|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 18:04:42 GMT -6
Adam and Eve and sin and innocence - If you have a child that is incapable of understanding good and evil, that child is not capable of sin. This is a fact, supported by Jesus in many places. Sin is not an act, it is a choice of action. You cannot sin if you have no concept of what sin is. This is why if a small child does something it is corrected, not beaten. It has no understanding, that has to be learned. So, if my child does a wrong thing, and I in turn am angered and punish it, knowing it is not capable of understanding. The sin is mine, not the child's. That is just common sense that we all apply all the time, except when it involves religion, then people decide that a new and much more narrow mind set is needed. There is no reasonable explanation for this, it just is. So, I choose, rather than being unreasonable, to apply reason to religion.  Now, back to the original topic, the single line of scripture that was sited at the outset. As of yet, I've only gotten opinions and interpretations of opinions. No one has given an actual straight answer. It is not really difficult to do. I could take the original post to a middle school and the kids could do this in no time. I did it when I was 12. You are all much smarter than I was at 12. It's okay to concede an answer that opposes your established bias, that is what is called growth in a normal situation. Just to be totally honest. I am no mental giant and hold no claims to any doctorates or other "higher learning" degrees. I never graduated high school. My official education is 9th grade, though I did take a college placement test and scored a 96%, which simply means I managed through reading, studying and personal life application, all the lessons taught in school, but with a whole lot more teachers and many failures to learn by. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Apr 23, 2021 18:10:53 GMT -6
You ask: How does a perfect being do an imperfect thing?
It's not a contradiction - it's because they were given free will. They were allowed to choose to obey or disobey. They disobeyed and now all of us deal with sin. And we know that the wages of sin is death. We either pay for our sin with our death or we put our faith in the Substitute provided by God. He knew from the beginning that they would disobey. Why give them free will? Why should we be allowed to choose to follow Him or not? God wants us to choose. He wants it to be our choice to love Him for in this way we glorify Him.
Again, even with free will, perfection will never choose imperfection on its own. Perfection cannot be flawed, or it is not perfection to begin with. Since you state that God "wants", you are implying a human need to a perfect divine entity, that "needs" nothing. Therefore making a contradiction. We do have the same definition of contradiction I assume. "something in opposition to another", in the most basic sense of the word. Since you brought up Adam and Eve and free will. Lets hit on that while we are talking contradictions, briefly, as it is another topic altogether. We cannot seem to stay on just one at a time here. LOL OT God created the heavens and the earth and all things within. That includes angels, which are divine by nature of being a heavenly creation of God, and not a man of the earth. Satan was a head angel, who defied God. So, without even involving sin, we have a perfect being that created a perfect being, who was as it turned out, not perfect, for he defied God. Now since God already had to know this would happen, yet created him anyway and allowed him to ruin the perfect man with sin. Why then is sin mans choice? Satan brought it into the garden, not Adam and Eve. They had no concept of sin, even with free will. They were "taught" that by Satan. So, god created an imperfect angel, that rebelled against Him, was then cast out, and taught man to sin. God, in turn holds man accountable for the sin, gives the angel Satan dominion on earth, then punishes man if he follows sin. So sin was a creation of God's creation. Which since God is the only ultimate responsible party, and the only one with the power to create, is the creator of sin, through his perfect/imperfect creations. , I liked your posting (above) where you spoke about a perfect God creating someone who was also perfect but then that individual chose imperfection. It is simply brilliant that God would do this; because, how else could he redeem those who would chose imperfection. Which I might add is everyone born upon the earth when they chose to lie at a very young age. So they drift from being perfect at birth to imperfection when they lie and thus need a Savior from the judgment of that sin. Thus, a perfect Adam and Eve are compelled to divert from God so that a Savior is needed to redeem everyone from their not only condemned to death via judgment upon mankind, but from their own personal sin. It is simply a brilliant plan of salvation for everyone who chooses to return to God clean from sin as referenced in Rev. 1:5. And that my friends is knowing the beginning from the end via an all knowing God. To recap: a perfect creation that is Lucifer chose to rebel against God, right? Then, a perfect creation in Adam and Eve were tricked by Lucifer and thereby establishing a need for salvation from their sins. God then pays the ransom and frees mankind from the judgment of all sin. The result being that anyone can have salvation from their sin if they choose to follow God. It is a beautiful plan of salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 18:38:37 GMT -6
lionofgod , We have given you straight answers, with Scripture support. We just haven't given you the answer you want and you probably won't get an answer that is satisfactory to you. I am starting to wonder what the purpose of this even is.
It seems you don't believe the Old Testament; you don't believe in the God of the OT; you want to discredit Him, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity; you would rather get your information/beliefs from outside the Bible.
I think we need to circle back and find out what you do believe. What is the Gospel? Who is Jesus? Because that's what ultimately matters. Then all of this other stuff will fall into place.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 19:40:22 GMT -6
lionofgod , We have given you straight answers, with Scripture support. We just haven't given you the answer you want and you probably won't get an answer that is satisfactory to you. I am starting to wonder what the purpose of this even is.
It seems you don't believe the Old Testament; you don't believe in the God of the OT; you want to discredit Him, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity; you would rather get your information/beliefs from outside the Bible.
I think we need to circle back and find out what you do believe. What is the Gospel? Who is Jesus? Because that's what ultimately matters. Then all of this other stuff will fall into place.
As to my personal beliefs, I have repeatedly and will do so again. I absolutely, 100%, follow Jesus. That trumps anything else, no matter what. So, when you look at ONLY His teachings, there is a point you must ask, why is it not in lock step with the Old Testament? So, since no Jesus statements outside of the OT and NT can be consider under the rules as actual teaching, but only as reference. I am using only NT to compare to OT. The comparison, and the "reasonable" contradictions, should be able to be easily explained in the OT, since no parables were used by God, to give his own law to Moses and Moses did write it absolutely correct, or God would never have been happy with him for it, never the less, continued to bless the people that followed it were it not verbatim. So, I am just looking for a "literal" answer to a literal question. the answer, as the question was, must come directly from the OT and be non implied, interpreted or otherwise moveable. If we are to all agree on your own stated doctrines. Which I accept and am actively clarifying as it is re explained and elaborated upon. I will go back and re read all the answers posted. But I didn't see a single complete answer that involve no interpretations or opinions and was also based in the actual plain language, like the questions are and the scripture in question. Surely in the entirety of the Old Testament, which until post Aaron, was all literally written, has the confirmation in plain language to answer the question. I just cannot find it and have read the entire thing looking, more than once. So, I bring it here to you who are more than me, and most likely more rational and reasonable. That you may succeed in this where everyone else has failed, including me. But if the answer is you cannot as I cannot, then you also have to own that, as I do. It is not a who's right, rather a who can stick to reason, and who has to look outside reason to get an answer. Any answers I personally have are not even germane to the question. I could be a teen, who doesn't get all the interpreting stuff, and needs truth. If the only way a true answer can be had that agrees with the one you already hold, is found by manipulating scripture, and cannot be done by basic statements, with all the books of law and commandments and the specific words of God. The books of "Moses" basically are most of the OT, and he speaks plainly all through it. No need to even try to use a saying or parable to answer what He repeated in 12 other places in the same words. Thats a lot of repeated words for many different times and situations for them to be all lumped in as 1 statement that has room to be seen in a way other than it is plainly stated. He is never vague in the OT, it is straight talk. Thats why I began there. So thatt straight words could be used to explain any reasonable meaning other than the plain straight one stated. As I said, I will read again, if there is a straight, no insinuated or implied or divined by any means outside plain straight application of plain straight words, I do apologise to whom ever did, as I did not read it yet, so had no knowledge of said answer. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 20:05:41 GMT -6
lionofgod , We have given you straight answers, with Scripture support. We just haven't given you the answer you want and you probably won't get an answer that is satisfactory to you. I am starting to wonder what the purpose of this even is.
It seems you don't believe the Old Testament; you don't believe in the God of the OT; you want to discredit Him, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity; you would rather get your information/beliefs from outside the Bible.
I think we need to circle back and find out what you do believe. What is the Gospel? Who is Jesus? Because that's what ultimately matters. Then all of this other stuff will fall into place.
ok, because I don't want any misunderstandings on anyones side. I have copied and pasted the all the actual "biblical/scriptural" answers given to the original questions. As follows ... So please consider Isa. 2:7-9 wherein the land is full of silver and gold and treasures. Secondly, that the land is also full of idols that the people worship that are the work of their own hands. Lastly, that the people bow down to these idols. They stirred Him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded A parable open to any interpretation that fits the interpreter, not even close to a literal statement. So no to definitive, or factual, as it is not a statement but a parable/prophesy.Psalm 115 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. 5 They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. 6 They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. 7 They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. 8 Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them Ok, this is a psalm, or song and also falls under the same "interpretive" bounds as the previous answer.
From Paul: 1 Cor 10:19-21 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. This one, while it skirts about the same topic in a manner of speaking, in no way can be construed as a straight answer to a straight question. It is also from the NT and not the OT, which is where the contradiction lies. Before Jesus, there was no NT. The OT didn't change suddenly as a result of having a new one. If the stated and implied meaning of the words in the OT are not actually as stated, then it would be irrational for anyone, let alone a God, to let thousands of years go by, then let Moses also Write His words in a book. But never fix the language to be understood, as every other statement is except this one, and to meanwhile bless them for following a possibly misunderstood law? |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 20:18:26 GMT -6
lionofgod ,
This doesn't answer my questions.
I dated a guy in college that claimed to follow Jesus. Said he was a Christian. He went to church every Sunday. And then upon learning some of his beliefs about Jesus, well, he didn't have the right Jesus as defined by the Bible. Therefore, his Gospel was also wrong. And also because of his wrong view of Jesus, he had a wrong view about God and things in the Bible.
I just wanted to make sure you have the right Jesus.
I'm not the one that sees contradictions between the Old and the New. I think they work together perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 20:24:19 GMT -6
OK, I used the "strong's definition for you, replaced the word with the definition you provided. If correct, it should be easily read as such without a lot of change to make it so. Does it suddenly make more sense to you? It to my reasoning is even more confusing than the plainly stated fact by God. But that is my opinion. Perhaps this reads totally clearly now to everyone else, I rule out no opinions that are based in valid, factual, straight forward truth of meaning through reason. If it is unreasonable, why even bother to make it another way? And if it is just stated fact, why change that? Who did God nominate to be the only one who could alter his words and infer a meaning beyond the plain language used? If the answer is nobody, then why all the effort to do so? Exodus 34:14-15 KJV- 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is "Used of God not bearing any rival; the severe avenger of departure from himself" is a "Used of God not bearing any rival; the severe avenger of departure from himself" God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; God Bless! |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 20:26:51 GMT -6
lionofgod ,
This doesn't answer my questions.
I dated a guy in college that claimed to follow Jesus. Said he was a Christian. He went to church every Sunday. And then upon learning some of his beliefs about Jesus, well, he didn't have the right Jesus as defined by the Bible. Therefore, his Gospel was also wrong. And also because of his wrong view of Jesus, he had a wrong view about God and things in the Bible.
I just wanted to make sure you have the right Jesus.
I'm not the one that sees contradictions between the Old and the New. I think they work together perfectly.
Ok, I'll just scratch the surface now then actually show the independent scriptures side by side later when time allows. You state they work together perfectly. So how do an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek, somehow mean the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 20:34:18 GMT -6
You selected Exodus 34:14-15 God asked them not to worship or sacrifice to other gods.
34:17 "You shall not make for yourselves any gods of cast metal."
In God's own words He calls the idols, the other gods Israel had been worshiping, demons:
Lev 17:7 ESV - "So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore." (see Lev 17:1 to see it's God speaking)
KJV translates it as devils
NKJB as demons
NASB as goat demons
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 20:54:48 GMT -6
I'm not the one that sees contradictions between the Old and the New. I think they work together perfectly.
Ok, I'll just scratch the surface now then actually show the independent scriptures side by side later when time allows. You state they work together perfectly. So how do an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek, somehow mean the same thing? Those two things don't mean the same. We must take context in to account. Eye for an eye was about justice. In context - Lev 24:17 talks about taking a life, 18 is about replacing an animal if you have killed it 19 is about injuring another person. It's about honoring life. If two people were to get into a fight (or someone would mistreat someone else somehow) and one is injured, they would go before the one in charge who would judge the incident. If the one doing the harm was charged as guilty, then the punishment was to match the injured person. It was justice. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus is addressing retribution. Based on the other things He addresses in Matthew 5, this culture seemed to be one that had no problem being angry with each other (as long as they didn't murder the person), lusting after other women (as long as they weren't intimate with her), divorcing their wives (without having the marriage covenant broken). It had gotten to be an attitude of "You did this...so I am going to do that. 'Cause 'eye for an eye'." Jesus shows them that they were misusing that verse. We must also consider that this is an honor/shame culture. It's not like the US, Canada, or probably even Europe. To slap someone on the cheek was very dishonoring. You did not want to do anything that would cause dishonor to you, your name, or your family. So, this isn't a passage about self-defense or justice. Jesus is saying that if someone dishonors you, then turn the other check to them for further dishonor. Do not seek revenge or retribution. It's not a passage about justice.
I'm done for the evening. I'll read your other posts tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 21:34:05 GMT -6
Ok, I'll just scratch the surface now then actually show the independent scriptures side by side later when time allows. You state they work together perfectly. So how do an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek, somehow mean the same thing? Those two things don't mean the same. We must take context in to account. Eye for an eye was about justice. In context - Lev 24:17 talks about taking a life, 18 is about replacing an animal if you have killed it 19 is about injuring another person. It's about honoring life. If two people were to get into a fight (or someone would mistreat someone else somehow) and one is injured, they would go before the one in charge who would judge the incident. If the one doing the harm was charged as guilty, then the punishment was to match the injured person. It was justice. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus is addressing retribution. Based on the other things He addresses in Matthew 5, this culture seemed to be one that had no problem being angry with each other (as long as they didn't murder the person), lusting after other women (as long as they weren't intimate with her), divorcing their wives (without having the marriage covenant broken). It had gotten to be an attitude of "You did this...so I am going to do that. 'Cause 'eye for an eye'." Jesus shows them that they were misusing that verse. We must also consider that this is an honor/shame culture. It's not like the US, Canada, or probably even Europe. To slap someone on the cheek was very dishonoring. You did not want to do anything that would cause dishonor to you, your name, or your family. So, this isn't a passage about self-defense or justice. Jesus is saying that if someone dishonors you, then turn the other check to them for further dishonor. Do not seek revenge or retribution. It's not a passage about justice.
I'm done for the evening. I'll read your other posts tomorrow.
Seriously? So, according to the law of the OT, there is equal justice under the law. That is explained and elaborated all through Leviticus and Deuteronomy I believe. In simple example, so as to not over reach reason. If a man kills your son, you have every right to kill his. or if you want a tamer scenario, if you stoled from a man, you are entitled to take from the thief the equivalent of the loss. Jesus on the other hand says for either situation the answer is the same, you forgive and leave the retribution and or punishment to him in the last days. Now that it is actaully applied, you still say they are the same, or did I not get the context right again? I'm pretty sure scripture backs me up here. As you aptly pointed out, OT is about justice now, as God never says to forgive or delay till the world ends, and Jesus will judge when he comes. NT however goes against justice and retribution, and instead teaches forgiveness and love. In fact he even concedes to obey the roman laws and do as they teach, except when it goes against His teachings. OT god specifies his people are to never make covenants with heretics, that doing so is forbidden by Him. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Apr 23, 2021 21:39:25 GMT -6
Adam and Eve and sin and innocence - If you have a child that is incapable of understanding good and evil, that child is not capable of sin. This is a fact, supported by Jesus in many places. Sin is not an act, it is a choice of action. You cannot sin if you have no concept of what sin is. This is why if a small child does something it is corrected, not beaten. It has no understanding, that has to be learned. So, if my child does a wrong thing, and I in turn am angered and punish it, knowing it is not capable of understanding. The sin is mine, not the child's. That is just common sense that we all apply all the time, except when it involves religion, then people decide that a new and much more narrow mind set is needed. There is no reasonable explanation for this, it just is. So, I choose, rather than being unreasonable, to apply reason to religion. Now, back to the original topic, the single line of scripture that was sited at the outset. As of yet, I've only gotten opinions and interpretations of opinions. No one has given an actual straight answer. It is not really difficult to do. I could take the original post to a middle school and the kids could do this in no time. I did it when I was 12. You are all much smarter than I was at 12. It's okay to concede an answer that opposes your established bias, that is what is called growth in a normal situation. Just to be totally honest. I am no mental giant and hold no claims to any doctorates or other "higher learning" degrees. I never graduated high school. My official education is 9th grade, though I did take a college placement test and scored a 96%, which simply means I managed through reading, studying and personal life application, all the lessons taught in school, but with a whole lot more teachers and many failures to learn by. I agree with most of what I have in bold above, and the Bible (Paul) explicitly says basically the same thing in Romans. Without the law there can be no sin. Nevertheless, are caveats in or errors to your logic: 1. You have a presumption that once the child is corrected, that the child will not repeat the same action in spite of said correction. This is a false presumption, and where 'original sin' (the sin nature of man) comes in. 2. Notwithstanding the giving of the law, Paul clearly indicates that the giving of the law is not the catalyst for sin. He does so again, in Romans 1: This is reflected in the account of Noah and the flood! "Men did what was right in their own eyes..." We assume nowadays that those people who lived back then knew less about God than we do now. I disagree. They were far closer to 'the source' than we are now, simply because they actually knew Adam, and all that that implies! |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 21:44:07 GMT -6
ok, since I really don't want to spend hours copying and pasting scripture, I will stick to the established, accepted scripture we all know by heart, so I can simply discuss and compare without taking a week of prep to do so.
Since Natalie stated that the OT and NT, were in harmony,( to paraphrase ), meaning they do not contradict one another. I'm going to do the most basic comparison possible, what we all learn to do in order to decide somethings truth/value/reason. A list of pros and cons, or in this case a side by side comparison of the basic tenets and teachings of each. I will apply like to like, not just any scripture that I can find to prove a point. This is a comparison for continuity, not a right or wrong decision. They either are in agreement or they are not. I will use red ans the OT letters before the teachings of the Old Testament and blue with NT in front for Jesus teachings. If you can truly make oppodites mean the same, I will allow you to do so. That or if you see that they are contradictory, you simply state that. This is the purest and most basic comparison we can make, so there is not going to be grey areas to exploit from either books, for either side. If they all make perfect sense, and you can show me how I am not correct in the statement of contradictory teachings, I will humbly and gladly submit my error, and if felt needed my apologies to boot, just because I seek truth, not being right.
OT - eye for an eye NT - if offended or attacked, turn the other cheek and forgive ( he even admonished the apostle for drawing a sword when the people came to take him to his death
OT - a whore is to punished NT- Welcome her and forgive her and all judgement is mine alone in the final days
OT - the sabbath is Holy and eternal not to be broken NT - is it better to observe the sabbath or do Gods work? (He and disciples are called out for not following the law here too)
OT- Lepers are to be avoided and kept outside camp NT - Have pity on the lepers and heal them and bring them into the fold
OT - If his people don't obey they are punished severely NT - ask for forgiveness and don't repeat your mistakes.
OT - peoples that did not Obey the commandments and worship God, were slaughtered wholesale, women and children as well NT- pray for them, and set a good example, so they may change and be accepted into the fold
OT - rebel against His word and you got at one point I believe it was 30 years slavery in Egypt NT - If you rebel, in the end of days you will be judged, until then you may do as you wish
OT- You can only be granted access to Heaven if you obey the laws and commandments laid out. NT - you only have to believe Jesus died for your sin and follow his example and teachings.
OT - Babylon defied God, he destroyed it NT- Rome and Jerusalem conspired and carried out the murder/crucifixion without proof of any crimes of the Christ, and he forgave them and told His Father, they know not what they do
OT - All sinners are expected to account for their sins with sacrifices to God. NT - all sinners are free to sin, but will be judged in the final judgement
Ok, off the top of my head, these are enough to begin with. Please square the circle without resorting to interpretations and prophesies and parables. Those are a small portion of the bible, and with the sole exception of Jesus, could be totally removed from the bible and still have a cohesive message to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 22:02:38 GMT -6
Adam and Eve and sin and innocence - If you have a child that is incapable of understanding good and evil, that child is not capable of sin. This is a fact, supported by Jesus in many places. Sin is not an act, it is a choice of action. You cannot sin if you have no concept of what sin is. This is why if a small child does something it is corrected, not beaten. It has no understanding, that has to be learned. So, if my child does a wrong thing, and I in turn am angered and punish it, knowing it is not capable of understanding. The sin is mine, not the child's. That is just common sense that we all apply all the time, except when it involves religion, then people decide that a new and much more narrow mind set is needed. There is no reasonable explanation for this, it just is. So, I choose, rather than being unreasonable, to apply reason to religion. Now, back to the original topic, the single line of scripture that was sited at the outset. As of yet, I've only gotten opinions and interpretations of opinions. No one has given an actual straight answer. It is not really difficult to do. I could take the original post to a middle school and the kids could do this in no time. I did it when I was 12. You are all much smarter than I was at 12. It's okay to concede an answer that opposes your established bias, that is what is called growth in a normal situation. Just to be totally honest. I am no mental giant and hold no claims to any doctorates or other "higher learning" degrees. I never graduated high school. My official education is 9th grade, though I did take a college placement test and scored a 96%, which simply means I managed through reading, studying and personal life application, all the lessons taught in school, but with a whole lot more teachers and many failures to learn by. I agree with most of what I have in bold above, and the Bible (Paul) explicitly says basically the same thing in Romans. Without the law there can be no sin. Nevertheless, are caveats in or errors to your logic: 1. You have a presumption that once the child is corrected, that the child will not repeat the same action in spite of said correction. This is a false presumption, and where 'original sin' (the sin nature of man) comes in. I have made no such presumption, I didn't even address the aftermath of the sin. It is of no consequence what happens after, each instance is unique, not all encompassing. Thats why I chose a basic and simple example. Whether the child learns the first time it is corrected has no bearing on the sin I am creating if I wrongly punish him. He has to grow and make innocent mistakes and be corrected until he/it understands. once understanding is capable, then the child is responsible for it's own sin. For it has reached the age of knowledge or wisdom or what ever you wish to call it.2. Notwithstanding the giving of the law, Paul clearly indicates that the giving of the law is not the catalyst for sin. He does so again, in Romans 1: This is reflected in the account of Noah and the flood! "Men did what was right in their own eyes..." We assume nowadays that those people who lived back then knew less about God than we do now. I disagree. They were far closer to 'the source' than we are now, simply because they actually knew Adam, and all that that implies! You are thankfully making my point for me. The OT God did as you stated, in comparison, Jesus says to teach and correct and to forgive and love. Not punish with fornication and all that is listed here. But to address it as I was intending it. Adam and Eve were God's perfect innocent children, they didn't even know what sin was, yet once God allowed Satan to teach it to them, through envy and deceit, which he also allowed to be introduced into the garden, He then made the children carry the blame for the sinn eternally. Being all powerful and the actual creator of all things, he could simply have rebuked Satan as Jesus did and thats the end of it. His perfect children would voluntarily follow and obey and praise him just as they had already been doing before sin was allowed to exist. Making redemption wholly un needed. Unless he desired the consequences that he knew would take place to happen, just so he could wait for geberations, then wipe out all but one family to start again and then still wait further generations till Jesus is sent to reverse the curse of sin and offer redemption. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Apr 23, 2021 22:09:10 GMT -6
Exodus 34:14-15 KJV- 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; EXODUS 34:14-15 NAS version - 14 -for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God - 15 otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, Ok, since we all agree God is perfect, we know he never uses wrong words, for that would be to err. which is not possible for a perfect God. Since God invented all words and languages, there is no way he doesn't use the correct ones when he speaks. Let's examine the scripture above. Which I took out of the original KJV and the NAS, since the KJV is the most widely accepted, and most other bibles are simply translated from it. And I chose the NAS, becuase the seminary listings I looked at consider it to be the best literal translation and the seminary students use it. As a bonus, it is not in modern language yet as to muddy up a definition of a word. Also, since we are discussing ancient text, I'm using the oldesst available acccepted dictionary, the 1828 Websters. It was the precursor to all the following dictionaries in print afer that, so it should be acceptable. Also it has the added bonus of using scripture to define words, so we get added scriptural insights from a language master of the 1800's. Since the bibles most of you read were written after that. this should be the most acurate to the time in English word definitions. You can find it here, if your so inclined. webstersdictionary1828.com/JEALOUS, adjective jel'us. 1. Suspicious; apprehensive of rivalship; uneasy through fear that another has withdrawn or may withdraw from one the affections of a person he loves, or enjoy some good which he desires to obtain; followed by of, and applied both to the object of love and to the rival. We say, a young man is jealous of the woman he loves, or jealous of his rival. A man is jealous of his wife, and the wife of her husband. 2. Suspicious that we do not enjoy the affection or respect of others, or that another is more loved and respected than ourselves. 3. Emulous; full of competition. 4. Solicitous to defend the honor of; concerned for the character of. I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts. 1 Kings 19:10. 5. Suspiciously vigilant; anxiously careful and concerned for. I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. 2 Corinthians 11:2. 6. Suspiciously fearful. 'Tis doing wrong creates such doubts as these, Renders us jealous and destroys our peace. I did a search of the KJV and the word jealous is used over a dozen times in the bible, by God, to describe himself. here is results, if you'd like to check . www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=jealous1. First off He says His name IS Jealous, and it is capitalized, as in a name, proper noun. So God's name is Jealous. Of all the words in the existing world, why would God repeatedly label Himself as Jealous, both as a name and as an emotion? 2. He is very clear that he feels jealousy, that is implicit in several of the quotes, her it even gives examples. "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;" 3. He clearly states that He is not the ONLY God, and that is in the bible more than once as well. "go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods" Ok, to recap, God is named Jealous, feels jealousy and admits there are more God's than Him. So, this is not me twisting doctrine, as it is God's words, from the established accepted bible. However your own doctrine states there is only one God. This is directly in disagreement with your stated beliefs. And it's also the first commandment of the OT God. But it is repeated several times in the binle, as I sited above, so there is no misunderstanding this passage. He also states at the outset "no other gods", which again is a definitive statement and indicates more than one God, according to God. Now to the jealousy part. This is very fascinating and enlightening, as God, who is without sin, is saying in no uncertain terms that he envys other Gods, or if you want to be as generous as possible to Him, he is "concerned" with other God's. Even more revealing is the reason given. Lest you whore after other gods, etc. So, he has expressed fear and jealousy in the firsst commandment. Fear of losing followers, and jealousy of the "other" gods. How is an all powerful, all knowing, ONLY God, able to fear and be jealous? Envy is a sin. Fear is contrary to God. So, neither is possible for Him. Yet he obviously states this over and over. no mistaking it. So, according to the OT God, he is not the only god, he is capable of sin, he does fear and if you read the rest of the passages in the search, he also gets angry as a result of His jealousy. Now this is all perfectly normal for us humans, but as God, as you state him in your doctrine, he himself disagrees with you. I will keep this one short and succinct, and examine no further on this first post. Prove me wrong, via the scripture. But since this is scripture, if you do, you get the added benefit of breaking your own doctrines to do so. Sorry, not my rules. God Bless and good luck. As an added bonus, the word"jealous" does not even appear in the new testament. per KJV.
Since man can make (and has made) gods out of any number of things (Clearly described in Romans 1), of course there can be other gods! Nevertheless, though the Creator is capable of sin, it does not mean he sins!
The fear expressed by God is a fear for you the human, not a fear for himself! Not a fear of other things! God knows that you, the human are in 'mortal' danger of loss of eternal life qwhen you sin. Since he desires that all should be saved, of course he fears for you! If you have children, you know what I mean: you fear for your child's safety all the time! It is very much like this for God.
THis is not a sinful kind of fear! This is merciful kind of fear!
In addition, you are equating fear and jealousy with sin! Maybe for humans, because as you know (since I pointed it out to you before) humans act and express those emotions in a tainted way. Our feelings in those regards are selfish in nature: Sinful. Not so with God.Also, I would point out that if you believe what you have stated about the nature of God in the quote above to be true about God; then you have a different God than we do here. |
|
