following-Him
Active Member
It is such a shame no-one is posting here. I do hope someone will feel led to make a contribution here in this thread.
Blessings
following-Him
Blessings
following-Him
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Carpenter's Chapel (8)
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
- Status
Genesis 3:1-9
A lot of questions are answered here: Why is there suffering in the world? Why do bad things happen? Why is there massive death and destruction? It all goes back to this event. Mankind became sinners and sin took all of creation down with them. This was not God's doing. God could have made, but did not want robots with a program with no ability but to say Yes, Lord!, Nor did He want to have us with no ability but to SAY, mechanically "I Love You," with no emotion whatsoever behind it. So, man had (has) free choice.
God put before man obedience and disobedience, good and evil, life and death. He did then, and He does now. In verse 15 God starts to reveal His plan to undo the terrible results of this event. This would be accomplished by the seed of the woman. There would be a second Adam that would fully obey God, and if we will trust in Him: First, the penalty of sin will be forever removed from us. Second, the power of sin will continue, in our lifetimes, to become less and less. Third, we will be, one great day, removed from the presence of sin. That seed, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. Sin separates us from God and the seed of the woman: the Lord Jesus, is the only way back to Him.
A lot of questions are answered here: Why is there suffering in the world? Why do bad things happen? Why is there massive death and destruction? It all goes back to this event. Mankind became sinners and sin took all of creation down with them. This was not God's doing. God could have made, but did not want robots with a program with no ability but to say Yes, Lord!, Nor did He want to have us with no ability but to SAY, mechanically "I Love You," with no emotion whatsoever behind it. So, man had (has) free choice.
God put before man obedience and disobedience, good and evil, life and death. He did then, and He does now. In verse 15 God starts to reveal His plan to undo the terrible results of this event. This would be accomplished by the seed of the woman. There would be a second Adam that would fully obey God, and if we will trust in Him: First, the penalty of sin will be forever removed from us. Second, the power of sin will continue, in our lifetimes, to become less and less. Third, we will be, one great day, removed from the presence of sin. That seed, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. Sin separates us from God and the seed of the woman: the Lord Jesus, is the only way back to Him.
Genesis 3:20-4:18
Religion, it seems the world is full of it. Actually, there are only two religions. The key verse here is 3:21, where God gives an answer to what our first parents did in 3:7. They sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to COVER (that is what the Hebrew word there for coats (KJV, "clothing" here). This speaks of atonement. Adam and Eve sought to make a covering by their efforts, their works. God would show the correct way to make a covering by the sacrifice of an innocent animal, demonstrating that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
Was this the error of their firstborn son, Cain?
There has been much argument made about that: Did God not have respect for Cain's offering because He rejected Cain, or because it was an offering from the ground, and, again, speaks of works, human effort? It does say (of God) "... but he did not accept Cain and his gift."
This would seem to be a clear-cut indicator that God rejected both Cain, because of his attitude, perhaps, as well as his gift, which was not the proper offering to make.
As for Cain’s wife; he had to do what Seth had to do: take a sister as a wife.
Religion, it seems the world is full of it. Actually, there are only two religions. The key verse here is 3:21, where God gives an answer to what our first parents did in 3:7. They sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to COVER (that is what the Hebrew word there for coats (KJV, "clothing" here). This speaks of atonement. Adam and Eve sought to make a covering by their efforts, their works. God would show the correct way to make a covering by the sacrifice of an innocent animal, demonstrating that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
Was this the error of their firstborn son, Cain?
There has been much argument made about that: Did God not have respect for Cain's offering because He rejected Cain, or because it was an offering from the ground, and, again, speaks of works, human effort? It does say (of God) "... but he did not accept Cain and his gift."
This would seem to be a clear-cut indicator that God rejected both Cain, because of his attitude, perhaps, as well as his gift, which was not the proper offering to make.
As for Cain’s wife; he had to do what Seth had to do: take a sister as a wife.
Genesis 5
There is a purpose to the genealogies given in the Old Testament. They prove, naturally, that the Lord Jesus would come from the seed of the woman, that He would come from the lineage of Abraham, Judah and David specifically in order to fulfill the scriptures that speak of this.
Often in the Bible, however, we have people mentioned and all we know about them is their name that is given. Perhaps the reason that these have been put in God's book is because God sees everyone, every soul, as being important. None of us, of course, can be found in the Bible, but there is a very important book my friends to have our names in, and that is the Lambs Book of Life.
There is a purpose to the genealogies given in the Old Testament. They prove, naturally, that the Lord Jesus would come from the seed of the woman, that He would come from the lineage of Abraham, Judah and David specifically in order to fulfill the scriptures that speak of this.
Often in the Bible, however, we have people mentioned and all we know about them is their name that is given. Perhaps the reason that these have been put in God's book is because God sees everyone, every soul, as being important. None of us, of course, can be found in the Bible, but there is a very important book my friends to have our names in, and that is the Lambs Book of Life.
Genesis 6:1-4a
Those who have commented about this passage have been everyone from new Bible believers to well-seasoned saints who are masters of the Hebrew language.
The first is view, may I call it the wooden literal or "angelic" view?
Second would be the figurative, or "human" or, "unequally yoked" view.
Third, a compromise view. I feel that is what is called for here.
The first view concerning this passage is the wooden literal or "angelic" view. This is the view that the “sons of God” are angelic beings. Since they certainly would not be any of the holy angels, that is, those that remain faithful to God and serve Him, these would have to be fallen angels, those who joined Lucifer (Satan) in his rebellion against God.
The case for this view is that some commentators say that the Hebrew construct here is such that it cannot mean anything else. The title “Sons of God” in the Old Testament is only given to direct-created beings (angels), not to anyone born of natural means. In the Old Testament, God never refers to the Old Testament saints as “Sons of God”. Abraham-servant; Moses-servant, David (etc.,)-servant. Also, if you should seek the literal since first, this is the most literal interpretation.
The case against centers around the question: Are fallen angelic beings capable of doing this? Do they have, within themselves the ability that us men have: to introduce into women (I am trying to say this in a suitable way) the child’s father’s seed? Or, do they possess the woman’s womb and cause, by some other means, the impregnation and supply the father’s half of the genetics? The Lord Jesus, in answer to the Sadducees, did say that those who are in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. But, does this mean that they are totally incapable of reproduction with women?
My view: there are wide gaps in God’s creation that cannot be bridged. These are gaps that naturalists cannot deny. 1.)How was that there was once nothing and then there was something? 2.)How was it that once everything was dead and then there was something living? And; 3.)How do you get from one species to another? I mean today you cannot breed, let's say a dog with a cat! So, can it possibly be that non-corporal beings (these fallen angels), spirit beings, produce children with these women? It would seem that this is an unsatisfactory explanation. (Gen. 6:1-4)
Those who have commented about this passage have been everyone from new Bible believers to well-seasoned saints who are masters of the Hebrew language.
The first is view, may I call it the wooden literal or "angelic" view?
Second would be the figurative, or "human" or, "unequally yoked" view.
Third, a compromise view. I feel that is what is called for here.
The first view concerning this passage is the wooden literal or "angelic" view. This is the view that the “sons of God” are angelic beings. Since they certainly would not be any of the holy angels, that is, those that remain faithful to God and serve Him, these would have to be fallen angels, those who joined Lucifer (Satan) in his rebellion against God.
The case for this view is that some commentators say that the Hebrew construct here is such that it cannot mean anything else. The title “Sons of God” in the Old Testament is only given to direct-created beings (angels), not to anyone born of natural means. In the Old Testament, God never refers to the Old Testament saints as “Sons of God”. Abraham-servant; Moses-servant, David (etc.,)-servant. Also, if you should seek the literal since first, this is the most literal interpretation.
The case against centers around the question: Are fallen angelic beings capable of doing this? Do they have, within themselves the ability that us men have: to introduce into women (I am trying to say this in a suitable way) the child’s father’s seed? Or, do they possess the woman’s womb and cause, by some other means, the impregnation and supply the father’s half of the genetics? The Lord Jesus, in answer to the Sadducees, did say that those who are in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. But, does this mean that they are totally incapable of reproduction with women?
My view: there are wide gaps in God’s creation that cannot be bridged. These are gaps that naturalists cannot deny. 1.)How was that there was once nothing and then there was something? 2.)How was it that once everything was dead and then there was something living? And; 3.)How do you get from one species to another? I mean today you cannot breed, let's say a dog with a cat! So, can it possibly be that non-corporal beings (these fallen angels), spirit beings, produce children with these women? It would seem that this is an unsatisfactory explanation. (Gen. 6:1-4)
Genesis 6:1-4 b
The second possible interpretation of this passage is that this is speaking only of humans with the men involved from the lineage of Seth, while the mothers where of Cain’s line. The thought here is that you have here an unequal yoke, if you will, with Seth’s chosen, or, in some way blessed line, being mixed with Cain’s cursed line.
The case for this view is that it is natural,; men and women naturally produce children.
The case against this view is given here in this passage, if I may quote from the King James:
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
So, why would any child born normally, like all of us were born, become adults that were in any way special, and not like any other child born? This seems unlikely.
My view is that the fallen angels, the demons if you will, possessed men and used them to raise up children. As for the children born becoming “mighty men” “men of renown,” this says nothing about them being special physically; even “giants” does not necessarily mean huge physically: The richest man in America, could be said to be a giant in the business world. They would be raised with the knowledge that their demonic “fathers” could instill in them; knowledge beyond that of all natural-born people, making them giants intellectually.
The second possible interpretation of this passage is that this is speaking only of humans with the men involved from the lineage of Seth, while the mothers where of Cain’s line. The thought here is that you have here an unequal yoke, if you will, with Seth’s chosen, or, in some way blessed line, being mixed with Cain’s cursed line.
The case for this view is that it is natural,; men and women naturally produce children.
The case against this view is given here in this passage, if I may quote from the King James:
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
So, why would any child born normally, like all of us were born, become adults that were in any way special, and not like any other child born? This seems unlikely.
My view is that the fallen angels, the demons if you will, possessed men and used them to raise up children. As for the children born becoming “mighty men” “men of renown,” this says nothing about them being special physically; even “giants” does not necessarily mean huge physically: The richest man in America, could be said to be a giant in the business world. They would be raised with the knowledge that their demonic “fathers” could instill in them; knowledge beyond that of all natural-born people, making them giants intellectually.
Genesis 7
"Then the Lord closed the door behind them." A lot can, and has been written about this; this was God's doing. The Lord said that at the time of His return the conditions on earth would be "...as in the days of Noah." God will, once again, close a door. This great age of grace will be over. Let us note here that, not only were everyone on the outside shut out, but those on the inside were shut in. God provided a place of safety for those that are His. He does so today to everyone safe behind the Door, the Lord Jesus.
"Then the Lord closed the door behind them." A lot can, and has been written about this; this was God's doing. The Lord said that at the time of His return the conditions on earth would be "...as in the days of Noah." God will, once again, close a door. This great age of grace will be over. Let us note here that, not only were everyone on the outside shut out, but those on the inside were shut in. God provided a place of safety for those that are His. He does so today to everyone safe behind the Door, the Lord Jesus.
Genesis 8
or·ni·thol·o·gy (ôrn-thl-j) n. The branch of zoology that deals with the study of birds.
Where else, but in God’s word would you find great spiritual lessons by looking at a couple of birds?
The raven and the dove. Could these be representative of the lost and the saved? That case can be made. The raven is an unclean bird and could eat of whatever was floating on the water. So, it is true that the non-Christian is satisfied with whatever the world has to offer. Someone asked one of the great preachers of the past, in regards to the Prodigal Son: What was the difference between the son and the pigs? The answer was that the son came to his senses and returned to his Father. That was true, but note also that the pigs were right at home where they were.
The response of the dove is worthy of note as well. Although the dove went out, it found nothing out in the world that the dove really needed. As was seen earlier, the ark was God’s chosen place of safety, symbolic of being "In Christ." Are we satisfied with whatever the world has to offer, or do we desire the truth and fellowship that is available to us with the Lord, and a good Bible-believing Church?
or·ni·thol·o·gy (ôrn-thl-j) n. The branch of zoology that deals with the study of birds.
Where else, but in God’s word would you find great spiritual lessons by looking at a couple of birds?
The raven and the dove. Could these be representative of the lost and the saved? That case can be made. The raven is an unclean bird and could eat of whatever was floating on the water. So, it is true that the non-Christian is satisfied with whatever the world has to offer. Someone asked one of the great preachers of the past, in regards to the Prodigal Son: What was the difference between the son and the pigs? The answer was that the son came to his senses and returned to his Father. That was true, but note also that the pigs were right at home where they were.
The response of the dove is worthy of note as well. Although the dove went out, it found nothing out in the world that the dove really needed. As was seen earlier, the ark was God’s chosen place of safety, symbolic of being "In Christ." Are we satisfied with whatever the world has to offer, or do we desire the truth and fellowship that is available to us with the Lord, and a good Bible-believing Church?
raying: for you to be able to continue with your lessons posted here.Genesis 10
What sticks out most here in this passage of Scripture is that Noah, it seems, is pronouncing this curse against a grandson because of the actions of his father. God uses the entire 18th chapter of Exekiel to prove that God does not deal with mankind in this fashion.
The answer to this is that Noah was speaking prophetically. It was not because of the actions of Ham that his son was cursed. Noah, led by God here spoke of what would happen in the future: Canaan's descendants would be the enemies of God and His chosen people, Israel. Something like this is not the only time this is found in the Scriptures. Both Jacob and Esau lived here at the time of Genesis, but yet it was declared by God through the prophet Malachi. the last book of the Old Testament, that, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated." All of this has to do with the sovereign choice of God to chose. It is not a choice concerning salvation, but of privilege.
What sticks out most here in this passage of Scripture is that Noah, it seems, is pronouncing this curse against a grandson because of the actions of his father. God uses the entire 18th chapter of Exekiel to prove that God does not deal with mankind in this fashion.
The answer to this is that Noah was speaking prophetically. It was not because of the actions of Ham that his son was cursed. Noah, led by God here spoke of what would happen in the future: Canaan's descendants would be the enemies of God and His chosen people, Israel. Something like this is not the only time this is found in the Scriptures. Both Jacob and Esau lived here at the time of Genesis, but yet it was declared by God through the prophet Malachi. the last book of the Old Testament, that, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated." All of this has to do with the sovereign choice of God to chose. It is not a choice concerning salvation, but of privilege.
Gwyneth:
Thanks for the reply. If the Lord be willing I would like to continue on this through-the-Bible thing, commenting on at least one verse, or one subject in each chapter. It would be quite a thing, I know. Can't make promises. As I told our pastor the other day: we know what will happen to this planet, the saved and the unsaved; but what will happen to any of us tomorrow-not a clue!
Thanks for the reply. If the Lord be willing I would like to continue on this through-the-Bible thing, commenting on at least one verse, or one subject in each chapter. It would be quite a thing, I know. Can't make promises. As I told our pastor the other day: we know what will happen to this planet, the saved and the unsaved; but what will happen to any of us tomorrow-not a clue!
Genesis 11
Romans chapter 1 18-32 tells us about the natural man that rejects God and seeks out his own way, his own religion. But what we have here is religion with out God at all. Nimrods wife, Semiramis, came up with her own religion that was based on her.. In fact, she is the “Qeeen of heaven” mentioned once in Jeremiah 7, as well as four times in Jeremiah 44. At the time of Israel’s exile to Babylon this queen of heaven was worshipped in Israel. Semiramis taught that you do the stuff of her religion and you will be blessed. A lot can be said here, I invite readers to search this out. This religion exists today still. As it is ridiculous to worship a woman who is in hell; it is equally absurd to worship one who is is in heaven.
Romans chapter 1 18-32 tells us about the natural man that rejects God and seeks out his own way, his own religion. But what we have here is religion with out God at all. Nimrods wife, Semiramis, came up with her own religion that was based on her.. In fact, she is the “Qeeen of heaven” mentioned once in Jeremiah 7, as well as four times in Jeremiah 44. At the time of Israel’s exile to Babylon this queen of heaven was worshipped in Israel. Semiramis taught that you do the stuff of her religion and you will be blessed. A lot can be said here, I invite readers to search this out. This religion exists today still. As it is ridiculous to worship a woman who is in hell; it is equally absurd to worship one who is is in heaven.
Genesis 12
In verse three we have the first revelation from God on how He would fulfill His promise found back in 3:15 that the woman's seed would bruise the head of (and thus crush) Satan. To many it would seem a strange thing that God should choose the Jews to be His people, entrust them with His Word and be the people that He would send His Son to. Was it because they would be such good, obedient people (don't laugh too hard!)? No, it was simply a choice on His part. What we must reject here is the false doctrine called Open Theism. This doctrine says that, while God is pretty good with the present and the past, He does not have a clue about the future. Under the Open Theism scenario God would simply see this Abraham here and decide that He would fulfill His promise through him, as if to say, "This Abraham is as good as any I guess."
No, God, in eternity past chose Abraham, his son Isaac, his son Jacob, his son Judah right down to David.
You know what? God knew you and me back then too. He does not lose anyone: past, present, or future!
In verse three we have the first revelation from God on how He would fulfill His promise found back in 3:15 that the woman's seed would bruise the head of (and thus crush) Satan. To many it would seem a strange thing that God should choose the Jews to be His people, entrust them with His Word and be the people that He would send His Son to. Was it because they would be such good, obedient people (don't laugh too hard!)? No, it was simply a choice on His part. What we must reject here is the false doctrine called Open Theism. This doctrine says that, while God is pretty good with the present and the past, He does not have a clue about the future. Under the Open Theism scenario God would simply see this Abraham here and decide that He would fulfill His promise through him, as if to say, "This Abraham is as good as any I guess."
No, God, in eternity past chose Abraham, his son Isaac, his son Jacob, his son Judah right down to David.
You know what? God knew you and me back then too. He does not lose anyone: past, present, or future!
Genesis 13
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16:25. We have seen in the chapters prior to this people that have made wrong choices, and we will see a lot more before we are through with this study. Now let’s be honest, we have all made mistakes, made some wrong choices or made a wrong turn; and who of us could say that we would have made a better choice than Lot made here? What Lot chose did look good. But there are a lot of harmful things in the world that looks good, or sounds or feels right that are harmful. What do we need to consider before making any decision? For one, would doing this be something that we would want to do before our heavenly Father? Since God is everywhere, it is as if we are right before the throne of God. Awesome thought isn’t it? What should we do, and how should we act right before God’s throne? Also, how will this, whatever it is effect our fellowship with God? How will it affect others that may be watching us? Even if it is something not directly forbidden by God, will it hurt weaker brethren. WWJD: What would Jesus Do? That is a good question.
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16:25. We have seen in the chapters prior to this people that have made wrong choices, and we will see a lot more before we are through with this study. Now let’s be honest, we have all made mistakes, made some wrong choices or made a wrong turn; and who of us could say that we would have made a better choice than Lot made here? What Lot chose did look good. But there are a lot of harmful things in the world that looks good, or sounds or feels right that are harmful. What do we need to consider before making any decision? For one, would doing this be something that we would want to do before our heavenly Father? Since God is everywhere, it is as if we are right before the throne of God. Awesome thought isn’t it? What should we do, and how should we act right before God’s throne? Also, how will this, whatever it is effect our fellowship with God? How will it affect others that may be watching us? Even if it is something not directly forbidden by God, will it hurt weaker brethren. WWJD: What would Jesus Do? That is a good question.
Genesis 14
For the third time so far already in Genesis we see the root of sin in one chapter, and the fruit of sin in the chapter following. The origin of sin in our first parents in chapter three and the first murder in chapter four. The condition of the world in chapter 6 and the destruction of the world carried out in chapter 7. The last time we saw Lot’s bad choice, and now he is carried away by invading armies.
While we could dwell on this important subject, there is, it seems to me, a more important thing to consider in chapter 14: That is, what about this Melchizedek? There has been much debate about who exactly is he? Under the law, as we will see later, the children of Israel were to give thithes to support the tribe of Levi, who were in charge of the tabernacle (later temple), as well as all the sacrifices and service of God. But here, as it were, Levi, the great grandson of Abraham, gave a tithe to this person. It is also well to note that, under the law, the kingship and the priest’s duties (the service of God) was to be totally separate. One of the kings of Israel thought that he would double as a priest, and he was stricken with leprosy. But here, Melchizedek is said to be both a king and priest. A companion passage to this is Hebrews chapter 7. I have even heard it said that because of the wording of Hebrews 7, that this must have been just a man. But I read it and I must conclude just the opposite, especially looking at Hebrews 7:2-3. The wording here seems to suggest that this is what is called a Christophony, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus. This is clearly what we will see when we come to chapter 18. (Genesis 14)
For the third time so far already in Genesis we see the root of sin in one chapter, and the fruit of sin in the chapter following. The origin of sin in our first parents in chapter three and the first murder in chapter four. The condition of the world in chapter 6 and the destruction of the world carried out in chapter 7. The last time we saw Lot’s bad choice, and now he is carried away by invading armies.
While we could dwell on this important subject, there is, it seems to me, a more important thing to consider in chapter 14: That is, what about this Melchizedek? There has been much debate about who exactly is he? Under the law, as we will see later, the children of Israel were to give thithes to support the tribe of Levi, who were in charge of the tabernacle (later temple), as well as all the sacrifices and service of God. But here, as it were, Levi, the great grandson of Abraham, gave a tithe to this person. It is also well to note that, under the law, the kingship and the priest’s duties (the service of God) was to be totally separate. One of the kings of Israel thought that he would double as a priest, and he was stricken with leprosy. But here, Melchizedek is said to be both a king and priest. A companion passage to this is Hebrews chapter 7. I have even heard it said that because of the wording of Hebrews 7, that this must have been just a man. But I read it and I must conclude just the opposite, especially looking at Hebrews 7:2-3. The wording here seems to suggest that this is what is called a Christophony, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus. This is clearly what we will see when we come to chapter 18. (Genesis 14)
Genesis 15
After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen 15:1 KJV)
God, in the first verse, describes Himself to Abraham as both his shield and great reward.
A look at the Strong’s definitions for the two underlying Hebrew words is worth mentioning.
The Hebrew word for shield suggests a protector. What the Lord Jesus has done for us in protecting us against the wrath to come is well documented: Romans 8:1 assures us that: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” The wrath of God against us, that we deserved, is no longer upon us, it has been put upon the Lord Jesus Himself back when He died for sin.
The word for reward suggest payment. The insurmountable sin debt that that we owed was paid for at Calvary. Here in this passage God speaks of this when He Himself passed between the animal sacrifice, obligating Himself to fulfill the contract.He was making with Abraham, who did nothing, and neither can we do anything to earn God’s favor.
After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen 15:1 KJV)
God, in the first verse, describes Himself to Abraham as both his shield and great reward.
A look at the Strong’s definitions for the two underlying Hebrew words is worth mentioning.
The Hebrew word for shield suggests a protector. What the Lord Jesus has done for us in protecting us against the wrath to come is well documented: Romans 8:1 assures us that: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” The wrath of God against us, that we deserved, is no longer upon us, it has been put upon the Lord Jesus Himself back when He died for sin.
The word for reward suggest payment. The insurmountable sin debt that that we owed was paid for at Calvary. Here in this passage God speaks of this when He Himself passed between the animal sacrifice, obligating Himself to fulfill the contract.He was making with Abraham, who did nothing, and neither can we do anything to earn God’s favor.
- Status