A Few Questions From Gen.

Sounds to me that He created the man first then created the woman from him as the bible says. Remember a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

I can't address #2 without some research.

I believe it had to do with his strong faith and walk with God. Abram was a sinner like all of us. But the Lord makes mention of his strong faith and willingness to obey. Hope I helped and didn't confuse.:wavey:

 

Dianna the Genesis 2 account is just a more detailed account of what happened in Genesis 1. As for question No. 3 God chooses different people for different purposes in life. So I don't think we are going to be able to know why God choose Abraham in that instance until we are able to ask Him.

God's continued blessings to you as you seek His face!

 

II Peter 3:8 - But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

A lot of people say this is just a saying that is not to be taken literally, but that God is outside of time, but I believe when you take the Bible as a whole that it shows us that this is to be taken as a literal statement, especially when talking about the septenary arrangment of Scripture.

If you would like more information just drop me a PM or an email.

 

1) Gen 1 & 2 are two different tellings of the same creation events (at least this is a common view)

2)Ham disrespeced his father - greatly. His son Canaan would take after his father and that would be to his curse.

3) We are never told why God chose Abraham. Abraham only has faith after God chose Him. The point of God choosing Abraham is that Abraham did nothing to deserve the choosing. In fact, scholars who study OT stuff, often believe that Abraham most likely worshiped a false God (there's support for this - but too much to get into here). Hmmm....being choosen even though you've done nothing to deserve it....sounds quite a bit like salvation through Christ...

 

Careful;

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

 

Actually the thousand year bit IS NOT to be taken literally. Let me show you:

There are two scriptures that depict time with regard to God:

and again Here:

If we take this litterally instead of metaphorically as it is represented in the scripture we have to figue for three types of time that ALL equal 1000 years.

One day - 1000 yrs
as Yesterday - 1000 yrs
a watch (3 hours - 1000 yrs

How do we know this is to be taken metaphorical? By the little word - [as]
examples: His eyes were as fire - His voice is as a mighty river, ect...

What the text is simply stating is that there is no temporal time with God. A relevent example is: Have you ever been at a point of worship (prayer, praise, song, ect...) and it seem like minutes but it was actaully much longer or vise versa, what seemed like hours were actaully only minutes. It is not so much about be OUTSIDE of time as it depicts time is of no real importance when we are in the presense of God.

With due regard to Gen and the creation story. Remember that when the scriptures were first penned there was no chapters or verses. These were added as helps to find scripture with greater ease. So set this aside for a moment and look at this particular style of Jewish writting as we see it many times in scripture -
The author will tell the intended party something then go back and detail again but with emphasis on what was most important. In Gen. we see the creation account in order then it does it all again but somewhat backwards and with much greater emphasis on Man or mankind - specifically and only Adam first then Eve. It shows man as God most prized possesion and Jewel of the Garden in Eden and that all creation was made FOR man - It shows purpose of Man and creation. If you actually want a more consise and exact rendering of historical, writing styles, and implication just let me know and I can do that. Just be prepared as it entails quite a bit. I may just find a good internet sourse and point you to it. :thumbsup:

Now as to why Abram was chosen - well in truth it is God perogitive to choose whom He will to fulfill His purpose and or ministry. Kinda like Why did God use me to to share the Gospel with a friend and they come to know Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour when He could have used many others. All I can say is - He just did.

With regard to Canaan and Ham. Why exactly Canaan was cursed is what is called an argument from silence or the scripture does not specifically state this. Scripture simply states that Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. It may be that Canaan saw Noah drunk and naked first and told his dad who in turn told his brothers but should have taken pains to hide his fathers sin rather than 'him' making it publically known.

All we can infer is that Canaan had "some" part he played in it and it was before his father Ham told his brothers. So Canaan was cursed but understand Ham was in a sense cursed as well. Ham was not blessed by his father Noah like his brothers were, and the cursing of Canaan was a curse to Ham as his son was under his authority and the extender of his lineage and reputation. So we can see why he was not blessed but was actaully a partaker of Canaans curse..

 

I'm all for comparing Scripture with Scripture as I think that is what we are instructed to do. However, we must compare like Scripture with like Scripture. The two Scriptures that Allan (and many other Christians and even Bible cross references) have compared are like comparing apples and oranges. The contexts aren't the same and therefore can not be compared for the sake of saying that God is outside of time.

While God Himself is outside of time He does operate within time, more than likely for our sake. There are all kinds of time references in Scriptures.

As for the little word "as" in II Peter 3:8 showing us that it is not a literal statement . . . that is not entirely accurate. That little word "as" can mean even as or just as. The third meaning is just simply as. So two of the three meanings of that word is a direct correlation, not simply a passing comparison.

Again II Peter 3:8 is critical in our understanding of the septenary arrangment of Scripture.

 

only a couple? LOL....

In the 1930's a man named Wiseman was researching ancient tablets in Mesopotamia and came upon something very interesting. The most ancient tablets we have are different from all the others. Most writings, going back quite far, have the author's name at the beginning, as well as a title of some kind. However the most ancient tablets have both the 'title' and author's name at the bottom.

When we look at Genesis, that is what we see. And there is good evidence from this as well as other things that Genesis is a series of eyewitness accounts. Curt Sewell did a good job explaining the research on this. He died a year ago, but Lambert Dolphin has his essay on his website here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

If we take this seriously, then it is evident that God Himself was the author of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a and that it was Adam who started the next tablet at Genesis 2:4b (remember the chapter and verse designations are from men, not God). Adam signs of in Genesis 5:1a. So what we have in Genesis 1 is God telling us what happened. Then Adam tells us what he remembers in the next few chapters. That is why the stories seem a little different. They are two different points of view, though. Not two different stories. If the Tablet Hypothesis is correct, Genesis has about 11 eyewitness authors, each of whom, except the last, sign off. The book is considered one of the books of Moses as he was the editor and collator of the tablets, as well as the writer of the next four books of the Bible. Thus he handed down all five to the following generations.

There is a clue here in Jewish writings which are not in the Bible. The story is that, perhaps, the covering, or coat, that God made Adam was passed down as a sign of authority through the years. That may be, in part, what Genesis 5 is recording. Thus, Noah would have received it, as the only righteous man left in his time. When Noah accidently becomes drunk and passes out, the most ancient and most of the modern translations correctly mention that when his two sons covered him up, they took THE garment or cloak and covered him -- not A garment or cloak. If this is the case, then what Ham did was try to steal the cloak of authority from his father, in which case it would have passed down to his son, Canaan. When Noah cursed Canaan, then, to become a slave, he was telling Ham that not only did he NOT have the authority, but that his sons also would not have it and, in fact, it would be the reverse; they would be slaves.

This may not be true, but it is part of the extra-biblical writings and it does help make sense of what happened and then what Noah said. To 'gaze on one's nakedness' was not necessarily a literal statement as it was also an ancient euphemism for beholding the weakness or powerlessness of someone. Noah may not have been physically naked when he passed out, but he most certainly was weak and defenseless at that point and in no position to claim authority. If the ancient accounts are true, what Ham was doing was trying to usurp his father's authority.

My husband was asked to write a study on Abraham by some religious leaders in Australia several years ago. It is on the net, here: http://www.setterfield.org/Abraham.htm
I think it will help answer your questions.

Here is a quote from some of the beginning, which may help:


Abram (as his name was at first) was born to Terah in the city of Ur of the Chaldees. While still in Ur, Abram married his very beautiful half-sister Sarai. We seldom stop to think what that great city Ur was like. Sir Charles Leonard Woolley, the famed archaeologist, led a joint Anglo-American expedition that finally started to uncover Ur of the Chaldees in the spring of 1929. Throughout the city, open squares broke the line of streets. The huge ziggurat or staged tower, with its black, red, and blue blocks, and fringe of trees, was built by king Ur-Nammu for the worship of the Moon-god, Nannar. It was the focus of a semi-circle of five enormous temples. The largest temple, dedicated to the Moon-goddess, Ningal, the wife of Nannar, was a rectangle 100 yards by 60 yards, with walls whose thickness was appropriate for a fortress. Since the daughter of the moon-god and goddess was Ishtar (Asherah), the fertility goddess, it is hardly surprising that clay tablets indicate that prostitution, and perversion were linked with the temple complex.

Clay tablets also indicate that the temple site was the main focal-point for trade. Other tablets in the immense library at Ur reveal that the principle enunciated by Pythagoras about triangles some 1500 years later was already well-known and used in the construction industry. Many mathematical tables, including formulae for the extraction of square and cube roots, historical data, genealogical information, temple hymns, and trade and diplomatic documents abounded in the library. These tablets reveal a very well-educated, literate, musical, and mathematically competent society. Indeed, in the social life of ancient Ur, boys were expected to go to school. A large building was actually set aside for this specific purpose.

The houses revealed comfort, and even luxury. Many were two-storied with up to 14 rooms, and some even had a system of large clay pipes for the removal of water and drainage. The lower floor was solidly built of burnt brick, the upper floor of mud-brick. The walls were neatly coated with plaster and periodically white-washed. The front door and entrance hall led into an attractively paved inner court, around which could be found the reception room, the living rooms, private rooms and a domestic chapel. Up a stone staircase, which concealed the toilet, was a gallery from which branched off rooms for various members of the family and the guest rooms. A wooden balustrade running round the upper story protected those rooms from the courtyard. A wide variety of ornaments with precious stones, and beautiful gold, and silver jewellery were fairly common, while the more wealthy inhabitants of the city possessed 11-stringed lyres for music.

His background: It was in this city that Abram was born, grew up and was educated. “We must radically alter,” the archaeologist Woolley wrote enthusiastically, “our view of the Hebrew patriarch when we see that his earlier years were passed in such sophisticated surroundings. He was the citizen of a great city and inherited the traditions of an old and highly organised civilisation.” In Hebrews 11, the Bible states that Abram turned his back on this idolatrous city and set out, not knowing where he was going, because he trusted in God. He also knew that God had built an eternal city which was the home of righteousness. This contrasted sharply with the licentiousness, idolatry, and iniquity of bustling Ur. In that same passage, the Bible states that, if Abraham had wanted it, he might have been given opportunity to return to Ur, but he spurned the notion, having chosen the Celestial City instead. This gives us a good idea of Abram’s early character and sense of values.

 

Umm...I don't quite get what you're getting at...what am I missing?

What does this verse have to do with what I said about why God chose Abraham? This is after God chose Abraham. The only reason Abraham is blessed is because God chose him. God didn't choose him because he was already blessed.