Could There Be a Connection?
 

Hello Everyone,
I'm Nehemiah; I'm somewhat new here; I'm very analytical and word alert; I believe THE ENTIRE WORD of GOD ("All Scripture...") to be just as Literal, as some others believe it to be figurative; my mentality is to keep it simple enough for me to understand it (KISS), as I am definitely NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer; I believe that GOD Says what HE Means, and Meant Everything that HE Has Already Said; and I'd really like your answers to the following questions, along with a very very civilized discussion regarding them:

1) What happened between Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), and Genesis 1:2a ("And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.")? (Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called "Evolutionary gap theory"!)

2) Was Adam really only, "the first man... (1Cor. 15:45)"?

3) What was GOD'S Real Purpose for Adam in Genesis 2?

4) Who was Cain's Wife?

5) Who were "the sons of GOD (Gen. 6:2,4;Job 1:6;2:1;38:7)"?

6) Who were "the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2,4)"?

Hi Nehemiah and welcome to the forum. It is very late and I need to get off the computer, so I can't attempt to answer your questions now, but I am sure you will get plenty of responses.

I just wanted to say Hi and welcome you to the forums! :)

Greetings, those are good questions...
the one about Cain's wife has been asked of me quite often, he married one of his many, many sisters, and there is actually a pretty good overview on it here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

and another one here:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2181

Like Winman I can't answer all of these right now, but regarding no. 5 and no. 6, I will refer you to my extensive thread at the link below which contains the answers you seek and a lot more about the sons of God and the daughters of men... the entire thread is pretty good reading, but if you're in a hurry you will find that posts no. 5 and 6 on that thread lay down some pretty good timber on the subject.
by the way, what is the meaning of the title to your thread?

Giants in the Bible - Nephilim
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896

Nehemiah, welcome also from me to the forum. You are a man much as myself, I was raised in the Church Of Christ and am a bit of a hardcase regarding sticking to the Scriptures due to the fact COC are very good at twisting them.

Brother, we must read the Scriptures as being literal where common sense allows us to:

Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

This does not mean that our Lord is a chicken. Another good passage is:

Zec 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

If I were so inclined I could start a website and use this to preach and teach the First Church Of Santa Claus, and the adherents would run into the tens of thousands and I would be a rich man.

I'll throw my hat in the ring on answering your questions:

Question One: The "gap" theory is a gap "fact" in that the "gap" is between people's ears. This is an attempt to compromise with "science" because the people who teach and adhere to the Gap Theory feel it's too outrageous to go cross grain with "science" and appear to be dumb hillbillies as people look at me when I tell them, The Gap Is Between Your Ears.

I read Job 40:15 through to the end of the chapter for a friend who once worked at Dayton Museum Of Natural History. This man had never opened a bible of any translation and I told him only the truth: This is a translation of an ancient Middle Eastern manuscript. I read this to him twice as he took notes:

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

He told me, "You are describing a stegosaurus..."

There is no "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one. Those who stand and resist unto blood the defense of the English in the Bible then commit the same sin they lay on others who they accuse of corrupting the meaning of the Scriptures: They "go to the Hebrew" to "prove" that the Hebrew word for "replenish" means "...should be translated refill". I see no sense in being double minded and unstable in trying to prove an unprovable precept.

Question Two: I Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

You answered your own question here brother.

Question Three: If we take the sum total of the Scriptures with regards His general purpose, we see the Universe was created to be inhabited for the glory of God, a minor glitch occurred in Genesis 3 causing the Fix of Matthew 27. We wait for the consumation of all things in Revelation when His plan will then take up where it left off, an inhabited Universe for His glory.

Question Four: Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Brother, Cain and Abel both got wives from the same place Seth and the others did until the gene pool stabalized around the time of the giving of the Law: Cain married one of his sisters.

Questions Five & Six:

Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Scriptures define three types of "sons of God":

Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:4 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The believer today is called a son of God, the line directily leading to Mary's, the mother of Jesus Christ, father, and angels are called sons of God. Most who define the sons of God of Genesis 6 as being angels also go to the Hebrew to prove it, the union causing anakims and nephelims. Until someone shows me that angels have normal human reproductive systems(or had)I'll stick with the line of Seth.

Brother, welcome to the forum again, I am a bit of newbie myself, and hope this forum is as much of a blessing to you as it is for me.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...

Brother Parrish, I had all of Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries up until about 1999, I found the beginning of his commentary on Genesis to be one of his weakest. I'm not going to detail the reasons, they are quite obvious to those who have read them. With respect to The Gap Theory and the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japeth Dr. Ruckman, to me, attempts to do what he damns in others: Retranslate the Bible to fit a preconceived precept. One of these is found in Genesis 9 and one I believe is worthy of discussion:

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

In Gen. 9:22 his teaching was, in the edition of the Commentary I had, that Ham sodomized Noah based on an interpretation of "...saw the nakedness of his father,..." rendering the verse:

Gen. 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, sodomized his father, and told his two brethren without.

What holds true for verse 22 must then hold true for verse 23:

Gen. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and that they sodomized their father not.

Of all men that write commentaries, my conviction is that Dr. Ruckman is quite accurate and more honest than many, particularly Cornelious Stam, but we must remember Dr. Ruckman is a man just like me. I have a belief, based on Bible numerics(NOT numerology) and dispensationalism in that the number of people who will go up to meet the Lord in the "Rapture" will be 1/10 the living and 1/10 the dead. I believe Paul died of pneumonia while imprisoned and not execution. I could be wrong on those beliefs. As I recognize Dr. Ruckman could be wrong on Genesis 1, Genesis 6, and Genesis 9. Dr. Ruckman is quit critical of A. W. Pink in Pink's "corrections" to the 1611 text and his Calvinism with respect predestination, yet uses Pink's(quite correct) Bible "types" for Joseph and Christ without crediting Pink's commentary on Genesis. Dr. Ruckman condemns us "dry cleaners" on our convictions about water baptism being an OT ordinance and a dead work, yet is more dispensational that Stam in many his teachings, which has led me several times to say he hunts with the Baptist hounds and runs with the dispensational rabbits. His Commentary on the book of Hebrews is what actually led me into investigating the teachings of the "hypers", and is also one of his best in my opinion.

Dr. Ruckman is my first choice if I need a commentary, however there is much in his Commentary on Genesis forces me to, as he himself puts it, put his private interpretations into File 13.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Thank you very kindly Winman. I understand.

Thanks, but No Thanks; Been there, Ken Ham leaves too many very legitimate questions unanswered.

Ditto.

And I'll find this "extensive thread" where?
Just what it states?

Watch out for "Giants" that are only "Giants" according to our fearful perception of them being "Giants".

Not quite; I was not "raised in the Church Of Christ", nor am I "a bit of a hardcase". And I certainly don't believe that "COC" has a monopoly on Scripture, as to being the only ones that, "are very good at twisting them".

I totally agree with, "we must read the Scriptures as being literal", but I cannot agree with you on, "where common sense allows us to". The phrase, "common sense" is 1) NOT Scriptural; 2) Ungodly; and 3) not nearly so "common" in this day and age.

True; but what are "feathers" used for? That's the message.

Maybe so, but, according to the passage, and if "the adherents" were paying close attention, they would, "flee from the land of the north", rather than running to you, let alone sending you letters, right?

In my initial post, I clearly stated, "(Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called 'Evolutionary gap theory'!)".

Now then, according to you, "Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one". If that is so, please then explain, How, THE MOST PERFECT "GOD (WHO IS 'LIGHT, and in HIM is NO Darkness at all.') Created the Heaven and the Earth", and all of a sudden, it became, "the earth. . .without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"???

GOD is not the author of confusion, yet "the earth" that HE Created became, in just the second verse of Genesis One, 1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness; a) formlessness (of primeval earth); 1) nothingness, empty space; b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig); c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places); d) place of chaos; which is what the phrase, "without form" means, right?

Now, dare I bring into the discussion, the word, "void (emptiness, void, waste)"? Now surely you'll agree that you cannot 'empty' that which never was contained, right? Nor can that which never was be 'wasted', can it?

Currently, Michelle Obama is "the first lady". And I won't even go into the being "old as dirt" thing. What is the context of "the last Adam" being "made a quickening spirit", as opposed to "The first man Adam", being "made a living soul"?

Wow!!! Some "minor glitch". I'm sure GOD considers it a tad bit more than just that, seeing how it COST HIM HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON!

But we can agree on a "glitch" happening; you believe, in Genesis 3; I believe, right at the end of Genesis 1:1.

And HIS MASTERFULLY MASTER PLAN has been in effect since before, "In the beginning...". . .so that when all is thought, tried, and done, no one will never ever again so much as, contemplate trying to usurp GOD'S Sovereignty ever never again.

According to Scripture, right? or according to "common sense", and/or man's logic?

True.

No. In that passage, (Luke 3:23-38), only Adam is called/referred to as "the son of GOD".

Not so; nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, in ALL of Scripture are "angels" ever referred to as "the sons of GOD". . .NOT even in the Book of Job.

In fact Hebrews 1:5 makes it crystal clear, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

And you too.

Nehemiah

Try this one David Regan is not an evolutionary Gap like me (CKG posted it just the other day no evolution solid evidence for the gap. this way you can get a balance of views of Gap or no Gap http://www.learnthebible.org/search/node/gap seeing BroParish and Winman will only link you to evidences that teach no gap. I want you to seek all views before you make a decision on a gap or not.

Adam was the first man and his wife was the first woman Gen1:27

Cains wife was one of his sisters women were not recorded in genealogies. we are told that Adam had sons and daughters. Gen 4-5

The Sons of God in Gen 6 are embodied devils who took human wives and produced giant men of renown part of the reason for Noah's flood. the giants show up after the flood as well. the daughters of men are just that female human beings.

simple answers for simple questions. Welcome to the the forum.

LOL, you're getting off to a good start here...
Our perception is moot, the KJV states they WERE GIANTS.
You don't have to put it in "quotes" like it's my word, it's God's Word.

The extensive thread is the thread on Giants.
I gave you the link, back when I thought you were asking honest questions and actually looking for answers. :)

When I asked you the meaning of your thread title, you answered with a question.
I'll try again; where are you going with all this, what is it you are trying to connect?

That's BEGOTTEN SON. Big difference, but I can tell you have already taken a dogmatic position about the questions you ask, so it proabably won't matter.
At any rate, I think Bro. Chette and Tony did a pretty good job answering your questions. Since you apparently have no interest in the notion that Cain married his sister, I'm sure that you will stop asking questions at some point and make your own position clear. Who do YOU think Cain married? :rolleyes:

Really, too bad---I find his commentary on Genesis to be very interesting and thought provoking to say the least, but I'm wondering did you read the section I asked about before you threw it in the garbage... no matter, if you (or anyone else) wants to see more about the creatures in Genesis 6, please refer to post no. 5 and 6 in the Giants thread, those articles are not perfect but the subject is pretty well presented and I think provide a good alternative to the sons of Seth position. (providing your mind is open to it, of course).

Re: "Could There Be a Connection?"
 

Aloha Nehemiah,

I ALSO BELIEVE "THE ENTIRE WORD of GOD". And so I will attempt to answer your questions, although I am curious as to WHY you are asking them:

I too - "DO NOT believe the so-called "Evolutionary gap theory", BUT, on the other hand, since God has chosen to give us very few details about the Creation, I do not spend much time "speculating" as to what could or could not have occurred between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. What does it matter WHAT I "think" - might (or might not) have happened?

I believe that Almighty God (THE GOD of "the Scripture of truth") created the whole of Creation: The Universe (and all that is within it); the Earth (and all that is within it); and every single living thing that lives above the "firmament" and under "the firmament" (in the universe, in the air, in the sea, on the surface, and below the surface). All of life and creation came from God, and there is nothing made that was made without Him. [John 1:1-4]

I also believe (according to the Bible) that the Earth has undergone some CHANGES since the ORIGINAL CREATION. And God has had different "COVENANTS" with men down through the ages:

#1. Earth before the fall of man: No Bible, Possibly no rain, no thorns, no thistles, no pain, no sickness, no death - Paradise on earth.

#2. Earth after the fall: No Bible, Possibly no rain, extreme longevity, the earth cursed (thorns & thistles, etc.), pain, sickness and death ushered in - Paradise lost.

#3. Earth soon after the flood: No Bible, rain, diversity of tongues, diminishing longevity.

#4. Abraham to Moses: No Bible, God chooses a people for Himself – The "Hebrews" (later known as Israelites, i.e. Jews).

#5. Moses to the Lord Jesus Christ: Old Testament, God makes a nation out of His chosen people - "Israel".

#6. Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ to the present: New Testament, God temporarily sets aside the nation of Israel – [His chosen people], and takes out a people from among the Gentiles for His Son – (the church - the body of Christ).

#7. The future of the world and mankind: Israel will be reinstated, Christ will rule and reign over ALL the Earth and Universe, and we will rule with Him (for we shall be like Him) - Paradise will be restored.

You answered your own question: YES! According to the Holy Scriptures - Adam was the very "FIRST MAN" (and ONLY MAN "created" by God)
[1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.]

Adam was to take care of the Garden. [Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.]

The Bible does not address the issue, and so it remains for us to either believe that Cain married one of his "sister's" (one of Adam & Eve's daughters), or God made more women (out of who's rib?) for Adam's sons. (the Bible doesn't even "hint" at this "solution", which would be pure "speculation" on our part)

There are only 11 places in the Scriptures where the term "the sons of God" is used:

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 6:4 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The above verses "qualify WHO are "the sons of God".

In the beginning - "the sons of God" were "present" at the creation [Job 38:1-7]- so they cannot be just Adams "sons"; or Seth's "sons", or Enos' "sons" (men were NOT "present" when God "laid the foundations of the Earth"). The "sons of God" are God's "SONS"!

Again, you answered your own question. To put it as simply as I can - "the daughters of men" are the female offspring of Adam, Cain, Enoch, Lamech, Seth, Enos, Cainan, etc., etc. The "daughters of men" are - "THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN"!

As to your statement: "I believe THE ENTIRE WORD of GOD ("All Scripture...") to be just as Literal, as some others believe it to be figurative; my mentality is to keep it simple enough for me to understand it (KISS)"

Since the words "literal" and "figurative" are NOT in the Holy Bible I subscribe to the Scriptural "command" concerning the word of God:

[2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.]

I seek to "rightly divide the word of truth". If there is an "allegory", or a "parable", I take them as such. If there is a "type", or a "picture", or an "illustration", I take them as such also. In other words, I try my hardest to "rightly divide the word of truth".

In my lesson on "How to Study the Bible", I said:

The Bible (The Scriptures) = A Timeless Book!

In the past: The Old Testament filled the needs of the Jews and the nation of Israel. After Israel’s rejection of Christ the Messiah, It also served the needs of Christians in the early churches and all of the churches throughout history.

Today: The complete Bible serves our needs today and will continue to do so until the Translation of the church of God.

Future: It will be sufficient for the tribulation saints and will be used in the millennium and throughout all eternity.

All Scripture has 3 applications:

#1. Historical

#2. Spiritual

#3. Doctrinal

All Scripture must be taken literally – unless it is impossible to do so.
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Scriptures are not to be privately “interpreted”.
2Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

All Doctrines derived from the Scriptures must be drawn from and built upon Scripture only.
Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weanedfrom the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

I have politely and courteously answered your questions; perhaps you will have the courtesy answer mine:

WHY do you ask these questions? :confused:

WHAT purpose do these questions serve, if all things are to be done for edification? {Romans 14:19; 1Corinthians 10:23; 14:5,12,26; 2Corinthians 12:19; Ephesians 4:12,16,29; 1Thessalonians 5:11; 1Timothy 1:4}

I too welcome you to our Forum. I do hope that you will be a source of edification for all of the brethren here. :)

Nehemiah asked:

Notice I highlighted the word "became" in your quote. This is what gap theorists do, they claim that "was" in Gen 1:2 should be rightly translated "became". Fredoheaven said this very thing to me on another thread, and it is also said on David Regan's site that Chette recommends. In fact, the majority of sites that I have seen that support the gap use this very argument.

You originally said you believe God means what he says. I agree. And God knows the difference between the word "was" and "became". And God preserved his perfect word for us that says "was" in Genesis 1:2. That settles it for me, I do not dare try to correct God's Word. This is my biggest problem with gappers, they claim to believe God's Word, but subtly suggest it has errors. We know who the subtle one is.

And Nehemiah, God took six whole days to make the heavens and the earth. Why? He could have spoken everything into existence in a moment. There is obviously a reason God took his time during creation. It has set the pattern for mankind since we came into being, we work six days, and rest one day. And I read once that the gestation periods for all animals can be divided into 7 day weeks. So, I do not fully understand this, but I accept it.

The creation was a process. First he made the earth which is solid, but it was covered with water. Then he made the light. Then he made the firmament. Then he made the dry land "Earth" and the "Seas" appear. Then he made the grass, herbs, and fruit trees. But guess what? There was no Sun, and plants need the sunlight to survive. So, to man this doesn't make sense, but that is the way God did it whether we think that is backwards or not. Then on the fourth day he made the Sun, Moon, and Stars. You said Earth was incomplete? Well, so was the starry heaven until day four! It was "void" of the Sun, Moon, and stars! Then on the fifth day he brought forth the life in the seas and the fowls. Why did he create the sealife and fowls on the same day? Why didn't he make the fowls on the day he made the animals that live on the dry land? Birds live on land, or at least they breathe air, makes more sense to me to make them when he made the beasts and creeping things and cattle on the sixth day. But God is wiser than me or any man. Then he made man.

God could have made all this in an instant. The earth was not truly complete until it was all there. God is not the author of confusion, how can a person say the world is confused? All life depends upon each other and works together. The bees need the flowers, but the flowers need the bees. It is not confused whatsoever, only now that sin has come into the world, now all creation groans. Now things grow old and perish and whither. But at the end of six days it was all "very good" as God said himself.

If not angels, then who are the "sons of God" in this passage?

Genesis 6:4 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Brother Parrish, I wish I had all of Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries, as I said, he's much more into comparing Scripture with Scripture but you have to pay attention to where the Scripture says what it says versus where the man peeks through. Dr. Ruckman does not share my Biblical convictions on matters of ethnicity, shall we say. My great, great granddaddy trafficked in human beings in the 1840s and 50s and his brother rode with John Mosby, the Gray Ghost. All that has remained of both men's influence on me is a very keen interest in guerrilla warfare.

Brother, my mind is Closed For Repairs. Where I feel it incumbent to reply to subsidiary precepts not pertaining to our crucified and risen Saviour I give my opinion with Scripture references and move on. I am genuinely baffled by the angel troubling the waters in John 5 and what Paul meant in I Corinthians 15:29 regarding "...baptism for the dead". We are taught by similitudes, I am having a problem finding one for John 5 and it's significance. They are mysteries to my pea brain, but something I don't dwell on for any undue length of time.

Thank you for the links, and I will look at them and study them.

Grace and peace to you my friend

Tony

II Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Titus 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Brother Nehemiah, I am sorry my answers to you were unsatisfactory. You seem to have a preconceived notion of what the answers should be so that when another Christian gives you the quite Scriptural, prayed for and prayed-over answers, you wish to contend with those answers and the person who gave them. Several of your questions were seductive and mind-numbing in their simplicity of their solution, the remainder was one rhetorical and the rest of a nature that are not easily arrived at, and to me, irrelevant to the gospel of Christ. We are not going to be ministers of the reconciliation or be ambassadors for Christ explaining where the dinosaurs went, whether or not angels came to earth and that they have the ability to reproduce or that their spirits "possessing" the bodies of men produces genetic mutations of great size is not going to get one soul into Christ.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
I Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
I Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

In my lifetime I have wasted about ten minutes discussing the "Gap Theory", and like the Granville-Sharp "theory" of translation that derails many readings in the KJV, particularly Revelation 1:6(the KJV "...God and His Father..." versus ...his God and Father..." of the corrupt translations), I find the identity of the "...sons of God" of Genesis 6 and the "Gap Theory" has yet, in my opinion, to have made one convert to the gospel of Christ.

Matthew 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

My skills at foolish questions were honed on the street and in the door-to-door ministries. My favorite tracts are Fellowship Tract League's JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR and GOD'S LAST NAME IS NOT DAMN:

"What are these?"
"Free literature. Jesus Christ died for your sins. What think ye of Christ?"
"But don't I have to give you and your church all my money?"
"You don't have to give anyone anything, you have to PAY to get VD, this is absolutely free. What think ye of Christ?"
"But what about Swaggart and Bakker?"
"Swaggart and Bakker didn't die for your sins, the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, died for your sins. What think ye of Christ?"
"But the bible has contradicitons..."
"No, you and I both have contradictions, the Bible has no contradictions. What think ye of Christ?"
"But what happened to the dinosaurs?"
"Someone stole them. What think ye of Christ?"
"But isn't there a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?"
"No, the gap is between people's ears, what think ye of Christ?"

Like Mars Hill(our pattern for evangelism) some will scoff, some will say, tell me more. We plant seeds in rocky ground that devils sweep away with their lies, some fall on fertile ground and are watered by others, and God gives the increase to all.

"Not so; nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, in ALL of Scripture are "angels" ever referred to as "the sons of GOD". . .NOT even in the Book of Job."

You offer this above outlandish statement with no Scripture to back it up.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Question One: How does a "star" sing? I'd like Scriptural proof from a Christian who takes the Bible "literally".

The passages in Job 38 above is describing the first creation, God did not make man until the SIXTH day.

Question Two: Who are these "...sons of God..."? in Job 38?

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Question Three: What is the efficacy of the devil exalting his throne above a mere astronomical object?

Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Ephesians 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Hebrews 1:14 effectuively impeaches the angel worship present in popular culture among Gentiles in this Age Of Grace. Angels are for Israel, because I don't need to "inherit" anything, I already have eternal life and salvation.

Who are "...the sons of God..." of Genesis 6? They weren't angels, and I need Scriptural proof of angels being able to co-habitate sexually with human women before I'll believe and teach otherwise.

Brother, how would you like to study the Bible for yourself, and not be dependent on useless and vain contentions with unpleasant people like me? We'll take that up in Part Two.

Grace and peace to you, He is risen, brother.

Tony

Nehemiah, Part Two. How To Study The Bible For Yourself
 

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Nehemiah, all of the men in this thread have approched your questions from the different directions of our individual personalities, however our common foundation is the Scriptures, and where you will find any answer God wishes you to know. He has not yet revealed to me the significance and similitudes of John 5 and the angel, He will if it serves His glory through me. I would ask that you read every reply to you, we are not working against each other here, but compliment each other.

We KJV "Only"s are accused of "double inspiration". Actually, Scripture teaches that God gave the original contant of the Scriptures by inspiration, He preserves His words via copies and translations when the writing material wears out and the languages die, and then His Spirit gives our spirits understanding by His inspiration; That's triple inspiration:

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Why is it, as The Original Manuscript Frauds like to bleat and call us, why is it we KJV "Onlys" are such "jack-booted Nazis" about changing one word in the Scriptures? You lose the references if you do:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Mr 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

We see above that there are precepts given by God, and precepts given by men in Matthew 10.

Ho 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
De 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
e 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ge 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Scriptures interpret themselves and answer your questions for you. We look for types, for similitudes, for images and figures. How do I know that we, the Church, the Body of Christ will not have to endure the Tribulation?

Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Jesus Christ identifies the Tribulation as "the wrath to come", Paul assures us that we will not have to endure this.

Who is the future Anti-Christ, the Beast?

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

One apostle was "lost", Judas Iscariot, and Paul identifies him as the Anti-Christ. Jesus and Paul make a pretty good team, don't they?

2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Your statement that "common sense" is unScriptural is in itself unScriptural. None of the men in this thread are exactly alike, we are "common" in that we all have "common" sense, a sound mind.

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Mt 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
Mt 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
Mt 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Re 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Re 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Re 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

So we see that from the Scriptures above, the "star" of Bethlehem that Paul Crouch has wasted so much electricity on speculating and selling books on saying that the "star" was a "comet" or "Saturn" is in actuality an angel.

What are the "seven spirits" of Revelation 3:1? I'm very glad you asked yourself that question:

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

How did the apostle Paul die? "Tradition' tells us he was executed. "Tradition" tells us Mary was a perpetual virgin too.

Paul was imprisoned in Mamertine Prison, in a pit with a grate for a roof where the guards could walk back and forth and defacate and urinate on the prisoners if they felt like it.

2Ti 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

I am ready for another abdominal surgery, it is needed, the time is here for it, but perhaps the physical therapy will make surgery redundant:

2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
2Ti 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul died of an infection such as pneumonia or other from the unsanitary conditions present in his incarceration. He suffered from the cold, and myself having had pneumonia 21 times in my life can attest to being cold and wanting a "cloke".

I hope you'll carefully study each and every Scripture passge given to you and wish you the best a Christian a can wish for another: That you bear much fruit that He may increase, we may decrease.

Grace and peace to you Nehemiah, this day, and all days.

Tony

Since we're getting off topic and he's not responding anyway...

How do you get pneumonia 21 times...?
do you have a problem with your immune system brother that's gotta be rough... :confused:

Re: "Could There Be a Connection?"
 

Aloha brother Tony,

I know that this is off topic but . . . I too wonder at some of the same things (and others) that "baffle" you. However, in going through the Bible (this time around) I believe I "get" what "...baptism for the dead" is. Please follow the Scriptures along with me.

We all know (or should know) that 1 Corinthians Chapter 15:1-4 defines "the Gospel (Paul's "Gospel"). However the whole Chapter could be called "The Resurrection Chapter" of the Holy Bible.

Read through Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians and take note of the phrase: "the dead" [1Corinthians 15:12-13,15-16,20-21,29,32,35,42,52]. Verses 12 through 52 define "THE DEAD".

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
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.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, IF the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The first thing that has to be done is identify WHO "the dead" are and then WHO are the "they" that are being "baptized for the dead". [And you can be absolutely sure that the Mormons don't have a "clue" about the matter!]

I believe that when a new (born again child of God) Christian is "baptized" (in water) that that "baptism" is a DECLARATION to the world - "the dead" ARE GOING TO RISE AGAIN! "They" are saying: Even though "the dead" are dead and buried, there will come a day WHEN THEY SHALL RISE! And correspondingly (as Paul said) "IF the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" That is - WHY bother baptizing "for (on the behalf of) the dead", IF "the dead" don't rise?

In other words "Water Baptism" for the church DOES NOT place a born again child of God INTO the body of Christ (The Holy Spirit DID THAT the moment we BELIEVED!); and although it "could be" a PICTURE of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (and our identifying with Him); I believe that water baptism "for the dead" is a DECLARATION {by those who are alive, and who are being baptized} to the world that says: "SEE, you may "think" that all those who have died (i.e. "the dead") are dead, buried, and GONE FOREVER, but I am declaring to you: that just like I am buried in this water, and just like I have come up out of the water, so shall ALL of "the dead" also come up out of the grave someday."

"The dead" can no longer speak, but those of us who are alive can. And we can speak with "words" and we can "speak" by way of a "picture" (a physical "illustration"). When a Christian is "baptized for the dead", he (the Christian) is speaking on their behalf (since they can longer speak); he is testifying that "the dead" are NOT going to remain "dead" FOREVER. Read the verse:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Ask yourself WHO are "the dead"? They are either ALL of "the dead" ["For as in Adam ALL die,"] or they are ALL of "the dead" in Christ ["even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive"].

"The dead" in Christ can no longer speak, but we can speak. And when we are baptized we are speaking (by way of an "illustration") for "the dead"; and DECLARING to the world that just like we DID NOT STAY UNDER THE WATER, neither shall "the dead" STAY DOWN - "the dead" SHALL RISE AGAIN! :amen:

Thanks chette777 for the heads up.

I believe ALL Scripture; and I agree, within the Context of 1Cor. 15:45, "The first man, Adam...".

I just don't believe that Genesis 1:26-28 addresses the same Adam of Genesis 2.
Reason #1 is, ". . .let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..."; both the word, ". . .them..." and the phrase, ". . .have dominion over the fish of the sea...", when coupled with, ". . .God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.", just don't seem to explain what the Text (verses 26-28) states and what happens in Genesis 2, and what we have been traditionally led to believe.

So it seems that "Cains wife was one of his sisters women were not recorded in genealogies"; and yes, "we are told that Adam had sons and daughters", but only after the birth of Seth.

But, think about this: Cain murders his Father and Mother's youngest son; They have another son ("Seth") almost 130 years later; They then become the Parents of "daughters" (and other "sons"). But according to the Text of what I just described, "Seth" and these "[other] sons and daughters" don't come along until after we're told, "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch...". And, yes, I know about the so-called "disparities in the chronological order" of How Genesis was supposedly written.

Why would Adam and Eve give to their murderer son, their daughter to wed? Who was Cain afraid of? If there's only Adam, Eve, Cain (at least one daughter of Adam and Eve), why put ". . .a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."? And there are other questions that just don't add up, first and foremost, SCRIPTURAL. . .and then reasonably and logically, etc.!

Again, here is what I believe to be one of those myths that have become traditionally accepted, without any Scriptural foundation and/or backing whatsoever. . .and quite frankly, I believe it makes GOD look bad; and that's Sin.

The word "angel(s)", are even mentioned and/or alluded to until Genesis 16. Nowhere in all of Scripture do we find angels and humans engaging in any kind of Sexual activity (even in Sodom). Hebrews 1:5 clearly tells us, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"; and just in case we missed something like the word, even "the angel of GOD" and/or "the angel of THE LORD" are never referred to, anywhere in Scripture, as a "son" and/or a "Son" of GOD/THE LORD. We see GOD making men into HIS "sons"; We even see GOD making "HIS WORD" into HIS "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" (John 1:14); but nowhere do we ever see GOD making any angel into anything that remotely resembles a "son".

And it seems that when anyone uses Genesis 6: 1-7, to attempt to justify a position of "the sons of GOD" being [Fallen] angels and such, they always miss a very important word in verse 3, ". . .flesh...". . .not to mention the five times each, that both "man" and "men", is used.

Are we really suppose to believe that GOD, destroyed mankind (Save Noah's party), because "fallen angels" started procreating with human women? And yet, the so-called "embodied devils", were left by GOD, to do (and/or try) the same thing after the flood?

Seems more like "simple" speculations to me. And thank you for your Gracious and Kind "Welcome".

By "moot", are you using the word as adjective, verb, or a noun? And all we're told, in Genesis 6:4 is that, "There were giants in the earth in those days;" No mention is made of them being the off-springs of "angels". And it seems as though, according to the wording, "There were giants in the earth in those days;", were the result of what happened when, ". . .the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.". These "sons of GOD" procreated with "the daughters of men", and produced off-springs that were the sons of "the sons of GOD", yet at the same time, the sons of "the daughters of men".

In other words, by way of example ONLY, given the longevity that people lived, Adam (a "son of GOD") takes a wife from "the daughters of men" who's 4-5 generations removed from him. . .that would equal one messed up off-spring, huh?

I really appreciate the information, but I'm not focused on "Giants" right now.


All 6 questions.

Is your opinion, of what you "can tell. . .already" about me, any less "a dogmatic position" than what you "have already taken"?


But you just stated that "Our perception is moot.:rolleyes:"
His WIFE.

Well, that is an interesting heresy.

Banned.

Adam didn't take a wife from the daughters of men.
You seem mired in confusion...

The word Nephilim means "fallen ones." Not Sethites.
It would seem you are having a problem with a spiritual being interfacing with female humans. Have you ever thought how Jesus wound up in Mary's womb? Considering that your very Saviour once lived in ambiotic fluid, only the most jaded of Bible students would completely close off the idea that at least some type of interaction could happen in the realm of evil as well. I'm actually not as dogmatic on all this as you may think, and I try to avoid from completely shutting out information from others, especially when I ask the questions.

Look, if you want to truly have a "civil discussion" as you stated, why not just stop playing games. My comment about perception was in response to your indication that there were no real GIANTS, only perceptions of giants. The Bible is pretty clear about the fact that there were giants, whether YOU accept it or not. The comment about his WIFE, indicates you may be a stubborn jackanapes and this is unfortunate, as I had hoped you were looking for answers, not a merely a platform for your quips.

Re: "Could There Be a Connection?" - Nehemiah?
 

Aloha brother Parrish,

I think you missed the fact that "Nehemiah" was banned! :( It's been a long time since I have seen as many heresies come from one individual in such a short time! :eek:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I can see where there would have been no "profit" in trying to "reason" with the man, when it is obvious that he was into "word games" and "Sophistical arguments", trying to impress us with his deep theological reasoning.

It's just too bad, and really sad, that so few "Christians" have a love of the truth anymore, but instead they will hop on some "hobby horse" (or in this case several "hobby horses") and ride it to death - to the detriment of a sincere and genuine Biblical discussion of Scriptural issues! :confused:

Well thanks Bro. George it looks like you're right...
Guess I'm slow today, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what on earth he was spouting off about!!! :loco: :)

It's a shame when we get new members who feel they have to pick some of the most strange, controversial and divisive questions in order to introduce themselves to the forum... I mean the questions are not all bad, but at least have the decency to listen to the answers provided... :mad:

Brother Parrish, I had an interesting childhood.

The "family" doctor I had as a child was an alcoholic. His prescription to everything, colds, flu, puncture wounds, was sulfa drugs and penicillin. At the age of 39 during my 19th bout of pneumonia, I discovered I was allergic to both, along with onions and marijuana. I had 18 bouts of pneumonia, in varying degrees, till the age of 25. This unknown allergy to penicillin only made me more susceptible to the virus, according to my pulmonologist. I was pretty free till the age of 39, and have had it 2 times since then, and been free of it since 2000 when I began regular anti-pneumonia shots. My doctor I have now is very attentive.

Brother, I think Nehemiah is digesting the vast amount of information given to him, like Jordan in the other thread, I think he's just trying to come to grips with our replies. I guess they thought I cut and run over on FFF, to be honest, I get so much from this forum, the fellowship is so home-like, and days don't have 29 hours, I just don't have time to deal with FFF at the moment. I'm going to set aside one whole day of computer time online to deal with them. Brother George's reply to my query on I Cor. 15:29 was so complete and filled with info I've been most the day checking into that. Nehemiah wants to express himself as we all do and put his two drachmas in, he'll be back. His long reply containing comments to me are unique and interesting, but not after knowledge. I hope he stays and becomes one of us. Off topic? I think Nehemiah arrived at his unique interpretations after much study, but not according to Isaiah 28. Our explanation of the off topic Scripture we discussed and how we arrived at our individual conclusions is a lesson not only to Nehemiah, but unto those who read and don't register in the forum. I think where we differ is: 1. One side is right, the other is wrong, 2. Our own different personalities and beliefs on questions I don't believe there is a clear answer on. I guess it could be said I am nice here and acerbic and rowdy in FFF and giving a "poor witness". I've proven one thing over there: They can dish out arrogance and ridicule, they can't take it.

Brother, you have a great day and...back to the Scriptues.

Grace and peace

Tony

George, I can only say thank you for the time and the effort you put into this, and that this is the first real complete explanation of the verse I've been given, and I am in your debt brother. You've given me even more perspective on both books of Corinthians than I had, I feel a spiritual delight in what you've given me to study. Brother, I don't preach my dispensational beliefs on water baptism, the signs of an apostle, Mark 16 or the Great Commission versus the ministry of reconciliation, we have touched upon them since I became a member of this forum. I'll answer inquiries of my beliefs. I don't want to be a nuisance. I would however like to graze over my own beliefs by saying though I am not a petrified Bullingerite I believe there are portions of both letters to the Corinthians that are transitional, as befitting books written during the Acts period. Your exposition here fits I am sure your, and it also fits into my own convictions, so thank you again and I owe you one:)

Grace and peace

Tony

Brandon, were you beginning to feel like a termite in a yo-yo?

Grace and peace my friend.

Tony

Brother, we didn't waste a nanosecond. Where we gave Nehemiah Scripture, it will bear fruit. Where we said "thus sayeth the Lord..." or "It is written..." will not return unto Him void. We have another Tim, another new member, I have some verse comparison sites for him, so we move right along...

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

Winman, I disagree God first Created the heaven (Gen1:1) then he created the Earth, and the earth was not covered in water. And we have a Scripture which the Lord wrote and he wrote it in an order that if it is sequential and/or Chronological which means the earth was created before there was fountains abounding with water. and it is in His preserved word for us to read it in that order.

look Carefully at God preserved word in Prov 8:22-24 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,before his works of old (this term related to the six days of the Lord's work as found in Gen1-2). I was set up from everlasting (Eternity past for us but is always present with the Lord), from the beginning (this beginning is not that of Gen 1:3 where God began his six days of work), or ever the earth (the earth is mentioned first setting the order of the three things mentioned in Prov 8:22-24) was. When there were no depths (second in order- this would indicate the abode or Heaven of God still had no deep to it), I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water ( third in order and here is the first mention of water as far as it's creation. no where else in scripture can we find where water came from but here is the indicator it was created after the earth).

so what we have here is a sequential order for the earth, the deep and the waters. all these show up in Genesis 1:2. Now if the earth was created first according to the Order God placed in the scriptures of Prov 8:22-24, in it's original form it did not nor could have been covered with water as water came later after the deep. All three of these created things (which the Lord preceded) were created before the establishment of the 24 hour day as found in Gen.1:3. We have no indication here when they were made but they were created before Genesis 1:2 and most definitely before Gen1:3 and Prov 8 supports that order as verse 25-31 all agree with Gen1:6-13 as far as God's works of old done in the 24 hour parameter. simply put the heaven, Earth, the deep and the fountains abounding with water were created in Everlasting (eternity past)

First, I would like to thank Brother George for his study on the baptism of the dead. I too had often been confused by that, what you said made a lot of sense.

So, in the early church did believers participate in a "baptism for the dead" ceremony? Or did I misunderstand you?

I also appreciate Tony's posts, you have a very unique style. :)

And Brother Chette, you know that you and I are never going to agree on this gap theory. Maybe I should be like Tony and just let it go. As he said, nobody has ever gotten saved by arguing either for or against this gap.

But there are several things about this gap theory that really bother me. Most importantly, it casts doubt on God's Word. I have seen several of those that support the gap make statements saying the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should more properly be translated "became". Now that bothers me, and bothers me a lot. I believe God has preserved his Word, I believe it to be infallible. That's why I came to this forum in the first place. I believe God is much wiser than all of us, and that God clearly knows the difference between the word "was" and the word "became". God did not say, "And the earth became without form and void;" the Bible says,

And the earth WAS without form and void;

Now, maybe I am being picky, but this is a pretty big deal to me. We haven't gotten two verses into the Bible, and those who support the gap theory are telling honest Christians who simply take God's Word as literal, that they lack the spirtual discernment to understand the "deep" things of God. Well, all I can say is consider Nehemiah. He believed the earth "became" without form and void;. And look how messed up he was.

And you are not reading Proverbs chapter 8 properly. The whole chapter is about wisdom and understanding. It was wisdom and understanding that God possessed before his works of old.

And Proverbs 8 is not chronological. Genesis 1 is chronological. That's why God takes us step by step, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fouth day, the fifth day, the sixth day. There is no mistaking that Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological account.

Now, Genesis chapter 2 is not chronological. In Genesis chapter 2 it tells of Adam being created before the beasts of the field and every fowl of the air. In Genesis 1 the fowls were created before the beasts of the field, and the beasts of the field were created before man. So Genesis chapter 2 is not a chronological account.

And Proverbs chapter 8 is not a chronological account either. So, this is not something to base your gap theory on.

And you forever talk about this timeless eternity between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 without a single verse anywhere to support it. You say creation "began" at Gen 1:3. Well, I beg your pardon, I believe creation began when God said,

IN THE BEGINNING

I really don't care what you, or some preacher somewhere says. My Bible says everything began in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, and I believe God.

Re: "Could There Be a Connection?"
 

Aloha brother Winman,

I do not believe that their ever was a special "ceremony" involving "a" baptism for the dead (like the Mormons).
I believe that when a saved (born again) child of God is baptized (in water) that it not only represents our identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ [Romans 6:4 & Colossians 2:12], but that it also signifies that those who have died in Christ, (i.e. "the dead") are going to rise again someday. And just as the living saved child of God (undergoing the baptism) came up out of the water - to "walk in newness of life", someday "the dead" are going to come up out of the grave to "walk in newness of life" for all eternity.
I do NOT believe that when a Christian is "baptized for the dead" that that "Baptism" somehow SUBSTITUTES for a "baptism" that "the dead" may or may not have received (that's what the Mormons do); instead, I believe that (down through the church age) when each and every saved, born again child of God has been baptized (in water) that this showed forth a wordless "picture" or a simple "illustration" of what is going to happen to "the dead" (in Christ) someday; in which case then, whenever a living child of God is baptized (in water) they are showing forth (by a "picture") that all those who died in Christ are going to (someday) rise again.

Since "the dead" can no longer speak or testify (their bodies are "asleep" in the grave) - when the living child of God is baptized, that "Baptism" is not only a testimony for himself, but it is also a testimony on behalf of "the dead" in Christ (that can no longer testify) that they too are going to come up out of the grave - just like the individual who is/was being baptized came up out of the water.

If I am right, then every single individual child of God (since the church began) who has been baptized (in water), has been "baptized for the dead" (in Christ), so that, although "the dead" cannot speak - they still "speak" through the one being baptized. Water Baptism then, although it bestows no special "efficacy" on the one being baptized, does signify that just as the Lord Jesus Christ came up out of the grave - someday "the dead" in Christ are going to rise also, and the individual being baptized is "speaking" wordlessly (testifying physically) not only on his behalf, but also on the behalf of all those who have died in Christ (i.e. "the dead") when he undergoes water baptism, and in that sense he is "baptized for the dead".

I have tried to explain myself as clearly as I can. I am a bit "tentative" about this because after 50 years reading my Bible, this is the first time that this explanation has occurred to me (I have never read this from any one else). It seems like it is sound Scripturally, but I wouldn't fight over this issue, and if someone could show me where I may be wrong, I sure wouldn't feel bad. ;)

Your explanation was very clear and I understood it. And it does make sense really. I also believe that baptism is a picture of Romans 6:4.

I heard a tape years ago, I believe it was Curtis Hutson. He was explaining that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but as you said, it is us publicly identifying with Chist. But I laughed because he said if baptism saved you, then he would hold people under and get them into heaven quick. :)

Years ago we had a missionary from India come to our church. In India, when they receive Christ, they make a very formal and public profession. They walk through the center of town so everyone can see, then they go down to the river and are baptised. For some this is a life-changing event, because friends and family often shun them, they can even have difficulty getting work. But these people are so brave and sincere, they shame us really. They are willing to risk all to show their love for Jesus.

Dr. Sorenson takes George's "tentative" view and employs the context of the following verse to it for a further "twist".

Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then
baptized for the dead?

The Mormons to this day advance that
living person may be baptized in place of departed loved ones.
That is heresy and certainly not what Paul is advancing.
The key to its understanding lies in the significance of
baptism itself. In Romans 6:4-5, the Apostle notes that we are
“buried with him by baptism into death.” He continues noting,
“for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”
Believer’s baptism is an identification with Christ. As the
believer is dipped beneath the water, it is a likeness or illustration
of Christ’s death. In being raised out of the water, it is a
likeness of the resurrection. Moreover, it should be remembered
that in the early church, all baptism was done in view of the
public whether in a river, lake, pond, or the sea. It was literally
and very publicly identifying with Christ. The climate of impending
persecution made public baptism a very real statement
of faith.
His point is this. If there is no resurrection, why do new
believers risk persecution and even death by being publicly
baptized. The word translated as for in verse 29 (‘uper huper)
can also have the sense of ‘in behalf of,’ or ‘for the sake of.’ As
new Christians were baptized, they were identifying with the
death of Christ and placing themselves at risk of death from
persecution to follow. The thought might be loosely rendered,
‘Else why do they which are baptized risk death, if the dead rise
not at all? Why are they baptized for the sake of death?’ (A
alternative thought might be, ‘why are new Christians risking
death and persecution in baptism as they replace the ranks of
departed saints?’)
15:30 The thought begun in the preceding verse is extended.
And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? The word
translated jeopardy (kinduneuw kinduneuo) has the sense of
‘danger.’ As in the thought above, if there is no resurrection of
the dead, Paul asked, why are we willing to continually face the
danger of persecution (if there is no resurrection)?

15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ
Jesus our Lord, I die daily. The word translated as protest (nh
nay) is actually an elliptical form of a solemn oath. The thought
essentially is, ‘I affirm your rejoicing which I also have in Christ
Jesus our Lord, but I die daily.’ The latter phrase is Paul’s
reference to facing death from persecution on what seemed to
be on a daily basis. Some in the Corinthian church were at one
and the same time rejoicing in Christ while at the same time
questioning the possibility of the resurrection. His point is,
‘while we rejoice in Christ, I face the prospect of death regularly.
Why would I continue to do so if it were not for the
resurrection?’

WOW... that is interesting,
strangely enough I am also allergic to penicillin. Go figure...

As I understand it an allergy to penicillin is common, I used to take Tetracyclin till they withdrew it. I'm all for anti-biotics brother, they saved my life several times.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

First, I only use the term "Gap theory" lightly. I truly believe the Bible reveals a Gap but is limited in its revelation because it was before the establishment of the 24 hour time measurement Gen1:3.

Second, I have never doubted God's word as per a Gap. Nor have I ever hinted at doubting Gods word. You propose that I doubt God's word but I have never made such a proclamation ever! I do know there are Gap arguments that do doubt God's word but that is not my position. Nor have I ever proposed that the word WAS would be better translated to BECAME. Show me one instance where I have made such a remark. I believe the word was is indicative to the state the earth WAS in at Gen1:2 but not Gen 1:1 and if Prov 8:22-24 can be trusted to be preserved show the sequence.

Third, I never said Creation started in Gen 1:3 (that is your view and young earth). I believe God created way before Gen1:3 1:2 and 1:1. And Proverbs 8 makes that clear(more on Proverbs eight later).

Fourth, as far as "without form and void" I have already shown in another post the meaning of it by comparing to the only other place those exact words are used. So the safe and Biblical meaning is there was a destruction see Jer 4:23 for God's inspired meaning of without form and void.

Fifth, Proverbs eight is no different than other scriptures which give us glimpses of past events. Isa 14 and Ezk 28 both give glimpses of Lucifer and the Anointed Cherub. Isa 12-15 speak literally not about the King of Babylon but figuratively. the same with Ezk 28:12-16 they speak literally of the Anointed Cherub and figuratively of the King of Tyre.

Having shown two scriptures which speak of something outside their immediate context of judgment of an earthly king, we can learn of a being from the past and I believe prior to Gen 1:2. most likely some time just after the Fountains of water were created (proverbs 8 is the only hint as to when that was and it was after the heaven, the Earth and the deep were created.

While I agree Proverbs 8 exalts wisdom, does it not also give understanding to any man who would search out the deeper things of God concerning the creation of the heaven, the Earth, the deep and the fountains of water? Which are not mentioned to have been created, made or established in the 6 day works of old, the works of God after the establishment of the 24 hour day. I believe the answer to that question to be yes.

Sixth, Prove that God did not preserve sequential chronological order in Proverbs 8? if He wrote it that way he did so for a reason and the obvious is to see his order before the works of Old(the six day work of God).

On that not also, I never said that Eternity was "Timeless". Again that is your understanding. I have stated that Eternity has a time measurement but it is not equal to our current 24 hour 7 - 365 day year time measurement. you can learn that it is not the same by reading Psalm 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8. to scriptures that show that an eternal god in eternity has a time measurement unlike our 24 hour TQ. 24/7 is not a made up doctrine it is clearly established in Gen1:3-5 and is carried out through all of Scriptures until Rev 22.

Seventh, the beginning of Proverbs 8 is not the same as the beginning of Gen 1:1. a simple comparison of the two scriptures reveal this truth.

Pr 8:22-24The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Ge 1:1-3 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

you will notice IN proverbs 8:23 the beginning was before the earth ever was and the beginning of Gen1:1 has the beginning associated with the earth that is already created.

So this is a two part beginning. not unlike other doctrines of the Bible the two comings or visitations of the Lord as well as others.

Proverbs 8 "beginning of his way" is before the works of Old in sequential order. that would indicate that "his way". the word way is used to represent a mans life or conversation of life in the bible. to numerous of scriptures to even list. but the "your ways" of Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. is a clear representative of the fact that "his way" speaks of things God was doing before there was a earth, the depth, the fountains(plural=waters) of water. surely no man experienced "his way" except the man Christ Jesus HIs Son from everlasting (eternity past) before the earth was created showing the wisdom of God in possessing his Son.

the heaven is not mentioned in Proverbs 8 only the fact of its depth was not yet created. andof course what father would not first establish an abode for his family (his son) to live in? so by implication the heaven was created before the earth, then the earth, then the depth as the earth was found in the deep in Gen 1:2 (when did it get into the deep? HOw did it get into the deep), and before the fountains of water (waters) were created so how id a earth get covered in waters when there was no water when the heaven and the earth were created.

Gen 1:1 "beginning" is the starting point of (now pay attention) God's Revelation for mankind given to Moses to record for us and preserved in the KJV full intact and without error. it is not equal to the beginning of Proverbs 8 in any way. the term begining meaning "a starting point" can be found in numerous places the first usage to line up with that meaning is in Gen 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

I would not put the Beginning of John 1:1 as a starting point of Gen1:1 but I would put it with Proverbs 8:22 the beginning of his way. . .

However I would put the Beginning of John1:2 as that of Gen1:1 because the following verse would be indicative of the six days of the work of God his works of old that were all done within the 24 hour Time measurment. So here in John 1:1-2 you have the word beginning with both representations of Proverbs 8 and in verse 2 Gen1:1. All I did was actively rightly divide the word of truth.

Conclusion:

Your Bible speaks of greater and more things than you give it credit for. Martin Luther could not reconcile Romans and James because he failed to be actively rightly dividing the world of Truth. and as such he was blinded to how the two books fit together as a whole unit.

I did not mention a Gap at all in my above post. but apparently you saw one.

you trust not the words of men but only the Bible. But when you go to here a preacher speak (especially Baptist) most are teaching topically not verse by verse (as I do from my pulpit). which makes there teaching 90% their explanation of the Bible verse they are expounding. Yet you take their words to be true and possibly without as much scrutiny as you have given my words of explanation.

Brother your post should have ended there. There is a post on the forum that has become the venue for this discussion, keep it there Brother.

Peoples,

Sorry but I had to answer his(Winman) statements in my above post for by leaving his statements as the last words he is able to insinuate I don't know how to study my Bible, that I am a false teacher, and places words into my mouth (post) I never said.

Originally I only remarked I didn't agree with his statement the earth was created first. I never even mentioned a Gap.

I know Brother Chette I know. I was just reminding Brother Winman that there was place on the forum for that subject and I realise you had to answer.
Maybe both of you, well all three of you (Fredo) should part company on that topic for the sake of fellowship in the future.
I am just offering counsel as an impartial Brother and taking no side but the side of fellowship.