquired knowledge of good and evil?

I honestly just think that God knew that someday we would think vampire novels are nifty and wanted to give us a Biblical starting point. God is pretty cool that way!

Genesis 4: 14-17; Even in sin, Cain is shown mercy, protected from death, granted a wife, made founder of a greater city, a line of descandents goes through him, etc. Though God punishes us, this could be seen as evidence that his love is unconditional and he doesn't completely withdraw his blessings from those who sin against him. Question... Has Cain demonstrated repentence at this point? Or is it all just grace?

It seems like it's all grace because he never seems to say he's sorry or that he'll change. In these verses it's clear that he is still being very selfish, only worried about what will happen to him in exile. I think this is an interesting starting point for universal reconciliation... But I'm sort of obsessed w/ that right now so it might just be me...

Genesis 6:2, 4: Is the distinction between "children of God" and "children of man" here Jew versus Gentile? Is the cause of the wickedness of the people which God decides to wipe out intermarriage with non-believers and thus abandonment of their faith in subsequent generations? Or is the one not related to the other (It's hard to tell if they're two seperate observations by the author of the scripture or if they're related)? Notably, I think some folks tend to think Ezekial, who was very opposed to intermarriage with non-Jews wrote a lot of the scriptures.

Alternate explanation: Could this simply be an explanation for how humans kept reproducing without excessive intermarriage and genetic deformities? Are the "children of God" children of Adam and the "children of man" evolved humans?

That is a good point. That distinction makes more sense than the one I thought of, which was that the children of God were angels. I wonder if Gentiles are the decendants of Cain and the evolution hotties, whereas Children of God, or the Jews for the sake of this argument, are the decendants of Seth and, perhaps, one of his sisters? That makes Cain's lack of repentance the thing that seperated out the Gentiles until Jesus came, fixing the mistake of Cain.

Genesis 6:19-21: All creatures are important to God. This could be taken as a call towards good environmental stewartship.

I think this is a great point. We should all care about the world God made and maybe He was pointing that out here.

I'm having a heck of a time keeping up w/ this thread... :)

Randi

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:04 PM

Did you notice that the life expecendancy went down dramatically when we began eating animals???

I believe we were created to be vegetarians and wise people choose that lifestyle today.

That is a good point... although I am not one of those wise people. :)

Is there another explanation for our life expectancy going down at that time?

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 06:04 PM

Adam and Eve's children married each other. This could be done cause all genes were perfect so there would be no genetical problem with marring your sister. Because genes have digressed (the opposisite of evelution) since sin entered it is no longer safe even to marry your cousin.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

if you answered the egg you are an evolutionist
if you answered the Chicken you are a creationist.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:10 PM

Between this

The creation story is interesting as it shows what everything was supposed to be like. I never really noticed before today that Adam and Eve did not initially eat meat and that God only permitted that after the flood when he speaks to Noah.

this

Genesis 6:19-21: All creatures are important to God. This could be taken as a call towards good environmental stewartship.

and this

Did you notice that the life expecendancy went down dramatically when we began eating animals???

I think we've created a Biblical argument for vegetarianism w/out even finishing Genesis... I must be honest... this is a trend that I hope doesn't continue ! :cry: I don't want to stop eating burgers!!!

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 06:12 PM

That the writers were trying to reconcile why contemporary humans always died a lot sooner than the ones in their legends?is the Bible full of legends then? if so is any of it true? if so how do you know what is true and what isn't?

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:17 PM

is the Bible full of legends then? if so is any of it true? if so how do you know what is true and what isn't?

I think the OT is full of legends. The NT is more reliable than any other historical document from around that time and before, so it's pretty safe to say that everything there is accurate. The OT, on the other hand, is the longest game of telephone ever played written down. I believe that it was inspired by God, but it's not written by God. Everything there doesn't have to be 100% fact in order to have God's message in it.

Randi

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 06:17 PM

before the flood there was plenty of veggies so no need to eat meat. after the flood there weren't many veggies so we had to eat animals. Did you notice that the life expecendancy went down dramatically when we began eating animals???

I believe we were created to be vegetarians and wise people choose that lifestyle today.

Modern medicine tells us that there are also severe risks associated with vegitarianism that isn't carefully regulated. People have a tendency to get very weak, spindly, and to be prone to passing out if they don't really watch carefully and making sure they're eating a lot of vegetables like peanuts and soy to make up for the protein they're missing by not eating meat. Also, biologically speaking, we were clearly designed to be capable of eating meat (And explicitly authorized by God to do so!). On the other hand, it is true that people who eat meat are probably more prone to cardiac problems, weight gain, and other such maladies.

There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. St. Paul realized this and wrote in scripture that we are not to judge one another on this issue and that both lifestyles are acceptable for Christians -- vegitarian and non-vegitarian. :) So in many respects, it's more of a health/preference thing than it is a religious issue in our tradition, it seems to me.

John

karen freeinchristman

1st November 2005, 06:20 PM

Jesus seemed to think it was OK to eat fish, anyway! :)
And lamb! :)

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 06:20 PM

Perhaps the stories aren't true, but there is something important that we need to get from each on.

Personally, I don't think it matters. If you learn something from Abram (pimp your wife to Pharoah and you'll get cool stuff ;)) why does it really matter if Abram was real?if this isn't a true story what is GOD trying to tell us? that pimping our wife is OK??? i doubt it -- it seems more likely that it is a true story.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:22 PM

On the other hand, it is true that people who eat meat are probably more prone to cardiac problems, weight gain, and other such maladies.

Only if meat = McDonalds in this statement. I was forced onto a ridiculously low carb diet because of health reasons. I've read practically every book on the subject and all of those maladies go down dramatically on an almost entirely meat diet and your energy goes up. Soy and nuts are very fattening and so is the sugar found in fruit and bread products. :) Not to debate the issue or anything... just thought I'd point that out.

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 06:22 PM

I honestly just think that God knew that someday we would think vampire novels are nifty and wanted to give us a Biblical starting point. God is pretty cool that way!

I saw recently that famed vampire novelist Ann Rice is working on a fictional account of Jesus' childhood, so maybe it's all coming full circle. ;)

It seems like it's all grace because he never seems to say he's sorry or that he'll change. In these verses it's clear that he is still being very selfish, only worried about what will happen to him in exile. I think this is an interesting starting point for universal reconciliation... But I'm sort of obsessed w/ that right now so it might just be me...

I can see where that passage might be used as a scriptural support for universal reconcilliation, though I personally am not a universalist (I just believe the vast majority of people will go to heaven, or at least hope that they will).

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:24 PM

if this isn't a true story what is GOD trying to tell us? that pimping our wife is OK??? i doubt it -- it seems more likely that it is a true story.

I think it's possible that it's true. It's also possible that we are not understanding the message. Or, that the Jews didn't understand the message and wrote it down all wrong when the time came. Ultimately, it doesn't matter... My husband has been trying to pimp me to Pharoah for cool stuff for years and years, but the guy won't call us back! ;)

Randi

higgs2

1st November 2005, 06:25 PM

did JESUS have a body before the incarnation. It seems to me that the FATHER being all powerful could choose to become a body to walk with Adam and Eve in the garden - which is what i believe happened.
I think it's interesting the way at the beginning God is said to have walked beside his creation, then he sends messengers, then speaks to his people through prophets, and finally sends his Son, God incarnate to dwell with us and be one of us and die for us. It is the evolution of how God relates with his people. And how the people of God relate to God.

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:27 PM

I saw recently that famed vampire novelist Ann Rice is working on a fictional account of Jesus' childhood, so maybe it's all coming full circle. ;)

God's plan in action! ^_^

I can see where that passage might be used as a scriptural support for universal reconcilliation, though I personally am not a universalist (I just believe the vast majority of people will go to heaven, or at least hope that they will).

That seems to make the most sense to me. God loved him and gave him grace even though he definatly didn't deserve it... I don't see why subsequent generations would get less than that from a God who is the same yesturday, today and forever.

Randi

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:29 PM

I think it's interesting the way at the beginning God is said to have walked beside his creation, then he sends messengers, then speaks to his people through prophets, and finally sends his Son, God incarnate to dwell with us and be one of us and die for us. It is the evolution of how God relates with his people. And how the people of God relate to God.

Good catch!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again.

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 06:30 PM

My husband has been trying to pimp me to Pharoah for cool stuff for years and years, but the guy won't call us back! ;)

LOL. I guess the Egyptian belief that the Pharoahs were eternal didn't quite pan out, did it? ;) On the other hand, maybe the day of their resurrection just hasn't come yet. It's interesting to ponder whether some Pharoahs may be part of the Christian resurrection someday, sort of fulfilling their religious traditions, in a very roundabout way.

John

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 06:31 PM

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:32 PM

I guess the Egyptian belief that the Pharoahs were eternal didn't quite pan out, did it? ;)

I would just like to thank you for assuming that a Pharoah would not take me because he must be dead! :cool:... of course, he might be gay. ;)

LOL

Randi

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 06:32 PM

I think it's possible that it's true. It's also possible that we are not understanding the message. Or, that the Jews didn't understand the message and wrote it down all wrong when the time came. Ultimately, it doesn't matter... My husband has been trying to pimp me to Pharoah for cool stuff for years and years, but the guy won't call us back! ;)

Randi:scratch: how do you feel about your hubby pimping you to Pharoah are you hoping Pharoah takes him up on it or does it make you feel cheap (or maybe expensive);) jk

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 06:36 PM

That seems to make the most sense to me. God loved him and gave him grace even though he definatly didn't deserve it... I don't see why subsequent generations would get less than that from a God who is the same yesturday, today and forever.

Well, there do seem to be plenty of "Cains" today, folks who commit horrible sins and still receive a lot of blessings in life. We all may fall into that category to a certain degree. However, we don't know that those blessings extend even unto eternal salvation for everyone. Blessings for the unrepentant may be sort of a limited time offer for our time here on earth, designed to help lead us towards receiving the our ultimate salvation. We may need to turn away from sin and receive forgiveness before Christ's sacrifice can fully save us from the fires of hell. After all, I'm not sure God would force someone to be with him who absolutely hated the notion.

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:36 PM

:scratch: how do you feel about your hubby pimping you to Pharoah are you hoping Pharoah takes him up on it or does it make you feel cheap (or maybe expensive);) jk

I sort of go both ways on it, you know. On one hand, he's probably dusty and gross by now... On the other, Abram got donkeys, which I'm sure translates to 'hot sports cars' by todays standards... :)

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:43 PM

Well, there do seem to be plenty of "Cains" today, folks who commit horrible sins and still receive a lot of blessings in life. We all may fall into that category to a certain degree. However, we don't that those blessings extend even unto eternal salvation for everyone. Blessings for the unrepentant may be sort of a limited time offer for our time here on earth, designed to help lead us towards receiving the our ultimate salvation. We may need to turn away from sin and receive forgiveness before Christ's sacrifice can fully save us from the fires of hell. After all, I'm not sure God would force someone to be with him who absolutely hated the notion.

John

But let's translate the Cain story into a salvation story and see where it goes. Cain was an unrepented sinner. God's judgement sent him into exile, but in that place he was given the chance to repent. Maybe he did and is with God now. Maybe when an unrepented sinner dies and gets judged they go into a sort of exile and are still given the chance to repent and be with God...

Of course Cain didn't die, but God could have smote him and he didn't. He loved Cain and had mercy on him even though he didn't deserve it. Will he love every unrepented sinner and have mercy on them? Personally, I think he will.

I don't want to go into later verses right now... Trying to contain myself.... {insert exploding smilie here}

Randi

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 06:53 PM

before i understood the catholic belief about purgatory i thought of it as a place where one gets a second chance. (don't tell anyone ~ i still believe that)

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 06:59 PM

before i understood the catholic belief about purgatory i thought of it as a place where one gets a second chance. (don't tell anyone ~ i still believe that)

I think that people being judged, punished justly and according to their sins, and getting a second chance to repent and go to Heaven makes the most Biblical sense of any theory. Especially since... {Randi gets out duct tape to try to hold in all verses that we haven't covered yet}... :sigh:

Basically, from what I've read, universal reconcilliation is an underlying theme throughout the Bible... I'm sure this conversation will be somewhere in every day's reading.

Randi

I have to go feed my kids right now. The audacity of some children to expect to be fed! I hope I'm not too lost when I get back. :)

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 07:00 PM

But let's translate the Cain story into a salvation story and see where it goes. Cain was an unrepented sinner. God's judgement sent him into exile, but in that place he was given the chance to repent. Maybe he did and is with God now. Maybe when an unrepented sinner dies and gets judged they go into a sort of exile and are still given the chance to repent and be with God...

That sounds like purgatory to me, which is something Christians go around and around about the existence of or lack therefore (The biggest proponents of it being Roman Catholics and the biggest opponents being evangelical Protestants). :) Of course, most folks who believe in purgatory feel that ultimately everyone still winds up going to heaven or hell after the final judgement, and that there are people in both. In most people's conception of it, purgatory is a place where people on the borderline are given a chance, with the aid of God, to sort of sort through which way they want to go.

C.S. Lewis, the great Anglican author and theologian, allegorically described hell itself as a place where people were offered a chance to convert, with trains going to heaven everyday and angels and saints pleading with people to get on, who refused anew each day. I'm not sure how that jives with the parable of Lazarous, where he seems to be genuinely sorry and can't escape torment, though (Maybe it's a temporary punishment?).

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 07:04 PM

I'm not sure how that jives with the parable of Lazarous, where he seems to be genuinely sorrow and can't escape torment, though.

Maybe he wasn't done 'serving his time', but once he had paid for his sins that genuine sorrow translated into repentance and he went to Heaven. I haven't read the story yet. We'll discuss this again when we get there, I'm sure.

Now, stop being interesting. I have to feed my children.

Randi

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 07:36 PM

Now, stop being interesting.

Jees, guys! I wasn't expecting you to take me so seriously that you stopped talking.

:)

Randi

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 08:55 PM

so are the children all fed?

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 09:00 PM

No. They didn't clean their room yet so I had to put off dinner. I'm going to do it now... Be back around 8 :)

Randi

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 09:08 PM

Jees, guys! I wasn't expecting you to take me so seriously that you stopped talking.

I had some errands to run and housework to do. :) I'll have some more comments when I read the second half of today's scriptures. :)

John

higgs2

1st November 2005, 09:10 PM

That sounds like purgatory to me, which is something Christians go around and around about the existence of or lack therefore (The biggest proponents of it being Roman Catholics and the biggest opponents being evangelical Protestants). :) Of course, most folks who believe in purgatory feel that ultimately everyone still winds up going to heaven or hell after the final judgement, and that there are people in both. In most people's conception of it, purgatory is a place where people on the borderline are given a chance, with the aid of God, to sort of sort through which way they want to go.

C.S. Lewis, the great Anglican author and theologian, allegorically described hell itself as a place where people were offered a chance to convert, with trains going to heaven everyday and angels and saints pleading with people to get on, who refused anew each day. I'm not sure how that jives with the parable of Lazarous, where he seems to be genuinely sorry and can't escape torment, though (Maybe it's a temporary punishment?).

John

I think that the situation with Lazarus is hyperbole to emphasize how dreadful it is not to help the poor. Jesus wasn't harsh very often but when he was it often had to do with this. I don't think it really means that people are doomed to eternal torment. He often used shocking examples to make a point.

But I digress. How about that Noah anyhow! (trying to steer myself back to Genesis...)

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 09:35 PM

But I digress. How about that Noah anyhow! (trying to steer myself back to Genesis...)

Hard, huh? I never really realized how easy it is to tie one thing into everything else in the Bible... Makes it difficult to stay on topic....

Riddle me this, Fish and Bread - Mack Daddy in charge of The Bible in 90 Days threads, when we get farther along are we going to be allowed to tie in day 2's reading w/ day 1's and so on in this day to day thread??

Randi

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 10:17 PM

Riddle me this, Fish and Bread - Mack Daddy in charge of The Bible in 90 Days threads, when we get farther along are we going to be allowed to tie in day 2's reading w/ day 1's and so on in this day to day thread??

What I'd like to do is try to keep the stuff that is primarily about past days' readings on the other thread, though if it directly relates to the current day's (i.e. today we see what was prophecized yesterday coming true), then obviously it's on topic here. :) Also, let's try to keep technical questions and answers about the study in the other thread, so folks with limited time can at least get through this thread on days where they don't have time for the other. :)

John

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 10:33 PM

I finished up today's readings a few minutes ago, so here is "Part 2" of my notes for today:

Genesis 7;
-The number seven comes up frequently in this chapter. Does anyone know what the significance of it is, if any, in Hebrew numerology?
- 40 days and 40 nights of rain is also the amount of time Jesus spent in the wilderness fasting, praying, and being tempted as well as roughly (plus a few days) the amount of time of the Christian liturgical season of Lent (For churches and denominations which follow a liturgical calendar). Could we say that this length of time is a symbol of repentence, offering, and/or struggle in our faith tradition?
- This story occurs in Noah's 600th year. Based on Genesis 5-6, he or his sons should be the last ones to live beyond 120 (But aren't! I'll get to that a bit further down)

Genesis 8:1;
Wind over the waters heralding new life similar to first creation story (Genesis 1).

Genesis 8,8;
-A dove is commonly a religious symbol of Israel. Could this passage relate somehow? Is there any way of reading the dove here as representing Israel?

Genesis 10;
- Mythological origin of cities, nations, tribes, and ethnicities near ancient Israel; theologically this seems to emphasis that all men and women are brothers and sisters! :)

Genesis 11:13;
-Aprphaxad lived 403 years (And we see a few verses down someone else lives for a similar length of time). How do we reconcile that with the 120 year age limit imposed on human life in Genesis 5 and 6?

Genesis 12:6-7;
-This occurs as requested (In more vague terms) by Noah generations earlier in response to the sins of the son who would birth the Cannanite nation.

Genesis 12:16;
-God provides for us and keeps his promises, even in our sin, as we see here with Abram.

Genesis 12:17-18;
-Adultry provokes God's displeasure and leads to bad things.

Genesis 13:14-15;
-Part of the religion basis for the modern Jewish claim to Palestine, though it may also apply to Islamic Arab peoples through Abram's son Ismael (We'll learn all about that tomorrow. :)).

Genesis 13:16;
-Forshadowing Israel and possibly the Islamic nations as well as physical descendents of Abram. Spiritually speaking, we as Christians also fall into this category.

Genesis 14:18-19;
-Bread and wine brought out by high priest after a victory by the blessed one has interesting similarities to the Eucharist, though the metaphor is not exact.
- We also see Abram paying a tithe to the King. This is the first reference to a tithe in the bible (Though it is non-explicit).

What do you all think?

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 11:07 PM

Genesis 8,8;
-A dove is commonly a religious symbol of Israel. Could this passage relate somehow? Is there any way of reading the dove here as representing Israel?

I was wondering about that also. And, the Raven. Does the Raven mean anything?

Randi

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 11:32 PM

I was wondering about that also. And, the Raven. Does the Raven mean anything?

As a Baltimore Ravens football fan, I'm hoping it means something good. ;)

John

Velo Princesse

1st November 2005, 11:34 PM

As a Baltimore Ravens football fan, I'm hoping it means something good. ;)

John

I was thinking it meant that God was a Poe fan...

lonnienord

1st November 2005, 11:38 PM

in hebrew numerology 7=completion and perfection as in the 7 day creation

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 11:39 PM

I was thinking it meant that God was a Poe fan...

Maybe Poe was a God fan. ;) Little known fact: Edgar Allan Poe spent a lot of time in Baltimore, hence resulting in the football team that arrived there in the the then-far future being named the Ravens.

But back to the bible. :)

John

Fish and Bread

1st November 2005, 11:40 PM

in hebrew numerology 7=completion and perfection as in the 7 day creation

Thanks Lonnie! :)

John

Inside Edge

2nd November 2005, 12:40 AM

This could be done cause all genes were perfect so there would be no genetical problem with marring your sister. Because genes have digressed (the opposisite of evelution) since sin entered it is no longer safe even to marry your cousin.

What evidence is there of this? I've never heard of anything like this in any of my (albeit cursory) reading on genetics/evolution.

is the Bible full of legends then? if so is any of it true? if so how do you know what is true and what isn't?
Of course it is full of legend(s) - at least I think so. But just because something isn't factually true, doesn't mean it isn't true in other ways.

if this isn't a true story what is GOD trying to tell us? that pimping our wife is OK??? i doubt it -- it seems more likely that it is a true story.

A very good point. Maybe. But I think there is a message somewhere in all of this more than the story is literally and factually true.

Inside Edge

2nd November 2005, 12:45 AM

I was wondering about that also. And, the Raven. Does the Raven mean anything?
I can't say this is the reason for certain, but speaking from what little I know of bird behaviour/habitat, a raven is quite at home in the mountains. At the point in the Bible when the raven was let go, it stated that only the mountain tops were showing, that the waters weren't completely receded. Furthermore, I think a raven would have a longer flight range than a dove. So my first thought/assumption was that a raven would be better equipped to send out first, with only the higher, more rugged terrain showing above the waters.

But I don't know why I went through that quick stream of consciousness...I'm far from sold on a literal flood. :)

loriersea

2nd November 2005, 12:53 AM

I'm just rehashing a lot of what's been said, but here was my take on the reading: I have a lot of trouble figuring out what to do with the early parts of Genesis. Honestly, if I were to read the stories of these early chapters literally, after about Genesis 2, I wouldn't like God very much. How can we understand God deeming his creation good, and then seeing fit to destroy all of it? How can we understand God deeming humanity very good, and then kicking them out of the house (metaphorically) upon the first act of disobedience? How can we understand God accepting Abel's offering and rejecting Cain's offering for no discernible reason? For me, it makes more sense in terms of explaining how we feel in relation to God, because sometimes it feels like our disobedience has alienated us entirely from God, sometimes it feels like tragedies are God's punishment for our wickedness, and sometimes it feels like God's approval and disapproval are arbitrary.

I was also saddened by seeing how quickly human violence and vengeance came onto the scene.

A very good point. Maybe. But I think there is a message somewhere in all of this more than the story is literally and factually true.

I think we should also realize that the cultures where these stories originated had different mores than we do, so things that may seem shocking or awful to us may not have been so in the context from which they grew. As for the specific story of Abram passing off Sarai as his sister, that same tale recurs several times in Genesis. I would like to think it has some sort of deeper truth to it than either exposing the selfishness of Abraham (and then Isaac), but I have never been able to make sense of what that might be.

I do think the question about what to accept as true and what not to is a very valid one, especially for these chapters. As I said, I cannot accept that God would have destroyed all creation as described in this part of Genesis. But, I do believe that God created all that is and deemed it good. I am trying to figure out, as I read, both how I now assign authority to scripture and how I might more usefully and coherently do so. Or maybe, to put it another way, how to deal with the fact that some of the Bible seems to be communicating truth about God, and some of it seems to be communicating truth about us and our relationship to God.

Lel

2nd November 2005, 01:33 AM

First thought: God strikes me as a capricious teenager in Genesis. He makes man -- but keeps knowledge and life from him. He changes his mind on man -- and floods the world. How utterly capricious!

I guess I'm putting things into a modern moral framework here, but why didn't Noah just disobey God and put other people on the ark? Why didn't Noah have moral objections to killing everyone off? It rather pains me to be reading this. Looking at the OT through my modern eyes (which I really can't take off), God seems so immoral and capricious.

Can't wait to get to the NT, Jesus is a lot better!

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 02:49 AM

I can't say this is the reason for certain, but speaking from what little I know of bird behaviour/habitat, a raven is quite at home in the mountains. At the point in the Bible when the raven was let go, it stated that only the mountain tops were showing, that the waters weren't completely receded. Furthermore, I think a raven would have a longer flight range than a dove. So my first thought/assumption was that a raven would be better equipped to send out first, with only the higher, more rugged terrain showing above the waters.

But I don't know why I went through that quick stream of consciousness...I'm far from sold on a literal flood. :)

Even if the story is a metaphor, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be elements of realism included. After all, the most effective metaphors are things that people can relate to and, thus, grounded in some level of reality. Certainly, some of the scriptures seem to take this approach, and are not quite like the parables of Jesus or the stories told by Buddha, which often are not intended to be realistic or even partially historical. So, I don't see your idea that the Great Flood is a generally metaphorical tale, even while looking at the bird issue from a more scientific perspective, as really being inconsistant. They can work together. :)

Personally, I'm agnostic on most of the issues of "Did this literally happen?". It's enough to me that it's part of our heritage as Christians and conveys spiritual truth. :) It it literally happened, it happened and if it didn't, well, it's still true to me in a very deep spiritual way. :)

John

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 03:02 AM

I'm just rehashing a lot of what's been said, but here was my take on the reading: I have a lot of trouble figuring out what to do with the early parts of Genesis. Honestly, if I were to read the stories of these early chapters literally, after about Genesis 2, I wouldn't like God very much. How can we understand God deeming his creation good, and then seeing fit to destroy all of it? How can we understand God deeming humanity very good, and then kicking them out of the house (metaphorically) upon the first act of disobedience? How can we understand God accepting Abel's offering and rejecting Cain's offering for no discernible reason? For me, it makes more sense in terms of explaining how we feel in relation to God, because sometimes it feels like our disobedience has alienated us entirely from God, sometimes it feels like tragedies are God's punishment for our wickedness, and sometimes it feels like God's approval and disapproval are arbitrary.

Well, I look at it this way: If we believe in God and an afterlife, then death doesn't necessarily have quite the same meaning. Okay, he wiped out a bunch of people in the flood, but maybe in doing so he found a way to redeem them and now they're in heaven playing harps or something. For human beings, killing is usually an evil act, but for God, who has a much greater perspective on such things and much greater power over people's ultimate destination after death, it probably depends more on the circumstances involved. :)

The other thing to stop and consider is that God had a very specific goal in mind at the time, the redemption of all humankind, restoring us to goodness and eternal life. He may have seen that things were taking a left turn that would have been impossible to correct as things were, thereby dooming us all to hell. By wiping the slate clean, that may have been his way of giving us a third chance (The second chance was after Adam and Eve ate the apple).

Or, we can just take it all metaphorically. :) I see that as a possibility as well.

I was also saddened by seeing how quickly human violence and vengeance came onto the scene.

Me, too. It's quite realistic, though. There is a real dark side to human nature.

John

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 03:15 AM

First thought: God strikes me as a capricious teenager in Genesis. He makes man -- but keeps knowledge and life from him.

If we had been given knowledge and eternal life without having had the opportunity to grow spiritually and become good, what do you think we would have done with it? It'd be like handing a six year old the keys to a car and tell him to jump in, something bad is bound to happen! God likely saw this and chose a wiser path for us.

Now, could God have created us perfectly good? Sure! We wouldn't have had free will, though. By giving us the opportunity to learn and to choose good, God is offering us something greater, to be closer to his image than we'd otherwise be able to be.

I guess I'm putting things into a modern moral framework here, but why didn't Noah just disobey God and put other people on the ark?

Noah had faith in God and was saved through God's grace. :) It could be seen as a forshadowing of the New Convenant in a way. :)

Can't wait to get to the NT, Jesus is a lot better!

I'm actually gaining a whole new appreciation for the Old Testament with this. :) I'm really glad we're doing it. :)

John

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 04:11 AM

Just a reminder:

Our "bible study day" ends in just under one hour, so now is the time to get in any last minute comments on today's reading. :) After that, I'd like to request that we try to turn the thread's focus towards the second day's reading to keep things on track. :)

For those who have any additional comments and responses to today's readings or comments and responses to today's posts on the board after the deadline, and for those who miss the chance to post any comments at all before the deadline and wish to do so, the "Bible in 90 Days: Catchup, Overflow, Fellowship, Etc. (http://www.christianforums.com/t2268532-bible-in-90-days-catchup-overflow-fellowship-etc.html)" is an excellent place to share those things. :) By continuing the conversations from previous days on that thread, we'll have an opportunity to explore things in more depth if we wish, while still keeping the traffic on this thread manageable and making sure we cover each day's material on that day. :)

John

LiberatedChick

2nd November 2005, 07:37 AM

IowaLutheran

2nd November 2005, 12:22 PM

Right...day two.

Part that I love is when Abraham is speaking to God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He's like "Hold up one second, what if there's a few good folks amoung the bad, what then?" I love how it goes through saying if there's 50 good then it won't be destroyed...likewise for 45, 40, 30, 20, 10....though when it stopped at ten I was left thinking "hang on...what if there was just one, what then???". Then I read about the angels coming to destroy it and seeing that Lot was a good guy and asking if he had family to save as well as himself...so it's good to see that on coming to the city the angels did find just one and they weren't going to destroy it without trying to get him out of there first. Though that makes me wonder....what if they hadn't have bumped into Lot?

Then I have to smile when I read of Isaac saying his wife Rebekah is his sister...it's like here we go again...

The interesting thing about the Old Testament is how the patriarchal figures like Abraham and Moses argue with God, and sometimes get God to change his mind. Here, Abraham and God are negotiating as if they were on a used car lot. Later, we will read about Moses convincing God to not destroy the Israelites who resort to idolatry.

I always find it ironic when fundamentalists say God never changes his mind, when according to the Bible, he clearly does.

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 12:29 PM

The interesting thing about the Old Testament is how the patriarchal figures like Abraham and Moses argue with God, and sometimes get God to change his mind. Here, Abraham and God are negotiating as if they were on a used car lot. Later, we will read about Moses convincing God to not destroy the Israelites who resort to idolatry.

I always find it ironic when fundamentalists say God never changes his mind, when according to the Bible, he clearly does.i don't think GOD changes HIS mind! i think HE wants us to talk with HIM, discuss things with HIM and yes even argue with HIM. HE wants us to communicate with HIM and HE wants us to think we are important. HE knew that there weren't even 10 faithful people there so HE never changed HIS mind about destroying the cities.

after reading the sodom and g. story are you really sure that GOD did not destroy the adulterous, murdering (abortion) city of New Orleans???

SirTimothy

2nd November 2005, 01:08 PM

after reading the sodom and g. story are you really sure that GOD did not destroy the adulterous, murdering (abortion) city of New Orleans???

Yes.

Timothy

higgs2

2nd November 2005, 01:12 PM

Yes.

Timothy
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SirTimothy again.

IowaLutheran

2nd November 2005, 01:33 PM

i don't think GOD changes HIS mind! i think HE wants us to talk with HIM, discuss things with HIM and yes even argue with HIM. HE wants us to communicate with HIM and HE wants us to think we are important. HE knew that there weren't even 10 faithful people there so HE never changed HIS mind about destroying the cities.

after reading the sodom and g. story are you really sure that GOD did not destroy the adulterous, murdering (abortion) city of New Orleans???

Wait until we get to Exodus. There is a clear-cut case of Moses talking God out of destroying the Israelites because of their idolatry. As you indicate, perhaps God always meant to do that, but the text does not say that.

I don't think Sodom and Gomorrah have anything to do with New Orleans. Jesus would not kill a thousand poor people out of dissatisfaction for what the rest of the city does.

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 03:16 PM

I'm going to post my thoughts first and then go back and read what has been written previously. Please forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said.

Genesis 18- Abraham seemed to know immediately that the 3 men were from God and I'm wondering how he knew?

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Is the problem here that the men are wanting to have sex w/ other men, with angels, or that they are wanting to force themselves on the men? I'm not clear as to why Sodom and Gamorah were destroyed exactly. I get that they were 'wicked', but I was always told it was because of homosexuality, which I don't see as being the defining problem in this situation.

genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

I don't know if the point of this verse is that the men outside wouldn't take the women... what I get out of it is that Lot was sort of a jerk.

Genesis 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

Is this verse saying that God destroyed Sodom and Gamorah because so many people were praying and asking him to?

Genesis 19:30-38 Why is there no anger from God for these girls having sex w/ their father?

Genesis 20 I am fascinated by the fact that Abraham (and later Isaac) keep getting rewarded for this behavior. It seems as though lying and putting other people at risk, not to mention pimping your wife, are not things that bother God so much at all. Also, wasn't Sarah in her 90's at this point????

Genesis 21:15 She put him under a bush? Isn't he a teenager at this point?

Genesis 22:15-17 This entire story makes me think of that lady here in TX who killed her 5 kids because she though God told her to. Of course, she was a wack job, but was she a true and dedicated Christian? Christians don't want to claim her. She did something that she really thought God wanted her to do. The only person I am aware of who ever even came close to such a thing is Abraham and he was blessed just for almost doing it.

A couple things I've noticed....

Any time they discuss a location they are very specific. I wonder if that should/does lend credence to the OT as historically accurate in those cases?

Also, I couldn't help but notice how often a leading role in a story is food or drink... makes me wonder if they were Episcopalian! LOL

Randi

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 03:24 PM

i don't think GOD changes HIS mind! i think HE wants us to talk with HIM, discuss things with HIM and yes even argue with HIM.

I would tend to agree with this. What I got out of that part was that God rather enjoyed the banter he was having w/ Abraham. I don't think he changed his mind at all.

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 03:26 PM

I don't think Sodom and Gomorrah have anything to do with New Orleans. Jesus would not kill a thousand poor people out of dissatisfaction for what the rest of the city does.

And, he probably would have hit another place first. I'm sure N.O. isn't the most sinful place on earth.

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 03:29 PM

Genesis 18- Abraham seemed to know immediately that the 3 men were from God and I'm wondering how he knew?

probably cause GOD wanted HIM to know. I think when GOD talks to us HE helps us know that it was HIM

course another good answer could be found in Matthew 25:31-40

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 03:31 PM

And, he probably would have hit another place first. I'm sure N.O. isn't the most sinful place on earth.HE did HE hit NYC 9/11 (and that one seemed more obvious to me cause the number of people that died that day is the amount of Abortions (murders IMHO) that hapen in the USA daily.

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 03:36 PM

HE did HE hit NYC 9/11 (and that one seemed more obvious to me cause the number of people that died that day is the amount of Abortions (murders IMHO) that hapen in the USA daily.

Wow. :eek:

You probably shouldn't have gone there...

{trying to hold myself back}

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:27 PM

Genesis 17:1 it's interesting God says walk BEFORE me rather than with.

Circumcision - Interesting to note it is done on infants. Usually things done in the OT are symbolic of an act of something yet to come in the NT. Personally i don't believe in infant baptism so how this relates to today i would see as having a baby dedication to the Lord and setting the child apart for the Lord.

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Abraham's prophecy of Christ?

Another thing i noticed was the symbolism. It seems that Abraham the father of many represents God the Father, Ishamel represents Adam and Issac (who God made his covenant with) represents Jesus, the Son, especially when Abraham is asked to sacrifice Issac.

Gen 24:22 Rebekkah is given a nose ring, some christians are opposed to piercings, does this mean piercing is acceptable?

higgs2

2nd November 2005, 04:30 PM

HE did HE hit NYC 9/11 (and that one seemed more obvious to me cause the number of people that died that day is the amount of Abortions (murders IMHO) that hapen in the USA daily.
Um, could you possibly put this somewhere else, maybe a debate forum? THis is so inappropriate here.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:31 PM

HE did HE hit NYC 9/11 (and that one seemed more obvious to me cause the number of people that died that day is the amount of Abortions (murders IMHO) that hapen in the USA daily.

I think that God allows things to happen when we reject his protection through sin rather than actually 'hit' places. You can't possibly think the 9/11 terrorists were doing God's will?

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 04:31 PM

Genesis 17:1 it's interesting God says walk BEFORE me rather than with.

Circumcision - Interesting to note it is done on infants. Usually things done in the OT are symbolic of an act of something yet to come in the NT. Personally i don't believe in infant baptism so how this relates to today i would see as having a baby dedication to the Lord and setting the child apart for the Lord. wow this is interesting. You make the perfect arguement for infant baptism then say you don't believe in it.???

if you understood it the way the catholics do you would see the connection with circumcision even more clearly. Baptism makes the person the child of GOD and takes away all sins including original sin.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:36 PM

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 04:36 PM

Abraham seemed to know immediately that the 3 men were from God and I'm wondering how he knew?

My guess would be that people who are really close to God, like prophets and Apostles and so forth probably sometimes have a bit of a sixth sense about these things. It's a little bit like how if you know someone really well, you may meet one of their relatives and know it's their brother or sister without being told.

Is the problem here that the men are wanting to have sex w/ other men, with angels, or that they are wanting to force themselves on the men?

I think it's the rape that God had the problem with. For what it's worth, though, many Jewish (and some Christian) scholars think the whole passage is about "radical hospitality". I don't really think homosexuality has a whole lot to do with this passage one way or the other, honestly. Maybe one could argue that there's a slight connection. Of course, I haven't done today's reading yet, so I maybe I'll when I reread it today, I'll have a different outlook to share! :)

I don't know if the point of this verse is that the men outside wouldn't take the women... what I get out of it is that Lot was sort of a jerk.

I think the idea was that he was so welcoming to stangers, which was an important value in the middle east back then (Due to the harsh climate), that he'd risk his own daughters, who were very precious to him, before allowing his guests to come to harm. The message isn't I don't think that he actually should have offered his own daughters, which would be a really horrible message when one thinks about it, but that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and be willing to sacrifice what is precious to us to provide for them.

I am fascinated by the fact that Abraham (and later Isaac) keep getting rewarded for this behavior. It seems as though lying and putting other people at risk, not to mention pimping your wife, are not things that bother God so much at all. Also, wasn't Sarah in her 90's at this point????

The fact that this story is repeated so much and seems to have a mixed message morally (The good part of the "mixed message" is that it does seem to speak out against adultery) leads me to believe that it's probably literal history. The other reason it was probably rememebered is because the Israelites always seemed to be under another nation's thumb in most parts of history and her people probably enjoyed hearing about God's prophets fool the Phaoroh and wind up richer for their troubles! :) It's sort of a nationalistic story, in a way.

This entire story makes me think of that lady here in TX who killed her 5 kids because she though God told her to. Of course, she was a wack job, but was she a true and dedicated Christian? Christians don't want to claim her. She did something that she really thought God wanted her to do. The only person I am aware of who ever even came close to such a thing is Abraham and he was blessed just for almost doing it.

I haven't gotten to this part yet, but I'm assuming this is the story of Abraham and Jacob. :) It's probably the most difficult story in the entire bible for me to handle. I try to understand it as symbolic of the idea that Abraham would have offered anything for God and done whatever he asked, such was his faith and love for God, and leave it at that. Thinking about it too much troubles me, I must admit, because the story is disturbing on a lot of levels if it's literal.

As far as I know, the only part of the bible which seems to have been mostly disproven as a literal depiction of events thus far, from historical or scientific evidence, is the story of creation. Everything else may have happened to some extent or another. I understand that some folks are even claiming geological evidence of a Great Flood, though what they point to only covered a lot of the Middle East and not th entire world. Much of the actual historical and scientific evidence of the bible is related to the New Testament, though. Most of the Old Testament is in that murky area of "We can't prove it literally happened that way, but we can't prove that it didn't either".

[QUOTE]Also, I couldn't help but notice how often a leading role in a story is food or drink... makes me wonder if they were Episcopalian! LOL

Well, of course they were Episcopalians! ;) Jesus was an Episcopalian, too, you know. ;)

John

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 04:42 PM

Gen 24:22 Rebekkah is given a nose ring, some christians are opposed to piercings, does this mean piercing is acceptable?

o my goodness i had never noticed that before!! and didn't even notice it today when i read it.

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 04:42 PM

What I got out of that part was that God rather enjoyed the banter he was having w/ Abraham.

That's a good point. :) One of the strong senses I get of God in the Old Testament is that he has a sense of humor and really finds human beings amusing in kind of a sad tragic way. Look at the people who chooses to be his prophets! They're often really "characters" in the sense that they have unique and strong personalities; and a lot of gumption and gall! :) I hope it's not too unorthodox a thought to say it, but somethings I think of God up in heaven smiling waning, shaking his head slightly, and saying something like "There those wacky humans go again. Will they ever learn?". :) He isn't happy when we sin, but he does have a deep and abiding love for us, I feel. I have to think, having made us, he cuts us quite a bit of slack.

John

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 04:47 PM

All the Baptisms in the NT were done on adults who had conciously made a choice. How can you be forgiven of a sin without first repenting and ASKING?

Circumcision is dedication and setting apart, whereas baptism represents death to the flesh and life in Christ. Not all babies who get christened go on to live a life in Christ.Paul baptised at least two whole families how do you know that none of them were babies? and not all adults who get baptised go on to live a life in Christ.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:47 PM

o my goodness i had never noticed that before!! and didn't even notice it today when i read it.

Yeah, i think in some bibles it says earring instead of nose ring which is probably why i never really noticed it until today.

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 04:52 PM

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Abraham's prophecy of Christ?

Good catch! It's amazing how much of even the earliest Hebrew scriptures can be related to Jesus. It's like God was dropping little hints. :) You can almost picture him mischiefiously thinking "Wait until they finally understand what that one really means". :)

Issac (who God made his covenant with) represents Jesus, the Son, especially when Abraham is asked to sacrifice Issac.

I've seen some folks state that it was almost like a convenant. Because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son out of love for God, God sacrificed his own son out of love for man.

Gen 24:22 Rebekkah is given a nose ring, some christians are opposed to piercings, does this mean piercing is acceptable?

I think for Christians, piercings are a cultural thing, like eating meat vs. being a vegitarian. Both are having them and not having them are equally acceptable, in my view.

John

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 04:53 PM

I think that God allows things to happen when we reject his protection through sin rather than actually 'hit' places. You can't possibly think the 9/11 terrorists were doing God's will?:scratch: are we reading the same Bible. Who burned Sodom and Gomorrah???

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:55 PM

Paul baptised at least two whole families how do you know that none of them were babies? and not all adults who get baptised go on to live a life in Christ.

Yeah, i've heard that arguement before but it's a rather weak arguement for infant baptism considering there is no specific mention of babies, also the baptisms in the bible always seem to imply full immersion 'coming up out of the water' it'd be difficult to do that to an infant. Christ taught by example, why then was he not baptized until he was in his 30's if infant baptism was the way he wanted it done?

It's true that not all who get baptised go on to live a life in Christ but those who have made a concious decision are more likely to continue to follow him.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 04:56 PM

:scratch: are we reading the same Bible. Who burned Sodom and Gomorrah???

The sinners who rejected His protection.

Fish and Bread

2nd November 2005, 04:58 PM

lonnienord

2nd November 2005, 05:02 PM

The sinners who rejected His protection.
Genesis 19:14 could someone quote the NIV?

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 05:03 PM

thing i noticed was the symbolism. It seems that Abraham the father of many represents God the Father, Ishamel represents Adam and Issac (who God made his covenant with) represents Jesus, the Son, especially when Abraham is asked to sacrifice Issac.

I didn't pick up on that.... very nice catch.

Gen 24:22 Rebekkah is given a nose ring, some christians are opposed to piercings, does this mean piercing is acceptable?

I would take it to mean that... of course, I'm a little biased.

Randi

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 05:03 PM

Infant baptism has been a controversial subject for many centuries in Christian circles. I don't think we're going to settle it one way or the other in a day. :) Maybe we should at least consider starting a seperate thread about it so that the study doesn't get too far off-track? :) I could easily see this discussion lasting for many pages. :)

John

Yeah, sorry. I don't really want to debate it because it's one of those things that has been done too many times, that we are never going to agree on except through God. It would be more productive to focus on the areas that unite us as Christians rather than divide us.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 05:05 PM

Genesis 19:14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. could someone quote the NIV?

Why did he destroy it? Who really caused the destruction?

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 05:19 PM

Why did he destroy it? Who really caused the destruction?

What I got out of the story was that the towns were so sinful and repulsive that people were praying for the destruction. Genesis 19:13 says "because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against it's people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." I read that and think that the people there were so aweful that God was getting so many complaints he decided to destroy it for the sake of the good people who were around there.

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 05:30 PM

What I got out of the story was that the towns were so sinful and repulsive that people were praying for the destruction. Genesis 19:13 says "because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against it's people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." I read that and think that the people there were so aweful that God was getting so many complaints he decided to destroy it for the sake of the good people who were around there.

Interesting, but God also said that for the sake of 10 he would spare the city so destroying the city was obviously only a last resort, caused by sin, as it wasn't His will to destroy the city, but the will of man as the wages of sin are death.

Velo Princesse

2nd November 2005, 05:45 PM

Interesting, but God also said that for the sake of 10 he would spare the city so destroying the city was obviously only a last resort, caused by sin, as it wasn't His will to destroy the city, but the will of man as the wages of sin are death.

The people in the city were sinners, the good surrounding people were praying, God destroyed the city. So, you could argue that the city was destroyed because of the sin of the people, or that it was destroyed because of the prayers of the Holy. Ultimately, does God do anything that isn't in His will? I mean, he's God! No one forced him to destroy the city, it was his will. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done it. However, I think it was his will as a result of the will of man.... In other words, it was the will of man to ravage the city w/ sin and that resulted in it being the will of God to destroy it.

Obviously, as he is God, when he was talking w/ Abraham he already knew that there were not 10 in the city. He already knew he was going to spare Lot. I don't think Abraham really had anything to do w/ that. Sort of like how if my kids ask to watch something on TV that I know isn't on I can say "If it's on I'll let you watch it." That appeases them, but it doesn't change the outcome of the situation.

Randi

Nice Dream

2nd November 2005, 06:08 PM

The people in the city were sinners, the good surrounding people were praying, God destroyed the city. So, you could argue that the city was destroyed because of the sin of the people, or that it was destroyed because of the prayers of the Holy. Ultimately, does God do anything that isn't in His will? I mean, he's God! No one forced him to destroy the city, it was his will. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done it. However, I think it was his will as a result of the will of man.... In other words, it was the will of man to ravage the city w/ sin and that resulted in it being the will of God to destroy it.

Obviously, as he is God, when he was talking w/ Abraham he already knew that there were not 10 in the city. He already knew he was going to spare Lot. I don't think Abraham really had anything to do w/ that. Sort of like how if my kids ask to watch something on TV that I know isn't on I can say "If it's on I'll let you watch it." That appeases them, but it doesn't change the outcome of the situation.

Randi

Yeah i agree with what you have written. I probably should have written that the destruction of the city was not his initial will or plan for those people, but even when we do things against His will He can transform them and adapt them to His will cause you are right in what you say about God not doing things against His will.