I have pointed out in another post that Paul speaks in several places of "sin" (hAMARTIA) as "an evil alien that lives in our muscles."
I've also blogged about how Paul sees a sharp dichotomy between the "flesh" (which is the clay body) and the "breath" (commonly mistranslated as "spirit").
Now I have discovered who "Mr. Sin" is... he is "the mind of the flesh." In Paul's view of things, the body has a mind of its own:
Romans 5:
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because ***the carnal mind*** is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
See? To Paul, the body has its own mind, which is concerned with its own interests. This "flesh-mind" is none other than the evil Dr. Moriarty, Lex Luthor, the Joker and of course, "Mr. Sin!"
Sunday, September 26, 2010
My own take on Romans 4
I'm not sure about the textual issues or the grammar, but I'm dazzled by the allusion to "what Abe found" in Genesis 18:3. He asks the lord [YHVH]:
"And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:"
And, of course, they do not pass away but instead stay, eat and bless him with a son in his old age, implying that he has **found XARIS**.
So the question is, what did he "find"? Did he find "approval" for his "works" or "law keeping" etc? Well, if he did, then he has something to glory about, right? (Though not while he is standing in front of the lord!)
So we are left to understand that what he "found" was "generosity."
And Paul uses David's assertion that the forgiveness of sins is a "blessing" and not one's due.
If I am correct, that this is the background and logic, the passage is clear, even in the KJV :
1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath "found"?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [ie: "but he wouldn't glory like that before God"]
3 For what saith the scripture? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace ["generosity"], but of debt ["because it is due"].
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
This is the immediate argument, but he continues with the passage when he refers to Sarah's conception in their old age:
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
I think this gives tight cohesion to the whole chapter.
"And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:"
And, of course, they do not pass away but instead stay, eat and bless him with a son in his old age, implying that he has **found XARIS**.
So the question is, what did he "find"? Did he find "approval" for his "works" or "law keeping" etc? Well, if he did, then he has something to glory about, right? (Though not while he is standing in front of the lord!)
So we are left to understand that what he "found" was "generosity."
And Paul uses David's assertion that the forgiveness of sins is a "blessing" and not one's due.
If I am correct, that this is the background and logic, the passage is clear, even in the KJV :
1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath "found"?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [ie: "but he wouldn't glory like that before God"]
3 For what saith the scripture? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace ["generosity"], but of debt ["because it is due"].
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
This is the immediate argument, but he continues with the passage when he refers to Sarah's conception in their old age:
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
I think this gives tight cohesion to the whole chapter.
More on NT Wright's perspective on Romans 4:1
This was discussed at length at B-Greek:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2010-September/054475.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2010-September/054475.html
Saturday, September 25, 2010
N.T. Wright discusses Romans 4:1
NT Wright wrote the commentary on Romans for the New Interpreter’s Bible. Here is his response, with citations below to Hays, at length (reproduced here by permission of Abingdon Press):
4:1. “What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” This is not, of course, what any of the commentaries or translations say, but it has a strong claim to represent Paul’s mind.142 Three reasons stand out. First, it introduces the chapter Paul is writing, as opposed to the one that many think he should have written; in other words, a chapter about the scope and nature of Abraham’s family, rather than a chapter about “justification by faith” as a doctrine about how people become Christians. This, as we shall see, results in the straightforward solution of at least one major exegetical problem. Second, it recognizes that when Paul introduces an argument with ti”v ou\n ejrou’men ti oun eroumen, “what then shall we say?” this phrase is frequently complete in itself, requiring a question mark at once. (There is, of course, no punctuation in the earliest mss.)
Obvious examples are 6:1; 7:7; see also tiv ou\n (ti oun) in 3:9. Third, it avoids at a stroke the awkwardness of sense, and hence of translation, in the usual readings (of which the NRSV and the NIV are typical) in which Abraham is the subject of euJrhke”nai heure kenai, “to have found,” rather than the object as in the reading proposed; since it is not clear what “to have found” could possibly mean in this context, the sense of the verb has to be stretched as in the NRSV (“was gained by”) and NIV (“discovered”), neither of which lead in to what Paul is actually going to say.143 The proposal, then, is that Paul raises in v. 1 a possible conclusion that could be drawn from what has been said so far, in order to argue against it.
At this point, however, I diverge from the meaning Hays gives to his own proposed reading. He suggests that Paul wants to say “Have we Jews normally considered Abraham to be our forefather only according to the flesh?” I suggest, rather, that the whole of Romans 4 hinges on the question, whether 3:21-31 means that we Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, now find that we are to be members of the fleshly family of Abraham (note how the word “find” suddenly makes perfect sense).144 In other words (Paul is proposing this as a hypothetical question), if in Christ God has been true to the covenant with Abraham, might that not mean, as the Galatians had been led to believe, that members of the Christ-family in fact belong to Abraham’s fleshly family? When we read Romans 4 as the answer to this question, it gains in coherence and force.145
4:2. Verses 2-8 are regularly appealed to by those who still argue that Paul was after all attacking a theology of self-help legalism, in which “righteousness” is earned by moral effort. By themselves these verses might indeed bear that sense. But within the present argument they are much better understood as a further metaphorical expansion, rather than the inner substance, of Paul’s point.
Paul’s main argument is that “works” (i.e., of Torah) were not the reason for Abraham’s justification; and the idea of “working” is then expanded metaphorically in vv. 4-5 into the idea of doing a job for which one earns wages. The critical connection is established with “for” at the start of v. 2 (“in fact” in the NIV is a loose way of making the same point) and depends on the link between “works of Torah” and “Jews only” that Paul had established in the immediately preceding verses. It is ethnic Jews who possess Torah; so if Abraham were the forefather of an ethnic family only, this family would be defined by Torah, and hence defined visibly by Torah’s “works.” Thus (v. 2a) if Abraham was reckoned to be in covenant with God (i.e., was justified) on the basis of works of Torah, he and his family would be able to “boast,” in the way that Paul described in 2:17-20 and then firmly excluded in 3:27-30. Verse 2a, in other words, explains the question of v. 1, as follows: If Abraham’s covenant membership was indeed defined in terms of “works of Torah” (v. 2a), then he and his family would be able to sustain an ethnic boast, and so (v. 1) any Gentiles wishing to belong to this family would then have to consider themselves ethnic Jews–would, in other words, need to become proselytes, with the males among them becoming circumcised.
Paul’s response, to be filled out as usual in what follows, is brusque: “but not before (lit., “toward”) God,” i.e., “not as far as God is concerned.” Verse 2b is thus Paul’s initial reaction to the suggestion, rather than part of the “if . . . then” clause of the earlier part of the verse.146 This now forces Paul into saying what is true “before God,” to cut the ground from under any potential ethnic boast, and to establish once and for all the non-ethnic nature of Abraham’s true family, on the basis of the original covenant itself.
Notes
142. See esp. Richard B. Hays, “ ‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 (1985) 76-98. See also Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 54-55. The suggestion goes back at least to J. A. Bain, “Romans iv. 1,” Expository Times 5 (1893—94) 430. It is not clear that subsequent commentators (e.g. Byrne, Fitzmyer, Moo, Bryan) have recognized the force or point of Hays’s proposal; the same is true of S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 234, 242, who unlike them claims to follow it.
143. Abraam is indeclinable in Greek, and hence its grammatical role in the sentence is unclear until defined from elsewhere.
144. R. B. Hays, “Adam, Israel, Christ,” in Pauline Theology Volume III: Romans, ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 81, has graciously accepted my amendment of his proposal.
4:1. “What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” This is not, of course, what any of the commentaries or translations say, but it has a strong claim to represent Paul’s mind.142 Three reasons stand out. First, it introduces the chapter Paul is writing, as opposed to the one that many think he should have written; in other words, a chapter about the scope and nature of Abraham’s family, rather than a chapter about “justification by faith” as a doctrine about how people become Christians. This, as we shall see, results in the straightforward solution of at least one major exegetical problem. Second, it recognizes that when Paul introduces an argument with ti”v ou\n ejrou’men ti oun eroumen, “what then shall we say?” this phrase is frequently complete in itself, requiring a question mark at once. (There is, of course, no punctuation in the earliest mss.)
Obvious examples are 6:1; 7:7; see also tiv ou\n (ti oun) in 3:9. Third, it avoids at a stroke the awkwardness of sense, and hence of translation, in the usual readings (of which the NRSV and the NIV are typical) in which Abraham is the subject of euJrhke”nai heure kenai, “to have found,” rather than the object as in the reading proposed; since it is not clear what “to have found” could possibly mean in this context, the sense of the verb has to be stretched as in the NRSV (“was gained by”) and NIV (“discovered”), neither of which lead in to what Paul is actually going to say.143 The proposal, then, is that Paul raises in v. 1 a possible conclusion that could be drawn from what has been said so far, in order to argue against it.
At this point, however, I diverge from the meaning Hays gives to his own proposed reading. He suggests that Paul wants to say “Have we Jews normally considered Abraham to be our forefather only according to the flesh?” I suggest, rather, that the whole of Romans 4 hinges on the question, whether 3:21-31 means that we Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, now find that we are to be members of the fleshly family of Abraham (note how the word “find” suddenly makes perfect sense).144 In other words (Paul is proposing this as a hypothetical question), if in Christ God has been true to the covenant with Abraham, might that not mean, as the Galatians had been led to believe, that members of the Christ-family in fact belong to Abraham’s fleshly family? When we read Romans 4 as the answer to this question, it gains in coherence and force.145
4:2. Verses 2-8 are regularly appealed to by those who still argue that Paul was after all attacking a theology of self-help legalism, in which “righteousness” is earned by moral effort. By themselves these verses might indeed bear that sense. But within the present argument they are much better understood as a further metaphorical expansion, rather than the inner substance, of Paul’s point.
Paul’s main argument is that “works” (i.e., of Torah) were not the reason for Abraham’s justification; and the idea of “working” is then expanded metaphorically in vv. 4-5 into the idea of doing a job for which one earns wages. The critical connection is established with “for” at the start of v. 2 (“in fact” in the NIV is a loose way of making the same point) and depends on the link between “works of Torah” and “Jews only” that Paul had established in the immediately preceding verses. It is ethnic Jews who possess Torah; so if Abraham were the forefather of an ethnic family only, this family would be defined by Torah, and hence defined visibly by Torah’s “works.” Thus (v. 2a) if Abraham was reckoned to be in covenant with God (i.e., was justified) on the basis of works of Torah, he and his family would be able to “boast,” in the way that Paul described in 2:17-20 and then firmly excluded in 3:27-30. Verse 2a, in other words, explains the question of v. 1, as follows: If Abraham’s covenant membership was indeed defined in terms of “works of Torah” (v. 2a), then he and his family would be able to sustain an ethnic boast, and so (v. 1) any Gentiles wishing to belong to this family would then have to consider themselves ethnic Jews–would, in other words, need to become proselytes, with the males among them becoming circumcised.
Paul’s response, to be filled out as usual in what follows, is brusque: “but not before (lit., “toward”) God,” i.e., “not as far as God is concerned.” Verse 2b is thus Paul’s initial reaction to the suggestion, rather than part of the “if . . . then” clause of the earlier part of the verse.146 This now forces Paul into saying what is true “before God,” to cut the ground from under any potential ethnic boast, and to establish once and for all the non-ethnic nature of Abraham’s true family, on the basis of the original covenant itself.
Notes
142. See esp. Richard B. Hays, “ ‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 (1985) 76-98. See also Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 54-55. The suggestion goes back at least to J. A. Bain, “Romans iv. 1,” Expository Times 5 (1893—94) 430. It is not clear that subsequent commentators (e.g. Byrne, Fitzmyer, Moo, Bryan) have recognized the force or point of Hays’s proposal; the same is true of S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 234, 242, who unlike them claims to follow it.
143. Abraam is indeclinable in Greek, and hence its grammatical role in the sentence is unclear until defined from elsewhere.
144. R. B. Hays, “Adam, Israel, Christ,” in Pauline Theology Volume III: Romans, ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 81, has graciously accepted my amendment of his proposal.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Exploring Our Matrix: Does the Bible "Teach" Geocentrism?
Christian science fair winner:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/d/r/drs18/BiSciCreation/geocentricLg.jpg
http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/d/r/drs18/BiSciCreation/geocentricLg.jpg
Friday, September 17, 2010
SARX vs PNEUMA
Let's talk about SARX vs PNEUMA.
Paul penned:
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
"flesh" (SARX) v "Spirit" (PNEUMA). Is this an accurate rendering?
What about these?
New International Version (©1984)
For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.
New Living Translation (©2007)
The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.
Is Paul discussing "flesh" or "sinful nature"?
"sinful nature" is ostensibly an attempt to more accurately render SARX, which, we are to understand, is actually a technical term which is more properly rendered "sinful nature."
I consider this a case where the translators were not correct. (I also hold that PNEUMA is "breath" not "Spirit").
I consider this modern practice sooooo far off that it masks a profound lack of insight into Paul's views. What is the correct view?
Paul's writings hinge almost entirely on Genesis 2:7:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Man is dirt+breath. Paul refers to man as "flesh+breath" (mistranslated as "sinful nature...Spirit").
His perspective is that the clay/flesh of a person is where sin lives. He calls the body "this body of death."
The unbeliever breathes and is motivated by the air that is from the ruler of this world:
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [air] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
So the sinner is "bad air" in "bad clay [flesh]" while the believer has "holy breath" in "bad clay [flesh]."
This should serve as a cautionary tale for those who want to disconnect too far from scriptural terms.
Paul penned:
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
"flesh" (SARX) v "Spirit" (PNEUMA). Is this an accurate rendering?
What about these?
New International Version (©1984)
For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.
New Living Translation (©2007)
The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.
Is Paul discussing "flesh" or "sinful nature"?
"sinful nature" is ostensibly an attempt to more accurately render SARX, which, we are to understand, is actually a technical term which is more properly rendered "sinful nature."
I consider this a case where the translators were not correct. (I also hold that PNEUMA is "breath" not "Spirit").
I consider this modern practice sooooo far off that it masks a profound lack of insight into Paul's views. What is the correct view?
Paul's writings hinge almost entirely on Genesis 2:7:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Man is dirt+breath. Paul refers to man as "flesh+breath" (mistranslated as "sinful nature...Spirit").
His perspective is that the clay/flesh of a person is where sin lives. He calls the body "this body of death."
The unbeliever breathes and is motivated by the air that is from the ruler of this world:
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [air] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
So the sinner is "bad air" in "bad clay [flesh]" while the believer has "holy breath" in "bad clay [flesh]."
This should serve as a cautionary tale for those who want to disconnect too far from scriptural terms.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
For the Facebook crowd
Larsen's vision of the divine:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mcz5hdLDEdw/TIFwEB-CIII/AAAAAAAABCg/4p86vPC_JIg/s1600/god+on+facebook.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mcz5hdLDEdw/TIFwEB-CIII/AAAAAAAABCg/4p86vPC_JIg/s1600/god+on+facebook.jpg
Hip Church Banners
In order to reach a younger generation, Churches often employ modern graphics and such to show, "Hey, we HAVE a clue!"
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZFwJnchVB60/TIRWjLaV5MI/AAAAAAAACDY/fV0U57gvT9Q/s400/tumblr_l8a5uw0D1Q1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZFwJnchVB60/TIRWjLaV5MI/AAAAAAAACDY/fV0U57gvT9Q/s400/tumblr_l8a5uw0D1Q1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Revelation in a nutshell...
I avoided Revelation for many, many years. Then one day when reading Paul, I realized that he was giving a synopsis of the book, and now I see what it is talking about:
1 Cor 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
The acts of terrorism from the sky are identical in design as Muslim terrorism. That is, the plan is for Jesus to be a "heavenly Bin Laden" to bring about the subjection of the nations to God by broad brush actions of terror and destruction. You see biological and environmental attacks, war, famine, pestilence... all to reduce the nations to subjection. Once completed, Jesus sweeps down with an army and kills all of the muslims in the middle east and sets up the kingdom of God. After a thousand years, Jesus steps down and God himself comes down to live in the new Jerusalem forever. Jesus is demoted from lord to being just another son of man and God is "all in all."
Death and Hades are destroyed and trinitarians are tormented before God day and night foreve
1 Cor 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
The acts of terrorism from the sky are identical in design as Muslim terrorism. That is, the plan is for Jesus to be a "heavenly Bin Laden" to bring about the subjection of the nations to God by broad brush actions of terror and destruction. You see biological and environmental attacks, war, famine, pestilence... all to reduce the nations to subjection. Once completed, Jesus sweeps down with an army and kills all of the muslims in the middle east and sets up the kingdom of God. After a thousand years, Jesus steps down and God himself comes down to live in the new Jerusalem forever. Jesus is demoted from lord to being just another son of man and God is "all in all."
Death and Hades are destroyed and trinitarians are tormented before God day and night foreve
The history, names and ancient persecution of the Roma (a.k.a. Gypsies)
Be sure to read the horrific section on the persecution of Gypsys (Roma). Apparently, persecution of Roma was justified on the grounds that they forged the nails that killed "Christ":
The history, names and ancient persecution of the Roma (a.k.a. Gypsies): ""
Roma continue to be persecuted to this day.
The history, names and ancient persecution of the Roma (a.k.a. Gypsies): ""
Roma continue to be persecuted to this day.
Stewardship
"Stewardship" is not a synonym for "offerings."
1 Cor 16:2 was not about buying the Lutheran Synod a new building but rather a collection for the poor in Jerusalem.
Churches are in the real estate business, ever acquiring more land, more buildings, more goods, more vacation time...
A wise steward knows that this is a bad investment and doesn't give them a dime.
Anyone who lives off the backs of poor working people in order to prepare a weekly sermon (often about "the religious duty of giving") doesn't have a clue about the ministry as taught and patterned by Paul.
1 Cor 16:2 was not about buying the Lutheran Synod a new building but rather a collection for the poor in Jerusalem.
Churches are in the real estate business, ever acquiring more land, more buildings, more goods, more vacation time...
A wise steward knows that this is a bad investment and doesn't give them a dime.
Anyone who lives off the backs of poor working people in order to prepare a weekly sermon (often about "the religious duty of giving") doesn't have a clue about the ministry as taught and patterned by Paul.
Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous? : NPR
Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous? : NPR: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thales
I often mention Thales, so I thought I would post a link to information about his water-based view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales#Water_as_a_first_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales#Water_as_a_first_principle
I posted this about the Genesis account of the making of the sky and land, etc...
The primary feature of the Genesis account is a pre-existent bottomless sea (ala Thales).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales
The second most prominent feature is the causure of the land emerging from that sea and being placed on mysterious foundations:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the **foundations of the earth** [dry land]? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the **foundations of the earth** [dry land], that it should not be removed for ever.
Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth [dry lnad]; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?
The third feature is the stretching out of a solid structure called "the sky" to support the waters above the dry land:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And then we see that God would dwell in the sky, because he made it for a habitation for himself (and his deputies, "angels"):
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth [dry land, not the planet!], and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, **and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in**:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales
The second most prominent feature is the causure of the land emerging from that sea and being placed on mysterious foundations:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the **foundations of the earth** [dry land]? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the **foundations of the earth** [dry land], that it should not be removed for ever.
Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth [dry lnad]; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?
The third feature is the stretching out of a solid structure called "the sky" to support the waters above the dry land:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And then we see that God would dwell in the sky, because he made it for a habitation for himself (and his deputies, "angels"):
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth [dry land, not the planet!], and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, **and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in**:
My take on some of the key themes of prophecy
Re: antichrist:
This is easy. "anti" in Greek means "in the stead of." The antichrist is a false representation of Jesus. It is, in fact, the worshiped Jesus. It is your Jesus. Your god. It sits in the "temple" and professes to be God.
Re: 666
Easy. This is a man-made number - the representation of "Trinity." The worshiped Jesus wears it on his forehead in the place where the real Jesus bears his father's name.
Re: Rapture
Rapture is the most ludicrous of all fallacies. The "meeting in the air" is, according to the Greek, to greet the arriving dignitary and to accompany him to his violent conquest of the middle east. It is the beginning of the Final Crusade, when Jesus kicks the muslims out of Israel and sets up his kingdom for 1000 years.
Re: New Jerusalem
The new Jerusalem is when God's kingdom comes. Jesus will step down and become a plain old citizen just like everyone else, and the dwelling place of God will be with men. God will rule forever. He will rule over all, and rule all alone. See 1 Cor 15, around verse 35.
Re: Ezekiel's temple
That was aborted, never to happen.
The arc of the Revelation is a series of acts of terrorism from the sky in order to reduce the kingdoms of the world into subservient vassal states. They will bring their tribute to the great God but will never be permitted to enter the holy city. They are the "dogs without."
Re: Everlasting torment
Most of the people of the middle east are just destroyed when death and hades are cast into the lake of fire. But Trinitarians will be tormented day and night forever before God.
Sleep tight.
This is easy. "anti" in Greek means "in the stead of." The antichrist is a false representation of Jesus. It is, in fact, the worshiped Jesus. It is your Jesus. Your god. It sits in the "temple" and professes to be God.
Re: 666
Easy. This is a man-made number - the representation of "Trinity." The worshiped Jesus wears it on his forehead in the place where the real Jesus bears his father's name.
Re: Rapture
Rapture is the most ludicrous of all fallacies. The "meeting in the air" is, according to the Greek, to greet the arriving dignitary and to accompany him to his violent conquest of the middle east. It is the beginning of the Final Crusade, when Jesus kicks the muslims out of Israel and sets up his kingdom for 1000 years.
Re: New Jerusalem
The new Jerusalem is when God's kingdom comes. Jesus will step down and become a plain old citizen just like everyone else, and the dwelling place of God will be with men. God will rule forever. He will rule over all, and rule all alone. See 1 Cor 15, around verse 35.
Re: Ezekiel's temple
That was aborted, never to happen.
The arc of the Revelation is a series of acts of terrorism from the sky in order to reduce the kingdoms of the world into subservient vassal states. They will bring their tribute to the great God but will never be permitted to enter the holy city. They are the "dogs without."
Re: Everlasting torment
Most of the people of the middle east are just destroyed when death and hades are cast into the lake of fire. But Trinitarians will be tormented day and night forever before God.
Sleep tight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)