Spirituality
08 Feb 15
08 May 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipHowever if you read on you will see that this came about on the first day not after billions of years of darkness.
Really Smugface ?
Well the passage in [b]Genesis 1:1-3 is definitely alluded to twice at least, in the New Testament. Both times the usage of the passage is not God doing something to a benigh and waiting realm but rather to a realm in which God's enemy's activity has wrought some damage:
1.) John 1:4,5 - "In Him was life, and the life was ...[text shortened]... coming the Devil's damage.
HalleluYahshua !!! Praise the LORD!
I do.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 KJV)
John 1:4-5 does not refer back to Genesis 1:1-3 but forward to the birth of the Messiah.
In Him was life means He is the source of all life. And the life was the light of men means He provides guidance, direction and purpose for men. And the light shines in the darkness means He shines light to reveal the evil of sin in men. And the darkness did not comprehend it means that these evil men did not understand His true identity.
If you prefer the translation "and the darkness did not overcome it" then that could mean that He was victorious over sin and death by the resurrection.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 KJV)
2 Cor. 4:2-6 is not referring to Genesis 1:1-3 either for the purpose you claim, but to His time in the flesh on earth and His gospel of salvation. I believe you should understand this now with out a detailed explanation. Here is a good paraphrase from J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS).
This is the ministry of the new agreement which God in his mercy has given us and nothing can daunt us. We use no hocus-pocus, no clever tricks, no dishonest manipulation of the Word of God. We speak the plain truth and so commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. If our Gospel is “veiled”, the veil must be in the minds of those who are spiritually dying. The spirit of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, and prevents the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, the image of God, from shining on them. For it is Christ Jesus the Lord whom we preach, not ourselves; we are your servants for his sake. God, who first ordered ‘light to shine in darkness’, has flooded our hearts with his light. We now can enlighten men only because we can give them knowledge of the glory of God, as we see it in the face of Jesus Christ.
(2 Corinthians 4:2-6 PHILLIPS)
HalleluYahshua !!!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
However if you read on you will see that this came about on the first day not after billions of years of darkness.
Tell me. On what day do you believe it was when Ezekiel says this about the Anointed Cherub -
"You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sappire, carbuncle, and emerald, with gold. The worskmanship of your tambourines and your pipes was prepared with you on the DAY that you were created." (Ezek. 28:13)
Which of the six days do you think Ezekiel meant ?
"You were perfect in your ways from the DAY that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (v.15)
Which of the six days do you think that was?
Or do you think it happened on a day after that week?
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:5 KJV)
I think we discussed before that literally that is "one day".
John 1:4-5 does not refer back to Genesis 1:1-3 but forward to the birth of the Messiah.
It uses a word picture that I think undoubtedly is derived from God shining LIGHT in and through the darkness in Genesis 1:3.
He is speaking about the coming of Jesus. He is using reference to Genesis 1:3 as a word picture of that coming of Jesus.
In Him was life means He is the source of all life. And the life was the light of men means He provides guidance, direction and purpose for men.
That is surely right. He is the divine ZOE life of man.
And the word picture he uses about the spiritual and divine ZOE life hails back to the light in Genesis which came before the BIOS life of all plants and animals.
The BIOS life of the natural world was preceded by the dry land coming up on the THIRD day. And the divine ZOE life comes about in men to give them inward guidance only because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on the third day.
The usage of the death waters and the death darkness is very strong in the NT. The sea is no more in the new heaven and new earth. And in the New Jerusalem there is no night.
I believe the Holy Spirit, all things considered, reveals darkness, waste, void, emptiness was not just benigh but evidence of forces damaging to God's eternal purpose.
And the light shines in the darkness means He shines light to reveal the evil of sin in men. And the darkness did not comprehend it means that these evil men did not understand His true identity.
If you prefer the translation "and the darkness did not overcome it" then that could mean that He was victorious over sin and death.
These comments, I feel, concur with what I am trying to tell you. The darkness in which the light shined in Genesis 1:3 is used to parallel God working against the opposition of His enemy in the coming of the Son of God.
Of course NIGHT has its natural purposes and is not all negative. But it has an implication in Genesis and in Revelation of God's enemy's opposition to God's eternal purpose.
IE. "And its gates shall by no means be shut by day, for there will be no NIGHT there." (Rev. 21:25)
You have to step back and look at the whole revelation of the Bible in wider scope. I suggest this rather than just treating Genesis as inspired only if it agrees with some modern science matters.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 KJV)
Amen.
2 Cor. 4:2-6 is not referring to Genesis 1:1-3 either, but to His time in the flesh on earth. I believe you should understand this now with out a detailed explanation.
Sure it is a New Testament teaching utilizing a reference to the book of Genesis. This occurs many many times in the NT.
08 May 15
Originally posted by sonshipYou began your reply before I was able to review my post and complete my edit. I did not really mean that the New Testament writers never referred to Genesis for I have already pointed out that Christ did in my defense of the YEC point of view. So I will repeat the portion I edited to give you better understanding below:However if you read on you will see that this came about on the first day not after billions of years of darkness.
Tell me. On what [b]day do you believe it was when Ezekiel says this about the Anointed Cherub -
[quote] "You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chry ...[text shortened]... nt teaching utilizing a reference to the book of Genesis. This occurs many many times in the NT.
2 Cor. 4:2-6 is not referring to Genesis 1:1-3 either for the purpose you claim, but to His time in the flesh on earth and His gospel of salvation. I believe you should understand this now with out a detailed explanation. Here is a good paraphrase from J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS).
This is the ministry of the new agreement which God in his mercy has given us and nothing can daunt us. We use no hocus-pocus, no clever tricks, no dishonest manipulation of the Word of God. We speak the plain truth and so commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. If our Gospel is “veiled”, the veil must be in the minds of those who are spiritually dying. The spirit of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, and prevents the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, the image of God, from shining on them. For it is Christ Jesus the Lord whom we preach, not ourselves; we are your servants for his sake. God, who first ordered ‘light to shine in darkness’, has flooded our hearts with his light. We now can enlighten men only because we can give them knowledge of the glory of God, as we see it in the face of Jesus Christ.
(2 Corinthians 4:2-6 PHILLIPS)
I hope that helps.
08 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipYou ask the following about Ezekiel 28:13-15...However if you read on you will see that this came about on the first day not after billions of years of darkness.
Tell me. On what [b]day do you believe it was when Ezekiel says this about the Anointed Cherub -
[quote] "You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, diamond, chrysolit ...[text shortened]... of the six days do you think that was?
Or do you think it happened on a day after that week?
On what day do you believe it was when Ezekiel says this about the Anointed Cherub?
Which of the six days do you think that was?
Or do you think it happened on a day after that week?
I take this to be an analogy as do many others. First, let us look at the beginning to discover the idenity of the one to be addressed.
The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: ...
Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
(Ezekiel 28:1-2, 12 KJV)
So this is being said about the King of Tyrus or Tyre and an analogy is made to Adam and the Anointed Cherub. There are many commentaries that see it this way and give various explanation. For example:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
in Eden—The king of Tyre is represented in his former high state (contrasted with his subsequent downfall), under images drawn from the primeval man in Eden, the type of humanity in its most Godlike form.
garden of God—the model of ideal loveliness (Eze 31:8, 9; 36:35). In the person of the king of Tyre a new trial was made of humanity with the greatest earthly advantages. But as in the case of Adam, the good gifts of God were only turned into ministers to pride and self.
every precious stone—so in Eden (Ge 2:12), "gold, bdellium, and the onyx stone." So the king of Tyre was arrayed in jewel-bespangled robes after the fashion of Oriental monarchs. The nine precious stones here mentioned answer to nine of the twelve (representing the twelve tribes) in the high priest's breastplate (Ex 39:10-13; Re 21:14, 19-21). Of the four rows of three in each, the third is omitted in the Hebrew, but is supplied in the Septuagint. In this, too, there is an ulterior reference to Antichrist, who is blasphemously to arrogate the office of our divine High Priest (Zec 6:13).
tabrets—tambourines.
pipes—literally, "holes" in musical pipes or flutes.
created—that is, in the day of thine accession to the throne. Tambourines and all the marks of joy were ready prepared for thee ("in thee," that is, "with and for thee" ). Thou hadst not, like others, to work thy way to the throne through arduous struggles. No sooner created than, like Adam, thou wast surrounded with the gratifications of Eden. Fairbairn, for "pipes," translates, "females" (having reference to Ge 1:27), that is, musician-women. Maurer explains the Hebrew not as to music, but as to the setting and mounting of the gems previously mentioned.
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/28-13.htm
08 May 15
1 edit
Ezekiel 28:14
You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth,.... In allusion to the cherubim over the mercy seat, which covered it with their wings; and which, as the ark of the testimony and all the vessels of the tabernacle were anointed, were so likewise; in all probability the king of Tyre is called a "cherub" because of his wisdom and power; "anointed", because of his royal dignity; and "that covereth", because of his office, which was to protect his people; all which he either was, or ought to be, or was in his own opinion so: antichrist makes great boasts of his wisdom, power, and authority, as a teacher, pastor, or bishop, the cherubim being symbolical of the ministers of the word; and of his being anointed by men, that he may be the cover and shield of the church; and of his being the Lord's anointed, and the vicar of Christ, and head and protector of the church, as he calls himself. The Targum understands all this of regal power, and renders it,
"thou art a king anointed for a kingdom:"
and I have set thee so; from whom all kings have their sceptres, crowns, and kingdoms; and by whom they reign; and who can put them down as well as set them up at his pleasure. It may be rendered, "I have given thee"; or suffered thee to be so, as the word "give" is often used; it is by divine permission that antichrist has taken such power to himself, and in judgment to them over whom he rules, who are given up to believe a lie; yea, God "put", or, as it is in the original text, "gave" it into the hearts of the kings to agree and give their kingdom to the beast, Revelation 17:17,
thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; not on Sinai, nor on Zion; on neither of which was the king of Tyre; nor was this literally true of him; for to say, as Kimchi does to illustrate it, that Hiram king of Tyre assisted Solomon with materials to build the temple, is very foreign; but this is true of the antitype of the king of Tyre, antichrist; who has set his foot on God's holy mountain the church; here he first appeared and stood, as before observed on the preceding verse:
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire; which some understand of the precious stones with which the king of Tyre was adorned, which glittered like fire; though rather they design the people of God, those living lively stones of which the spiritual house is built; who, for their clear light, and burning zeal and love, may be said to be as stones of fire; and among these the bishop of Rome, or the antichristian king of Tyre, first walked: so Kimchi interprets them of the Israelites, who were a holy people; and Jarchi of the kings of Israel, who were as the ministering angels; the seraphim perhaps he means, so called from their burning and flaming love. The Targum is,
"and over the holy people thou hast thought to rule."
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/28-14.htm
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 May 15
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you believe Gill's Exposition on this portion of the Scripture? If you are taking a position to agree with this commentary I would ask a few questions.
1.) The ark of the covenant is definitely associated with Israel. It was to Moses the design was given at Sinai.
WHY would Yahweh appoint a Gentile king of a idol worshipping nation to be the Anointed Cherub covering Israel's ark of the covenant ?
2.) Do you believe that the king of Tyre was perfect in his ways from the day he was created (See Ezek. 28:15) ?
3.) Do you believe the Antichrist is set by God to be the anointed cherub covering the ark of the covenant of Israel ?
4.) Do you believe the coming Antichrist was "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created ?
5.) When was the king of Tyre in Eden the garden of God ?
6.) When was or WILL the coming Antichrist be in Eden the garden of God ?
7.) Ezekiel does not say this being "BOASTS" of having great wisdom. Rather it says "you corrupted your wisdom". That is the wisdom associated with how God "set" him - "you were perfect in your ways from the day you were created." (v.15)
8.) While it is true that the coming Antichrist will make great boasts, he was not in Eden the garden of God or "set" by God in any glorious office of God.
" ... indeed I SET YOU, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God ..."
antichrist makes great boasts of his wisdom, power, and authority, as a teacher, pastor, or bishop, the cherubim being symbolical of the ministers of the word; and of his being anointed by men, that he may be the cover and shield of the church;
Where does it say Antichrist will cover and shield the church ?
Revelation says the beast will persecute the saints and overcome them.
"And he opened his mouth for blaspheme against God, to blaspheme is name and His tabernacle, which tabernacle in heaven. And permission was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them ..." (Rev. 13:6,7a)
Why do you want to believe the Antichrist will be some kind of ministering pastor protecting and shielding the Christian church ? That doesn't make any sense.
9. Gill's exposition says - "it is by divine permission that antichrist has taken such power to himself, and in judgment to them over whom he rules, who are given up to believe a lie; "
The wording in Ezekiel 28:14 does not reflect what some evil being seized for himself. Rather it reveals a very positive office deliberately given to him by God from the day he was created.
"You were the anointed cherub who covers the Ark; indeed I set you ... You were PERFECT in your ways from the day you were created."
We do see Antichrist seize power. We do see Antichrist given the go ahead to reign by men. We do not see him perfect in his ways and in beauty from the day he was CREATED.
10.) Yes, a king of Tyre gave to Solomon some materials for building the house of God. For this he was poorly rewarded and under appreciated (1 Kings 9:11-13) . He didn't do this while in Eden the garden of God.
After he sent the material gifts to Solomon he did not take up some position in Israel or become the covering cherub over the ark of the covenant in the house of the house of God.
The king of Tyre who sent Solomon a gift resented being poorly rewarded in exchange. This is not exemplary of being perfect in his ways, or beauty.
11.) If the king of Tyre who sent Solomon material support for the temple is meant there, why does it exalt Solomon OVER all kings including this king of Tyre?
"And King Solomon execelled all the kings of the earth in wealth and in wisdom." ( 2 Chronicles 9:22)
12.) If the king of Tyre was "perfect in [his] ways from the day [he] was created" why does it say the world sought after Solomon's wisdom and not the king of Tyre?
"And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God put in his heart." ( 2 Chron. 9:23)
You have some real problems with Gill's Exposition there. I do expect YOUR thoughts as replies here.
13.
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire; which some understand of the precious stones with which the king of Tyre was adorned, which glittered like fire; though rather they design the people of God, those living lively stones of which the spiritual house is built; who, for their clear light, and burning zeal and love, may be said to be as stones of fire; and among these the bishop of Rome, or the antichristian king of Tyre, first walked:
While I endorse the view that the Christians are living stones built up into a spiritual house, when did the king of Tyre move about amongst New Testament Christians ?
As for the Antichrist - his sore persecutions during the great tribulation can hardly be thought of as his positively walking amongst the saints.
Why I see problems with it being the Pope in Rome will have to be dealt with latter. You can round out your theory by answering these 13 points.
09 May 15
Originally posted by sonship
Do you believe Gill's Exposition on this portion of the Scripture? If you are taking a position to agree with this commentary I would ask a few questions.
1.) The ark of the covenant is definitely associated with Israel. It was to Moses the design was given at Sinai.
WHY would Yahweh appoint a [b]Gentile king of a idol worshipping nation ...[text shortened]... e will have to be dealt with latter. You can round out your theory by answering these 13 points.[/b]
I couldn't think of the right word at the time and instead of my saying it is an analogy, I really meant it was a metaphor, a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
So the idea is not meaning the King of Tyre is literally the same as Adam or the anointed cherub that covers the ark of the covenant, but that there is a similarity or resemblence to which he can be compared.
That is how Gill's Exposition is explaining that these metaphors can be applied to the King of Tyrus or Tyre as when he first ascended to the throne and this prophecy of his downfall. You did notice that these statements are commanded by the Lord to be said to the King of Tyrus or Tyre didn't you?
It appears that you are making the wrong assumptions and, therefore, it makes your questions seem silly. You must understand that these are all metaphors that only point out resemblances and are not literal facts about the King of Tyre.
I believe Gill's Exposition is on the right track by explaing it the way it does, even though, all our understandings are probably not complete.
09 May 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipNo I don't believe that, but I do believe that most of them feel a need to compromise with the evolution point of view and one of these ways is by finding millions or billions of years of past history in the Holy Bible. Some, like Suzianne, would rather speak bad about me and that I seem stupid to the evolutionists rather than her by appearing to stand with them rather than stand with me and other YECs in our simple straight forward interpretation of Genesis. She compromises, as you do, by allownig for millions and billions of earth history and she also states that God used evolution in his creation process.
So Hinds, you believe every believer in the pre-adamic history of Satan is kind of a closet Evolution believer ?
Yes or No.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsMy questions are not silly. You are evading sensible questions about the commentary.
I understood quite well the author. He was giving some possibilities as to how the passage could be taken. And I see that the questions I posed will go unanswered.
09 May 15
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI could answer your questions, however, that could get long because simple answers would give the wrong conclusions just like simple logical answers to logic problems with incorrect premises result in wrong conclusions.
My questions are not silly. You are evading sensible questions about the commentary.
I understood quite well the author. He was giving some possibilities as to how the passage could be taken. And I see that the questions I posed will go unanswered.
Who is God telling Ezekiel to say these things to?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 May 15
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThere was and is no hurry. The questions that you think are unfair, you may state your reasons for this. I am reasonable.
I could answer your questions, however, that could get long because simple answers would give the wrong conclusions just like simple logical answers to logic problems with incorrect premises result in wrong conclusions.
[b]Who is God telling Ezekiel to say these things to? [/b]
Now here you said:
I couldn't think of the right word at the time and instead of my saying it is an analogy, I really meant it was a metaphor, a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”.
I understand that danger of taking metaphor too far. Yet some things should still make some consistent sense. Still one asks "Does making this kind of metaphor make sense?" The resemblance should make some sense.
Antichrist in the midst of the great tribulation is hardly in "Eden the garden of God." How could you refer to the earth at the time of the great tribulation as an Eden? And the literal king of Tyre had nothing to do with any Eden, God's garden.
And some of the things in Gill's exposition do not make as good sense as how others have expounded on it IMO.
It seems to me that Gill's commentary goes out of its way to avoid assigning Satan as being revealed in the passage. If I recall correctly, he does make some possible application of it to Antichrist. I have much less problem with that.
But to avoid the more superhuman aspects of it results in the obscuring and obfuscating of Satan's past. He is stripped naked in that passage and expositors who cannot see that or avoid that are doing the church of God no favors.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen you're not responsive to my questions it doesn't encourage me to play along with your questions. Some mutual reciprocation is expected.
I could answer your questions, however, that could get long because simple answers would give the wrong conclusions just like simple logical answers to logic problems with incorrect premises result in wrong conclusions.
[b]Who is God telling Ezekiel to say these things to? [/b]
The things spoken through the prophet Ezekiel are for the people of God - both of the old covenant and new covenant.
10 May 15
Originally posted by sonshipYou ask, "How could you refer to the earth at the time of the great tribulation as an Eden? And the literal king of Tyre had nothing to do with any Eden, God's garden.
There was and is no hurry. The questions that you think are unfair, you may state your reasons for this. I am reasonable.
Now here you said:
[quote] I couldn't think of the right word at the time and instead of my saying it is an analogy, I really meant it was a metaphor, a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which ...[text shortened]... passage and expositors who cannot see that or avoid that are doing the church of God no favors.
I have already stated that I did not mean an analogy but a metaphor and that Gill's Exposition is explaining that these metaphors can be applied to the King of Tyrus or Tyre as when he first ascended to the throne and this prophecy of his downfall since these statements are commanded by the Lord to be said to the King of Tyrus or Tyre. I saw nothing in Gill's Exposition that referred to the time of the great tribulation as an Eden. I don't know what gave you that idea. Maybe you dreamed it after you went to sleep. Perhaps you should read it again to discover your source of error.
You don't seem to want to admit that the scriptures clearly state twice before that these statements are to be said by Ezekiel to the King of Tyrus and not to Satan as you want to imagine. Even though Gill's Exposition believes the metaphor mainly deals with the resemblance of the King's situation as resembling that of the first man in the Garden of Eden, it does not categorically rule out a resemblance to Lucifer and his becoming Satan too. It is really just speculation. What we know for sure is it is to be said to the King of Tyrus (Tyre) and I am not going to call God a liar if he wants these things said to the King of Tyrus. So what ever is commanded by God to be said to the King applies to him in some way.
HalleluYahshua !