PDA

View Full Version : When God makes someone blind...



specks
Jan 22nd 2008, 04:31 PM
I never thought about God making someone blind other than maybe as a punishment, but this verse has me thinking:



(Exo 4:11) Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
It seems like the first thing we do when we see something that is less than perfect (or that others ask us to do) is pray for God to fix it. For example, if a baby is born blind, we would probably think that it wasn't from God or wasn't in His plan and we would pray that God would heal this. Is the reason God would make someone blind so that we come to Him with this prayer or are we overlooking a larger plan and asking for our own will when we want it changed?

RobbieP
Jan 22nd 2008, 04:56 PM
I think it is always His plan anyway.....And part of His plan is to have us need Him....hence the infirmities He allows as we go along our way. I am a firm believer that He controls everything so if somebody is blind or made blind it is part of a plan that we don't understand. If we don't pray then we are not following His Word.

I am very excited that it is so complex. You have to pray because you don't know what His plan is....so all you can do is do what He says ....pray

Very interesting how that works .....People will say , well you aren't going to change His mind, so why bother.....but we never know...maybe it's part of His plan to go a differnt direction at some point to give His children an answer to prayer. He didn't really change His mind because He had it planned all along....but,we don't know that....

Us praying for other's infirmities and asking the Lord to help them, shows our Father that we love them as He commanded us to do...so it is a sign of obedience....

It is challenging to understand...guess that's why we just need to obey..and pray...Cool, isn't it?.

Clifton
Jan 22nd 2008, 05:01 PM
I never thought about God making someone blind other than maybe as a punishment, but this verse has me thinking:

It seems like the first thing we do when we see something that is less than perfect (or that others ask us to do) is pray for God to fix it. For example, if a baby is born blind, we would probably think that it wasn't from God or wasn't in His plan and we would pray that God would heal this. Is the reason God would make someone blind so that we come to Him with this prayer or are we overlooking a larger plan and asking for our own will when we want it changed?

Possibly it has to do with one sinning before birth - the question comes up in John 9:1ff, but that man had not sinned (nor his parents), thus had nothing to with him being born blind, but that the works of God be manifested in the man.

9Marksfan
Jan 22nd 2008, 05:23 PM
Possibly it has to do with one sinning before birth - the question comes up in John 9:1ff, but that man had not sinned (nor his parents), thus had nothing to with him being born blind, but that the works of God be manifested in the man.

That's the perfect verse! Even these so called "deformities" are intended to display the glory of God - often through the person's amazing capacity to overcome them! We are truly "fearfully and wonderfully made"!

Jesusinmyheart
Jan 22nd 2008, 05:44 PM
Possibly it has to do with one sinning before birth

Sinning before birth?????? Please elaborate on that.

Shalom,
Tanja

daughter
Jan 22nd 2008, 05:46 PM
That verse helped my husband, born disabled, start to understand that God had a great plan for him, despite the pain and suffering he'd had to endure. He knew that his congenital illness had formed his character, and motivated him to try and stop suffering in others... He knew that if he hadn't been disabled he mightn't have had the same motive to think outside his own box.

For years Christians told him that his disabiltiy was some kind of punishment from God, either to him or his mother... as you can imagine, this didn't endear God to him all that much.

But when He started to realise that God is with us all, and uses our circumstances to show us truths, lead us where He wants us to go... He started to realise that he didn't have an argument against God anymore, and he was able to repent and go to Christ.

We have a duty to look deeply into scripture, and not just take the first reading that we find for gospel, because there are depths behind depths... and sometimes it is what we miss that would bring most comfort to another suffering soul.

Good catch there...

Jesusinmyheart
Jan 22nd 2008, 05:53 PM
BTW, I'm hearing impaired from birth..... I do wonder what God has in store for me.

Shalom,
Tanja

ServantofTruth
Jan 22nd 2008, 06:05 PM
I think we have to realise that God is always in control. I had to come from an understanding that Judas and the teachers of the Law of Moses, the Chief Priests and the nations leaders were in control of the arest, trials and crucifiction - to a correct understanding that Jesus/ God was in control at every second.
The devil will do lots of evil acts and yet God is in control of the whole of his creation. He allows the devil to tempt us, but always leaves a means of escape - the correct scripture please from someone cleverer than me!
This is not easy to understand and we should show love to those who make mistakes and say things that are unhelpful at times. We all need a lifetime to study God's Word and only fools jump in with opinions on complex issues in certainty, before many years of study.

always
Jan 22nd 2008, 06:06 PM
BTW, I'm hearing impaired from birth..... I do wonder what God has in store for me.

Shalom,
Tanja

God has a way for you to hear more from Him and not others,

I do not believe that God causes deformities, that is not in his nature, the enemy comes to steal, kill and destroy.

So many things get blame on God that have nothing to do with him

specks
Jan 22nd 2008, 06:19 PM
I do not believe that God causes deformities, that is not in his nature,

This is what I thought too, but it didn't line up with the verse I posted at the start of this thread. (If you consider deafness or blindness to be a type of deformity.)

specks
Jan 22nd 2008, 06:22 PM
Possibly it has to do with one sinning before birth - the question comes up in John 9:1ff, but that man had not sinned

How does someone sin before birth? Thanks for the pointer to John 9.

always
Jan 22nd 2008, 06:30 PM
This is what I thought too, but it didn't line up with the verse I posted at the start of this thread. (If you consider deafness or blindness to be a type of deformity.)

and it does not line up with Jesus in the NT, it is a question being asked. Of Course we are to reverence God who has the power to do anything. He has closed some mouths as in Elizabeth's husband, but when he obeyed what God had said he spoke.

Sometimes we bring things on ourselves, sometimes nature has a part, we all have sinned, but in Christ Jesus we are healed by the blood that he shed on the cross.

CoffeeBeaned
Jan 22nd 2008, 07:39 PM
For years Christians told him that his disabiltiy was some kind of punishment from God

My husband, who is blind, has had to deal with this attitude also. Being a Christian, other Christians have come and told him that his faith is not strong enough or he would be healed, that he has sin in his life and that his blindness is punishment and many other things.

He is one of the most godly men I know. Just an example of how God can use blindness; here is a story from a men's group that he belongs to.

They were talking about reading the Bible on a daily basis and apparently many of the men didn't read on a daily basis. My husband spoke up and explained that he must have a computer with expensive software installed and he must listen to his Bible reading in a synthesized voice, yet he reads everyday. He basically told them they had no excuse when it was as simple as picking up a printed book and reading it. Several of the men were convicted by what he said and talked to him later about starting to read daily. I don't believe this statement from my husband would have been as convicting if he were sighted.

ProjectPeter
Jan 22nd 2008, 08:13 PM
God has a way for you to hear more from Him and not others,

I do not believe that God causes deformities, that is not in his nature, the enemy comes to steal, kill and destroy.

So many things get blame on God that have nothing to do with him

Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus,
7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
8 But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.
9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him,
10 and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?
11 "And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time." And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.


He is God. He certainly can and does.

ProjectPeter
Jan 22nd 2008, 08:15 PM
and it does not line up with Jesus in the NT, it is a question being asked. Of Course we are to reverence God who has the power to do anything. He has closed some mouths as in Elizabeth's husband, but when he obeyed what God had said he spoke.

Sometimes we bring things on ourselves, sometimes nature has a part, we all have sinned, but in Christ Jesus we are healed by the blood that he shed on the cross.What about those that aren't healed? Have they brought it on themselves? 100 percent of the time or isn't that perhaps broad brushing things a bit?

Clifton
Jan 22nd 2008, 08:19 PM
How does someone sin before birth? Thanks for the pointer to John 9.


Your welcome.

I'll elaborate on the "sinning before birth" when I get back from the store. Genesis 25:22f is not so obvious in English regarding Esau and Jacob.

In the meantime, and other side of the field, please see Luke 1:15 regarding John The Immerser/Baptist, whom was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Clifton
Jan 22nd 2008, 09:59 PM
We do not know what goes on with the thoughts and mind of the unborn, nor does medical science - when does the unborn get a soul, we do not know. The perceptions the unborn may have are also not known, since none of us remember. The unborn probably knows a lot more mentally and spiritually than we might comprehend. It is staggering how a child catches on so quick about things, like speaking with a high rate of vocabulary and good grammar - it is ironic.

If we look at Genesis 25:22ff, it appears that twins in the womb were "called" - one rejected and one accepted. There is some scripture that God says "I knew you in your womb", but I am not sure where that is - I think it is in Isaiah.

We also have an account that when the mother of John The Baptist came to see Mary, that the unborn John leaped in her womb, expressing to us that the unborn John recognized that "the Christ", though not yet born in the flesh, was present.

In John 9:1-3, it appears that the idea of one sinning before birth was common knowledge, which when reading John, we do not see Christ "correcting" such thinking (regarding whether a person might "sin before birth" to cause them to be born blind), if a nonsensical assumption/belief came up, usually we see Christ correcting that.

I get a kick out of some commentators on John 9:3 - even the best of 'em squirm over that part, "Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned...", in a manner as if "Oh, but Jesus did not say..." - ya see, they had Romans 3:23 on their minds. Robertson was an expert in Greek and it's grammar, so he makes no attempt to "adjust" the passage - for sure, he understood the Greek word παντες <3956 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3956)>, "all" (in Romans 3:23), well, as we do today - it can be collective and/or exaggerated ;) I can give you some examples too, where you would definitely know, that "all" can be in contrast to "each and every".

P.S. One of the old books of the Bible, The Apocalypse Of Peter, has some verses about aborted children (not yet born) being carried up by assigned Angels.

ProjectPeter
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:12 PM
We do not know what goes on with the thoughts and mind of the unborn, nor does medical science - when does the unborn get a soul, we do not know. The perceptions the unborn may have are also not known, since none of us remember. The unborn probably knows a lot more mentally and spiritually than we might comprehend. It is staggering how a child catches on so quick about things, like speaking with a high rate of vocabulary and good grammar - it is ironic.

If we look at Genesis 25:22ff, it appears that twins in the womb were "called" - one rejected and one accepted. There is some scripture that God says "I knew you in your womb", but I am not sure where that is - I think it is in Isaiah.

We also have an account that when the mother of John The Baptist came to see Mary, that the unborn John leaped in her womb, expressing to us that the unborn John recognized that "the Christ", though not yet born in the flesh, was present.

In John 9:1-3, it appears that the idea of one sinning before birth was common knowledge, which when reading John, we do not see Christ "correcting" such thinking, but states that the man was born blind "that the works of God should be revealed in him." - if a nonsensical assumption/belief came up, usually we see Christ correcting that.

I get a kick out of some commentators on John 9:3 - even the best of 'em squirm over that part, "Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned...", in a manner as if "Oh, but Jesus did not say..." - ya see, they had Romans 3:23 on their minds. Robertson was an expert in Greek and it's grammar, so he makes no attempt to "adjust" the passage - for sure, he understood the Greek word παντες <3956 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3956)>, "all" (in Romans 3:23), well, as we do today - it can be collective and/or exaggerated ;) I can give you some examples too, where you would definitely know, that "all" can be in contrast to "each and every".

P.S. One of the old books of the Bible, The Apocalypse Of Peter, has some verses about aborted children (not yet born) being carried up by assigned Angels.In what Jesus said about it being neither of the parents... He did correct them. Not sure how you can see that otherwise.

always
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:15 PM
Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus,
7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
8 But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.
9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him,
10 and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?
11 "And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time." And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.


He is God. He certainly can and does.

brought it on himself, and no somethings are because of our sinful nature, but I believe that God is still a healer. Some things come through fasting and prayer, but just because our eyes do not see the manifestation, YET, does not mean that there is no healing

Clifton
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:16 PM
In what Jesus said about it being neither of the parents... He did correct them. Not sure how you can see that otherwise.


I was referring to about one sinning before birth ;)

Perhaps I should edit the post for better clarity...

ProjectPeter
Jan 22nd 2008, 11:00 PM
I was referring to about one sinning before birth ;)

Perhaps I should edit the post for better clarity...
Said it wasn't the man either.... so point is the same.

ProjectPeter
Jan 22nd 2008, 11:02 PM
brought it on himself, and no somethings are because of our sinful nature, but I believe that God is still a healer. Some things come through fasting and prayer, but just because our eyes do not see the manifestation, YET, does not mean that there is no healingIf a blind person is still blind... then they are still blind. They can have faith and continue to believe they will be healed and they should do that because they will be... either here or there. But they ain't healed if they are still blind and that is just the sort of thing that makes folks look goofy. A blind person walking around telling folks "I CAN SEE" when they are in fact blind as a bat... the word for that is lying. It ain't faith.

Clifton
Jan 22nd 2008, 11:16 PM
Said it wasn't the man either.... so point is the same.


I had already clarified what you are talking about, but that is not what I was talking about - I was talking about "the belief" of ANY unborn "sinning before birth" (if such a belief was faulty then Christ would have corrected them);

I had already pointed out in my initial post that in this case of this blind man, neither he nor the parents sinned that caused him to be born blind, but this happened so that the works of God should be revealed in him.

ProjectPeter
Jan 23rd 2008, 12:20 PM
I had already clarified what you are talking about, but that is not what I was talking about - I was talking about "the belief" of ANY unborn "sinning before birth" (if such a belief was faulty then Christ would have corrected them);

I had already pointed out in my initial post that in this case of this blind man, neither he nor the parents sinned that caused him to be born blind, but this happened so that the works of God should be revealed in him.
And I suppose you are missing my point. Jesus did correct them. Their claim was not accurate and it was neither of their sin. To try and make it that a child can sin while still in their mother's womb... they don't even know good and evil at that point. I've heard folks take Scripture in some odd places before.... but sinning babies in the womb? Gotta admit that this is a first.

Jesus corrected them when he said it wasn't sin of either of them... the parents or the child. That was the point of what was being talked about in that passage of Scripture. Folks need to understand that not every word of Jesus was written down. Not every teaching. Not every miracle. Not even close. To make a doctrine that children can sin in the womb because the writer doesn't record Jesus saying "sinning in the womb? Are you nuts?".... that's when folks come up with some pretty strange doctrine that is devoid of prudence (common sense) which is given to us by God to use.

9Marksfan
Jan 23rd 2008, 01:07 PM
My husband, who is blind, has had to deal with this attitude also. Being a Christian, other Christians have come and told him that his faith is not strong enough or he would be healed, that he has sin in his life and that his blindness is punishment and many other things.

I cannot BELIEVE genuine Christians could be so utterly crass and heartless - they should all repent of such cruel nonsense.


He is one of the most godly men I know. Just an example of how God can use blindness; here is a story from a men's group that he belongs to.

They were talking about reading the Bible on a daily basis and apparently many of the men didn't read on a daily basis. My husband spoke up and explained that he must have a computer with expensive software installed and he must listen to his Bible reading in a synthesized voice, yet he reads everyday. He basically told them they had no excuse when it was as simple as picking up a printed book and reading it. Several of the men were convicted by what he said and talked to him later about starting to read daily. I don't believe this statement from my husband would have been as convicting if he were sighted.

Praise the LORD!!!!!!!:pp:pp:pp

Clifton
Jan 23rd 2008, 01:19 PM
And I suppose you are missing my point.

Perhaps you missed my point and my previous posts ;)



Jesus did correct them. Their claim was not accurate and it was neither of their sin. He corrected them that neither of the duplex question was correct, that I have already pointed out - not that duplex question was out of line. Why do you change my context?:hmm: There is no loss of the Koine Greek here in good English renderings of it.


To try and make it that a child can sin while still in their mother's womb... they don't even know good and evil at that point. I've heard folks take Scripture in some odd places before.... but sinning babies in the womb? Gotta admit that this is a first.How do you conclude that the unborn "don't even know good and evil at that point" ?? How do you know? What is your medical degree for this, or is this one of those acclaimed "new divine revelations" ? Even the Bible Scriptures teach us otherwise - See my post in regards to John The Baptist in references to 2 passages. We do not know what goes on with an unborn in the womb, spiritually and mentally.

It was long held that the unborn can sin in the womb in Hebrew writings - much based on Genesis 25 concerning Jacob and Esau.


Jesus corrected them when he said it wasn't sin of either of them... the parents or the child.Right, and that was what I said, and we see no mention of Him "correcting" (or teaching them) that it was "not" possibly for an unborn to sin, when it was a long standing Hebrew Belief by that time (nor even in regards that some believed the an unborn would inherit the sin of the mother while she is pregnant, others in transmigrations of the soul).


That was the point of what was being talked about in that passage of Scripture. Folks need to understand that not every word of Jesus was written down. Not every teaching. Not every miracle. Not even close. I'm sure folks already understand that. Do you really think that the writer of John would have left a clip out of the context here, and considering it was Hebrew belief for centuries and millennias, and not even mention it? I was involved in textual criticism for years, and there are no textual issues for this passage. It says what it says, and does not say what it does not say.;)


To make a doctrine that children can sin in the womb because the writer doesn't record Jesus saying "sinning in the womb? Are you nuts?"....No doctrine "being made here", that has not been in effect for thousands of years, back to the time of Jacob and Esau, if not already before.


that's when folks come up with some pretty strange doctrine that is devoid of prudence (common sense) which is given to us by God to use.And interesting, "this strange doctrine" is not recorded anywhere in literature for all these thousands of years as being "opposed", and here you are having some "authority" to deem the belief that it is has been devoid of prudence (common sense) by millions throughout thousands of years of history? Common sense tells me, if really you have something over the rest of the medical science world and history, then why be here moderating forums when you could be making history, not to mention, lots of money, awards, and giving credence to pro-choice groups?

The only counter measurement to "sinning before" birth was in regard to transmigration of the souls, Hebrews 9:27, where tells us that are to die ONCE (not two, three or more times) - of course that is just an appointment that might not be met - since those whom were raised from the dead "died" more than "once", and even that does not seemed to be addressed by Christ. I think the evidence is overwhelming that we got more than enough sayings were Christ addressed the oddities and teachings of men.

It is plain and simple: Christ corrected them that the blind man did not sin, nor that the parents sinned, (you keep changing my context), but that the works of God be revealed in the blind man - we do NOT see him "changing", much less dismissing, a historical doctrine that was long in play before He appeared on Earth - the idea that the writer (or any other writers for that manner) just thought it wasn't worth writing about, is too far-fetched: do you honestly believe that?;)

ProjectPeter
Jan 23rd 2008, 04:20 PM
Perhaps you missed my point and my previous posts ;)


He corrected them that neither of the duplex question was correct, that I have already pointed out - not that duplex question was out of line. Why do you change my context?:hmm: There is no loss of the Koine Greek here in good English renderings of it.

How do you conclude that the unborn "don't even know good and evil at that point" ?? How do you know? What is your medical degree for this, or is this one of those acclaimed "new divine revelations" ? Even the Bible Scriptures teach us otherwise - See my post in regards to John The Baptist in references to 2 passages. We do not know what goes on with an unborn in the womb, spiritually and mentally.

It was long held that the unborn can sin in the womb in Hebrew writings - much based on Genesis 25 concerning Jacob and Esau.

Right, and that was what I said, and we see no mention of Him "correcting" (or teaching them) that it was "not" possibly for an unborn to sin, when it was a long standing Hebrew Belief by that time (nor even in regards that some believed the an unborn would inherit the sin of the mother while she is pregnant, others in transmigrations of the soul).

I'm sure folks already understand that. Do you really think that the writer of John would have left a clip out of the context here, and considering it was Hebrew belief for centuries and millennias, and not even mention it? I was involved in textual criticism for years, and there are no textual issues for this passage. It says what it says, and does not say what it does not say.;)

No doctrine "being made here", that has not been in effect for thousands of years, back to the time of Jacob and Esau, if not already before.

And interesting, "this strange doctrine" is not recorded anywhere in literature for all these thousands of years as being "opposed", and here you are having some "authority" to deem the belief that it is has been devoid of prudence (common sense) by millions throughout thousands of years of history? Common sense tells me, if really you have something over the rest of the medical science world and history, then why be here moderating forums when you could be making history, not to mention, lots of money, awards, and giving credence to pro-choice groups?

The only counter measurement to "sinning before" birth was in regard to transmigration of the souls, Hebrews 9:27, where tells us that are to die ONCE (not two, three or more times) - of course that is just an appointment that might not be met - since those whom were raised from the dead "died" more than "once", and even that does not seemed to be addressed by Christ. I think the evidence is overwhelming that we got more than enough sayings were Christ addressed the oddities and teachings of men.

It is plain and simple: Christ corrected them that the blind man did not sin, nor that the parents sinned, (you keep changing my context), but that the works of God be revealed in the blind man - we do NOT see him "changing", much less dismissing, a historical doctrine that was long in play before He appeared on Earth - the idea that the writer (or any other writers for that manner) just thought it wasn't worth writing about, is too far-fetched: do you honestly believe that?;)
I've heard preachers go on about how a kid is selfish because it cries when it wants something therefore the kid is sinning because it is selfish. Problem is... they can only think of themselves because they are totally reliant on mom and or dad to feed them, change them, burp them, or make them feel better when they feel bad.

Then there is the ever popular... they get the cookie, knowing they aren't supposed to get the cookie... but they get the cookie anyway. Then they will tell you .... "no, I didn't get a cookie!" The little LIARS! See... they are sinning! No... what they are doing is living the nature inherited to them to live. Here lies the difference... they don't yet know to choose good over evil.

You want some divine revelation... ponder this then.

Isaiah 7:15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

There is in fact a time... when they just don't know. So yes... it is Scriptural.

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2008, 04:45 PM
If a blind person is still blind... then they are still blind. They can have faith and continue to believe they will be healed and they should do that because they will be... either here or there. But they ain't healed if they are still blind and that is just the sort of thing that makes folks look goofy. A blind person walking around telling folks "I CAN SEE" when they are in fact blind as a bat... the word for that is lying. It ain't faith.

I never understood the whole idea about denying sickness. Shoot, until one acknowledges he is sick, there is no need of a physician and we know Jesus only came to heal those that acknowledge they are sick. It is a weird, and wrong, definition of faith that doesn't allow one to acknowledge what is going on.

Right on PP.

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2008, 04:49 PM
That verse helped my husband, born disabled, start to understand that God had a great plan for him, despite the pain and suffering he'd had to endure. He knew that his congenital illness had formed his character, and motivated him to try and stop suffering in others... He knew that if he hadn't been disabled he mightn't have had the same motive to think outside his own box.

For years Christians told him that his disabiltiy was some kind of punishment from God, either to him or his mother... as you can imagine, this didn't endear God to him all that much.

But when He started to realise that God is with us all, and uses our circumstances to show us truths, lead us where He wants us to go... He started to realise that he didn't have an argument against God anymore, and he was able to repent and go to Christ.

We have a duty to look deeply into scripture, and not just take the first reading that we find for gospel, because there are depths behind depths... and sometimes it is what we miss that would bring most comfort to another suffering soul.

Good catch there...

In my book, it takes more faith to live a Godly life while ill and in the valley than it does while everything is going well. Job is an amazing story. Joni Ericsen-tada is another one. Mieke on our own board always amazes me. The list could go on and on. Jesus himself displayed greater faith on the cross and in the garden than he did at other times, IMO. The ultimate test of trust/faith is when we are being crushed, and yet, we trust.

Job said some very powerful words... "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him".

Blessings,

Mark

Clifton
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:03 PM
I've heard preachers go on about how a kid is selfish because it cries when it wants something therefore the kid is sinning because it is selfish. Problem is... they can only think of themselves because they are totally reliant on mom and or dad to feed them, change them, burp them, or make them feel better when they feel bad.

Then there is the ever popular... they get the cookie, knowing they aren't supposed to get the cookie... but they get the cookie anyway. Then they will tell you .... "no, I didn't get a cookie!" The little LIARS! See... they are sinning! No... what they are doing is living the nature inherited to them to live. Here lies the difference... they don't yet know to choose good over evil.

You want some divine revelation...

None of yours - I have the whole of the Bible. The statement was asking, have you received divine revelation, or someone you adhere to? The reason I stated that is because the contents of posts here suggests people adhere to some, so I was wondering if you were one that holds to that.



ponder this then.

Isaiah 7:15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

There is in fact a time... when they just don't know. So yes... it is Scriptural.Out of context. I've been acquainted with Hebrew for the last 27 years. You are using a broad brush. There is a difference there, and that can be seen when we take the integral of the Bible into context, and not pit scripture and scripture. It does not say that a person cannot sin before birth, and you cannot provide anything to counteract a teaching that has been in effect for literally thousands of years - after all these decades, this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone attempting to do so. It's been common knowledge for ages. Jacob and Esau had callings, one accepted, the other rejected and battled within the womb. John the Immerser knew whom Christ was even when they were in the wombs, and John leaped at the presence of Mary with Christ in her womb. John the Immerser was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb.

Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him - John 9:3

You want it to say, "this man could not have sinned before he was born, so he sinned not, nor has his parents"

Now, would it have really been so difficult to say just a few more words in the response? You think the author reduced the words to shorten it?

Correct me if I err, but I sense you do not like what the English, (and especially the Hebrew and Greek, not to mention, syntax) says here and other places. You want another reading, but, as much as we have posted, I still see you have a "reading" that, unless it is in the Oxyrhyncus Papyri, or stored in some place not yet known, does not exist beyond you and your keyboard - re: textual evidence: zero, not even in the Pseudos or Apocs.

Look, since birth, I have only had one good eye, and one good ear, and there were other issues due to premature birth, and I have no problem with John 9, especially reading the whole thing since we can serve purposes that despite the problems we have, does not stop us in accomplishments.

There are textual issues with the book of John, and there is a couple of places the Greek is lost when translated into English, but chapter 9 is not one of them. Now, there are some "significant variants" in John, even in Chapter 9, starting out at v.4. If you wish to see those, you can access them at:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/john.htm

ProjectPeter
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:13 PM
I never understood the whole idea about denying sickness. Shoot, until one acknowledges he is sick, there is no need of a physician and we know Jesus only came to heal those that acknowledge they are sick. It is a weird, and wrong, definition of faith that doesn't allow one to acknowledge what is going on.

Right on PP.Yeah... it gets weird when you hear folks doing that. Sicker than a dog but taking a bit of Scripture and turning it into a lack of faith just because they say... "you know... I feel like warmed over booger-bear snot!" If they are sick... have folks lay hands on them and pray they be healed. If not... then drive on. No big deal and certainly not a lack of faith.

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:19 PM
Yeah... it gets weird when you hear folks doing that. Sicker than a dog but taking a bit of Scripture and turning it into a lack of faith just because they say... "you know... I feel like warmed over booger-bear snot!" If they are sick... have folks lay hands on them and pray they be healed. If not... then drive on. No big deal and certainly not a lack of faith.

Yea. One of my favorite come backs is when Jesus healed the boy with a demon from his youth but his apostles could not. They couldn't do it because they lacked faith, but the boy and his father had enough faith because Jesus did heal the kid. That's something they don't like to hear about. Perhaps it isn't the sick guy that is lacking in faith. Perhaps it's the one doing the praying. :cool:

Elisha went out in the same glory as Elijah but with an illness. That forever settled for me the healing debate. God desires many, many people to be healed. But for some, he uses an illness to take us out. And who knows how long our testing might be if we are to experience that which Job experienced. But even more important, God is not my genie. It is very distasteful to think if I rub my little faith lamp that God will grant my wishes.

ProjectPeter
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:29 PM
None of yours - I have the whole of the Bible. The statement was asking, have you received divine revelation, or someone you adhere to? The reason I stated that is because the contents of posts here suggests people adhere to some, so I was wondering if you were one that holds to that.


Out of context. I've been acquainted with Hebrew for the last 27 years. You are using a broad brush. There is a difference there, and that can be seen when we take the integral of the Bible into context, and not pit scripture and scripture. It does not say that a person cannot sin before birth, and you cannot provide anything to counteract a teaching that has been in effect for literally thousands of years - after all these decades, this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone attempting to do so. It's been common knowledge for ages. Jacob and Esau had callings, one accepted, the other rejected and battled within the womb. John the Immerser knew whom Christ was even when they were in the wombs, and John leaped at the presence of Mary with Christ in her womb. John the Immerser was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb.

Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him - John 9:3

You want it to say, "this man could not have sinned before he was born, so he sinned not, nor has his parents"

Now, would it have really been so difficult to say just a few more words in the response? You think the author reduced the words to shorten it?

Correct me if I err, but I sense you do not like what the English, (and especially the Hebrew and Greek, not to mention, syntax) says here and other places. You want another reading, but, as much as we have posted, I still see you have a "reading" that, unless it is in the Oxyrhyncus Papyri, or stored in some place not yet known, does not exist beyond you and your keyboard - re: textual evidence: zero, not even in the Pseudos or Apocs.

Look, since birth, I have only had one good eye, and one good ear, and there were other issues due to premature birth, and I have no problem with John 9, especially reading the whole thing since we can serve purposes that despite the problems we have, does not stop us in accomplishments.

There are textual issues with the book of John, and there is a couple of places the Greek is lost when translated into English, but chapter 9 is not one of them. Now, there are some "significant variants" in John, even in Chapter 9, starting out at v.4. If you wish to see those, you can access them at:
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/john.htmUh... I didn't offer you any of "my" divine revelation or "another's" divine revelation hence the posting of Scripture. :rolleyes:

And yeah... here we go. Bad translations... you are familiar with Hebrew and apparently a Greek scholar as well.... and out of context! Never heard that before.

The passage is certainly in context. Don't matter how familiar you are with the Hebrew. ;) And what I don't care for... folks that try and make stuff say what they want it to say by finding error with the various translations because it is very simple.... Give me ten minutes and an Internet connection and I'll find me a scholar that can change, tweak, and make a Bible that fits what I want it to say. So I have very little use for all that. The idea that a unborn child is in the womb sinning their little fannies off... if you want to believe that then that's up to you. But hey... good luck convincing most folk of that.

That child has no knowledge to choose good over evil. You can slice it, dice it, and holler it's a bad translation... but that Scripture is still there. :)

ProjectPeter
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:31 PM
o
Yea. One of my favorite come backs is when Jesus healed the boy with a demon from his youth but his apostles could not. They couldn't do it because they lacked faith, but the boy and his father had enough faith because Jesus did heal the kid. That's something they don't like to hear about. Perhaps it isn't the sick guy that is lacking in faith. Perhaps it's the one doing the praying. :cool:

Elisha went out in the same glory as Elijah but with an illness. That forever settled for me the healing debate. God desires many, many people to be healed. But for some, he uses an illness to take us out. And who knows how long our testing might be if we are to experience that which Job experienced. But even more important, God is not my genie. It is very distasteful to think if I rub my little faith lamp that God will grant my wishes.An aside on that boy... look at that Scripture and you will see something very interesting. Read it closely and see if you can pick up something Jesus did there that you will NEVER see anywhere else. It's a good study and something to ponder.

Mograce2U
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:38 PM
Hi Clifton,
What about this verse?

(Rom 5:13 KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

It is the curse in the law that brings judgment for sin upon the transgressor. To imply that this penalty would be passed onto a fetus before he was even born mocks the justice of God.

Death entered the world because of Adam's sin and with it comes all things that lead to death. Our genetic makeup is somehow flawed because of it else we would live forever - since we also see that our bodies were designed with the ability to self-renew. The penalty of death is what is common to men born into this world and with it all its manifestations.

To blame a deformed child for his sin because God made him thus, seems like an overly harsh view of the God who gives Him life despite the burden He has justly put on humanity to deal with sin. Death must work in mankind lest we live in this sinful state forever. It is the avenue which allows us to be set free from sin forever. Which of course is where our hope in Christ is found.

A deformity in body is merely a visible manifestation of the real malady which affects us all. Which has nothing to do with any particular sin which may have been done in the womb.

Mograce2U
Jan 23rd 2008, 05:54 PM
oAn aside on that boy... look at that Scripture and you will see something very interesting. Read it closely and see if you can pick up something Jesus did there that you will NEVER see anywhere else. It's a good study and something to ponder.
Could it be this verse?

(Mark 9:27 KJV) But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

The child who had been released from this demon also DIED in the ordeal.

(Mark 9:26 KJV) And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.

The father who was told that if he believed would find all things possible,

(Mark 9:23 KJV) Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

responds with this request to Jesus:

(Mark 9:24 KJV) And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

It is at this point, in response to the father's request for faith, Jesus casts out the demon.

(Mark 9:25 KJV) When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Then Jesus ties the whole event into our hope in His resurrection:

(Mark 9:31-32 KJV) For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. {32} But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Everybody seems to focus on the method Jesus reveals whereby we can do similar feats - prayer and fasting; but the real key here is faith in the One who raises the dead!

Clifton
Jan 24th 2008, 01:15 AM
Hi Clifton,
What about this verse?

(Rom 5:13 KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

It is the curse in the law that brings judgment for sin upon the transgressor. To imply that this penalty would be passed onto a fetus before he was even born mocks the justice of God.

Death entered the world because of Adam's sin and with it comes all things that lead to death. Our genetic makeup is somehow flawed because of it else we would live forever - since we also see that our bodies were designed with the ability to self-renew. The penalty of death is what is common to men born into this world and with it all its manifestations.

To blame a deformed child for his sin because God made him thus, seems like an overly harsh view of the God who gives Him life despite the burden He has justly put on humanity to deal with sin. Death must work in mankind lest we live in this sinful state forever. It is the avenue which allows us to be set free from sin forever. Which of course is where our hope in Christ is found.

A deformity in body is merely a visible manifestation of the real malady which affects us all. Which has nothing to do with any particular sin which may have been done in the womb.

Hi Robin,

Thanks for the scripture reference - one of the enjoyments here is I see references posted and read them.

Now, on Romans 5:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=5&verse=13), I read John Gill’s Expository on that - admittedly, it is over 200 years old, and lots of new evidence has come about since then, but none I know about that would change Romans 5:13. He took over 40 years in doing his expository, had access to various versions, folios, and lots of other Christian and Biblical materials, as well as knowing other languages. I checked the others as well, and even Robertson’s Word Pictures, which is more Greek-Tek. They are basically the same conveyances, but you can access Gill’s Expository here:

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=005&verse=013

Respectfully, Romans 5:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=5&verse=13) is not related to what is being discussed here. The Ten Commandments are the moral laws of God - of course, Moses delivered 603 other ones, some of them based on the 10 (for example, like what to do when this law or that law was broken).

I’m sure that there are scientists that believe like the Israelites and we Christians do, that the unborn has spiritual and mental attributes when it acquires a soul. We know from scriptures that God can call the unborn from the womb - I mentioned Genesis 25 in regards to Esau and Jacob, but perhaps it is not so obvious there, and may be dependent upon Talmud, Targum, etc.

There are also other scriptures about God forming one from the womb and knowing them in the womb, but there are various interpretations on those. The point is that if the soul is given to by God to one in the bowels/womb, does God depart or disconnect Himself from that soul? There is a spiritual connection there.

Of course I am not stating that anyone with infirmities of the flesh and/mental “sinned” in their womb, or they rejected a calling or whatever, and I know nobody has the right to say that of me because of my infirmities, and I likewise cannot say the same of others. That is only between us and The Lord. Naturally, the disciples knew Christ would know in John 9, regarding the man being born blind, thus, asked Him. But, in that case, the man was born blind "that the works of God should be revealed in him (the blind man)." Thus, is a good example that no one can judge us from the womb. We just don’t know, or remember.

Did you know that The Apocalypse of Peter used to be in the Bible, and when it came to canonizing one time, it was preferred over the Book Of Revelation, which was not always allowed in canons? There is a reason for that, that shocks the senses of Christians, and even unbelievers, but it was a "Christian teaching" back then. I won’t go into that here, (it’d be off topic), and we no longer have any extant MSS of that book anyway, but I will quote from one of the translators of one of the scripts from Clement of Alexander that quoted from that Apocalypse Book, and then provide you an URL to see for yourself:

2. (48 .1 ) The providence of God doth not light upon them only that are in the flesh. For example, Peter in the Apocalypse saith that the children born out of due time (abortively) that would have been of the better part (i. e. would have been saved if they had lived) -these are delivered to a care-taking angel, that they may partake of knowledge and obtain the better abode, having suffered what they would have suffered had they been in the body. But the others (i.e. those who would not have been saved, had they lived) shall only obtain salvation, as beings that have been injured and had mercy shown to them, and shall continue without torment, receiving that as a reward.
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html

There are 2 other theories in regards to John 9:2, but the post is getting too long, (I have already cut out paragraphs), but I will put them forth if anyone wishes. Both of them will still be the spirit of this thread.

P.S. To understand the word from ημαρτεν <264 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=264)>, better in John 9:3 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=John&chapter=9&verse=3), Click on the 264.

Clifton
Jan 24th 2008, 02:12 AM
Uh... I didn't offer you any of "my" divine revelation or "another's" divine revelation hence the posting of Scripture.

Well, ya know, I have studied my Christian history texts for over 35 years, and I have NEVER heard or read any attempts to counteract this issue of belief of the whole Bible that has been going on for thousands and years, before you - and after thousand of years, here you come along, the first I know of, and claim otherwise - so to me, that is like it has been from the times (if not before) of the Montantists and Gnostics of the early centuries A.D., “acclaimed divine revelations”, which always seemed to contradict scriptures “here and there”, nullifying them. So I assume it is an acclaimed divine revelation since you provide no textual support in keeping things in context. Many have come with various claims, without explicitly stating those words - just look at other the religions and denominations in the 20th Century caused by the utterances of Margaret MacDonald of Scotland. Of course, if you want to conjure up another strange doctrine to compete with history, obviously I can’t stop you :rolleyes:


And yeah... here we go. Bad translations... you are familiar with Hebrew and apparently a Greek scholar as well.... and out of context! Never heard that before.There you go again, putting words into my mouth I never said, nor even supplied. I can expect that from a user on rare occasions (more so in USENET), but from a host that is a moderator on this very site? :hmm: Oh well, if one does it to the Bible, they usually do it to people:( - There are a couple of places that get lost in English even in very GOOD translations, but the passages referred to here are not in that category - very simple. Your statement of “out of context” would be quite amusing to hundreds of people, which know I'm quite a contextual person, and have always been - I’ve been a context defender for years. So far, the evidence is that you are slipping out of context of the bulk of the Bible - it also appears to that you are being selective about what definition(s) you are “selectively” extracting from ημαρτεν <264 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=264)>, not to mention, adding to it. If you knew the whole meaning of the word, you’d know it is not dependent upon knowledge of good and evil, not morally (which you addressed), or spiritually. Please check an extensive Greek Dictionary like WDNT or BDAG for Strong’s #264 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=264).

And I am acquainted with Greek and Hebrew for years - does not take a "scholar" to know other languages. You simply cannot provide any textual evidence that addresses the passages mentioned to you - why don’t you just be honest, and admit, “I cannot address that issue, or passages at this time - but perhaps in the future”? When I cannot address an issue, I say so in such a manner.


The passage is certainly in context.It was not only out of context from the bulk of the Bible, but even out of the context for the chapter - especially for those seeing that as referring to Christ, which I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that he did not have morals from the beginning.


Don't matter how familiar you are with the Hebrew.Oh, it most certainly matters - it is a protective shield from misinterpretations and changes to the underlying text ;)


And what I don't care for... folks that try and make stuff say what they want it to say by finding error with the various translations because it is very simple....You, not me, come up with this “bad translations” issue, perhaps simply to circumvent what is before you?:hmm: You have not addressed any of the passages at all, except for John 9, which seems to be that you believe it must’ve said something else other than that which the textual evidence and Greek provides.


Give me ten minutes and an Internet connection and I'll find me a scholar that can change, tweak, and make a Bible that fits what I want it to say.:lol:

I’ll do ya better, and give you a week, and even longer if you want. But it still won’t matter, because then shall come that “protective shield” of the underlying languages. Of course, even the Greek Dictionary has rare occasions that can’t be ascertained to, and when that happens, either a conclusion is rendered (and noted as such), or it has statements such, “some believe, others believe, etc.”, not specifying which is correct according the languages. When you get your “scholar” to provide you with “what you want it to say”, please let me know the name :lol: - I mean, is a foreign scholar gonna be able to change your English dictionaries ?? You see the irony of your statement? It is so amusing I am raptured in an ecstatic of jocundity:pp


So I have very little use for all that. The idea that a unborn child is in the womb sinning their little fannies off... if you want to believe that then that's up to you. But hey... good luck convincing most folk of that.:rofl:… AGAIN, this has been common knowledge for thousands of years - That has already been pointed out to you. People learn it when they read the Bible, or read the Talmud or expositors, refer to the Hebrew, etc. Some people do fly over it, and learn it from others. You are the FIRST I know of to want to oppose it, but I doubt the Guinness Books Of Records will give you any space in their upcoming editions:lol: - However, in your defense, I haven’t talked to all humans of all ages, so perhaps you are just one in a crew. Interesting try, though. You being the first I’ve encountered is why I am getting extended mirth and joy out of this, enjoying it immensely, and I thank you! :P


That child has no knowledge to choose good over evil. You can slice it, dice it, and holler it's a bad translation... but that Scripture is still there. That child does not have to comprehend “human morals” until out of the womb/flesh/water from their mother. There is the spiritual and the moral.

Again, now who hollered anything about a “bad” translation? Can you give me the post number please? You know you state falsely, don't ya? I actually pointed out that John 9 is not lost in English. Are you accusing me, or someone else? Now, on the main page of this web site, you are listed as a Moderator - is that still current and up-to date?

And yes, that scripture is there, with the bulk of many others. Hey, just confess up, and admit you do not like what Genesis 25 and John 9 says, and chunks of verses - no issue to me if you confess up - there are bites in the Orthodox Revelation that I have disdain for, however, there IS textual evidence for those spots. Now, when you reply, I’ll repeat it again: worldwide known evidence for your “position” (if you’re still a moderator here, is that the right word to use here?) in regards to your commentary, is: ZERO - and also when you reply please let me that if I am improving on my English contractions - ”I’m” working on them, but I am still a poor typist, but don’t think I’ll get a section in the world Guinness Book of Records for it .:spin:

Let me know in a PM and the thread you start when you get your “scholar” report :)
Let’s make sure your report can translate back into the underlying texts of the scriptures in consistency with where the English comes from ;)

Most Amusing.:D

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 02:15 AM
oAn aside on that boy... look at that Scripture and you will see something very interesting. Read it closely and see if you can pick up something Jesus did there that you will NEVER see anywhere else. It's a good study and something to ponder.

SO KEWL! Jesus rebuked the boy. Interesting indeed. Thanks for that tidbit. I have read over that many times before. Interesting. When the boy repented, the demon left him.

Thanks PP.

Matt 17:14-20

14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 " Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him." 17 And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" 20 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
NASU

Mograce2U
Jan 24th 2008, 03:28 AM
SO KEWL! Jesus rebuked the boy. Interesting indeed. Thanks for that tidbit. I have read over that many times before. Interesting. When the boy repented, the demon left him.

Thanks PP.

Matt 17:14-20

14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 " Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him." 17 And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" 20 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
NASUI suppose that translation could stand on its own if it weren't for the parallel passage in Mark 9:25. In Mark it clearly says that the unclean spirit was rebuked and commanded to come out of the boy.

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 03:39 AM
I suppose that translation could stand on its own if it weren't for the parallel passage in Mark 9:25. In Mark it clearly says that the unclean spirit was rebuked and commanded to come out of the boy.

Oh, I don't doubt he rebuked the unclean spirit. He did that a LOT. You may be right and that was all he rebuked. I will do a little more reading on it.

servantsheart
Jan 24th 2008, 04:11 AM
I never thought about God making someone blind other than maybe as a punishment, but this verse has me thinking:

It seems like the first thing we do when we see something that is less than perfect (or that others ask us to do) is pray for God to fix it. For example, if a baby is born blind, we would probably think that it wasn't from God or wasn't in His plan and we would pray that God would heal this. Is the reason God would make someone blind so that we come to Him with this prayer or are we overlooking a larger plan and asking for our own will when we want it changed?
It is my understanding that the reason for blindness, and other illness is for God to be able to show His healing powers for that person and the world. This would be done for God's sake of bringing unbelievers unto Him. In so doing it would allow a person to give up their free will and begin to pray for God 's healing touch and to be reached and saved for the kingdom connection.
Just me giving an opinion that seemes possible. Thanks.

specks
Jan 24th 2008, 09:05 AM
It is my understanding that the reason for blindness, and other illness is for God to be able to show His healing powers for that person and the world. This would be done for God's sake of bringing unbelievers unto Him. In so doing it would allow a person to give up their free will and begin to pray for God 's healing touch and to be reached and saved for the kingdom connection.
Just me giving an opinion that seemes possible. Thanks.

Yeah, that is one of the things I had been considering. I had always been taught that all good things come from God and that all bad things come from Satan. Included in that teaching was that blindness would be from Satan (unless God blinded someone as a punishment), so it was a surprise to me to see that it could just as well be from God.

I think it's easy to take something that seems negative to us on the surface and say that it is from Satan, when maybe it is from God and is really part of His bigger plan.

specks
Jan 24th 2008, 09:10 AM
Yea. One of my favorite come backs is when Jesus healed the boy with a demon from his youth but his apostles could not. They couldn't do it because they lacked faith, but the boy and his father had enough faith because Jesus did heal the kid. That's something they don't like to hear about. Perhaps it isn't the sick guy that is lacking in faith. Perhaps it's the one doing the praying. :cool:

That's something good for people in prayer ministries to keep in mind. I've been yelled at after I was prayed for and not healed. But maybe it wasn't all my fault or my lack of faith. What if it was their lack of faith? What if it just wasn't God's timing and He planned to heal me later for some reason?

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 12:26 PM
SO KEWL! Jesus rebuked the boy. Interesting indeed. Thanks for that tidbit. I have read over that many times before. Interesting. When the boy repented, the demon left him.

Thanks PP.

Matt 17:14-20

14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 " Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him." 17 And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" 20 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
NASU
Don't stop there... still something else you missed.

Mark 9:25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again."

Think of the implication of that last part that I put in bold type. Keep in mind the whole cleaned out and they come back with more even worse thing and then think of this implication. These were told "not again." You'll not see that used any where else where we have recorded that Jesus cast out demons from folks... save this one boy.

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 12:53 PM
Well, ya know, I have studied my Christian history texts for over 35 years, and I have NEVER heard or read any attempts to counteract this issue of belief of the whole Bible that has been going on for thousands and years, before you - and after thousand of years, here you come along, the first I know of, and claim otherwise - so to me, that is like it has been from the times (if not before) of the Montantists and Gnostics of the early centuries A.D., “acclaimed divine revelations”, which always seemed to contradict scriptures “here and there”, nullifying them. So I assume it is an acclaimed divine revelation since you provide no textual support in keeping things in context. Many have come with various claims, without explicitly stating those words - just look at other the religions and denominations in the 20th Century caused by the utterances of Margaret MacDonald of Scotland. Of course, if you want to conjure up another strange doctrine to compete with history, obviously I can’t stop you :rolleyes:Uh... alrighty then. No clue what you are going on about but hey!


There you go again, putting words into my mouth I never said, nor even supplied. I can expect that from a user on rare occasions (more so in USENET), but from a host that is a moderator on this very site? :hmm: Oh well, if one does it to the Bible, they usually do it to people:(Uh... alrighty then.


- There are a couple of places that get lost in English even in very GOOD translations, but the passages referred to here are not in that category - very simple. Your statement of “out of context” would be quite amusing to hundreds of people, which know I'm quite a contextual person, and have always been - I’ve been a context defender for years. So far, the evidence is that you are slipping out of context of the bulk of the Bible - it also appears to that you are being selective about what definition(s) you are “selectively” extracting from ημαρτεν <264 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=264)>, not to mention, adding to it. If you knew the whole meaning of the word, you’d know it is not dependent upon knowledge of good and evil, not morally (which you addressed), or spiritually. Please check an extensive Greek Dictionary like WDNT or BDAG for Strong’s #264 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=264).Perhaps then you will revert back to those great reading skills you have and go back and read my post. I didn't say you were "out of context." You are the one that told me in the beginning of the second paragraph that I used the passage in Isaiah out of context. My comment was that "here we go... never heard that before." Point being... everyone that disagrees with someone generally uses that phrase but then they never really go on to show exactly how it was used out of context. That is exactly what you did. OUT OF CONTEXT!!! But then you don't show how it is such as if the simple phrase itself is proof enough! I don't much pay particular attention to folks post when they just use that phrase without anything to back up their claim.


And I am acquainted with Greek and Hebrew for years - does not take a "scholar" to know other languages. You simply cannot provide any textual evidence that addresses the passages mentioned to you - why don’t you just be honest, and admit, “I cannot address that issue, or passages at this time - but perhaps in the future”? When I cannot address an issue, I say so in such a manner.I did address it. You didn't like the passage I used to address it with. Point being... Jesus did correct them when he said it was neither the parents or the man that sinned that caused his blindness. You are taking that and making it into "folks sin even in the womb." And your proof for that is because the Bible "doesn't say folks can't sin in the womb."



It was not only out of context from the bulk of the Bible, but even out of the context for the chapter - especially for those seeing that as referring to Christ, which I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that he did not have morals from the beginning.It has nothing at all to do with his having morals from the beginning. The point was... it speaks clearly that there is an age when folks don't know to choose good over evil. That was the point. And certainly it was speaking of Jesus and speaking of things that would happen before he reached a certain point in age.


Oh, it most certainly matters - it is a protective shield from misinterpretations and changes to the underlying text ;)Alrighty then.


You, not me, come up with this “bad translations” issue, perhaps simply to circumvent what is before you?:hmm: You have not addressed any of the passages at all, except for John 9, which seems to be that you believe it must’ve said something else other than that which the textual evidence and Greek provides.Uh... that was the passage that I responded to hence the reason I responded to it when you posted the passage. Go figure eh!




:lol:

I’ll do ya better, and give you a week, and even longer if you want. But it still won’t matter, because then shall come that “protective shield” of the underlying languages. Of course, even the Greek Dictionary has rare occasions that can’t be ascertained to, and when that happens, either a conclusion is rendered (and noted as such), or it has statements such, “some believe, others believe, etc.”, not specifying which is correct according the languages. When you get your “scholar” to provide you with “what you want it to say”, please let me know the name :lol: - I mean, is a foreign scholar gonna be able to change your English dictionaries ?? You see the irony of your statement? It is so amusing I am raptured in an ecstatic of jocundity:ppFolks that have been around here a while and folks who come back later who are familiar with me... know well that I wouldn't waste even ten minutes of my time hunting. Rest assured... I'm not going to start now. Scripture itself is enough without me hunting up commentary and word studies and all that whatnot. I'll leave that to all you scholarly folk. I don't care for it myself.


:rofl:… AGAIN, this has been common knowledge for thousands of years - That has already been pointed out to you. People learn it when they read the Bible, or read the Talmud or expositors, refer to the Hebrew, etc. Some people do fly over it, and learn it from others. You are the FIRST I know of to want to oppose it, but I doubt the Guinness Books Of Records will give you any space in their upcoming editions:lol: - However, in your defense, I haven’t talked to all humans of all ages, so perhaps you are just one in a crew. Interesting try, though. You being the first I’ve encountered is why I am getting extended mirth and joy out of this, enjoying it immensely, and I thank you! :PIf that helps you get through the day with a smile on your face... then I am equally overjoyed.



That child does not have to comprehend “human morals” until out of the womb/flesh/water from their mother. There is the spiritual and the moral.

Again, now who hollered anything about a “bad” translation? Can you give me the post number please? You know you state falsely, don't ya? I actually pointed out that John 9 is not lost in English. Are you accusing me, or someone else? Now, on the main page of this web site, you are listed as a Moderator - is that still current and up-to date?

And yes, that scripture is there, with the bulk of many others. Hey, just confess up, and admit you do not like what Genesis 25 and John 9 says, and chunks of verses - no issue to me if you confess up - there are bites in the Orthodox Revelation that I have disdain for, however, there IS textual evidence for those spots. Now, when you reply, I’ll repeat it again: worldwide known evidence for your “position” (if you’re still a moderator here, is that the right word to use here?) in regards to your commentary, is: ZERO - and also when you reply please let me that if I am improving on my English contractions - ”I’m” working on them, but I am still a poor typist, but don’t think I’ll get a section in the world Guinness Book of Records for it .:spin:I gotta figure that you aren't totally dense and you've noticed that my name is in orange which is quite a contrast in color for most of the post. So I will go with the assumption that you know the answer already.



Let me know in a PM and the thread you start when you get your “scholar” report
Let’s make sure your report can translate back into the underlying texts of the scriptures in consistency with where the English comes from ;)

Most Amusing.:DLet me suggest that you not hold your breath while waiting... it could be bad for you. ;)

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 02:38 PM
Don't stop there... still something else you missed.

Mark 9:25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again."

Think of the implication of that last part that I put in bold type. Keep in mind the whole cleaned out and they come back with more even worse thing and then think of this implication. These were told "not again." You'll not see that used any where else where we have recorded that Jesus cast out demons from folks... save this one boy.

Interesting indeed! Thanks for pointing that out. There's a reason for that you know. :D:hmm:

OK, that begs all kinds of questions. Why was the command necessary? Lots to ponder on there.

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 02:41 PM
That's something good for people in prayer ministries to keep in mind. I've been yelled at after I was prayed for and not healed. But maybe it wasn't all my fault or my lack of faith. What if it was their lack of faith? What if it just wasn't God's timing and He planned to heal me later for some reason?

All good questions and all could be answered in the affirmative. The man blind from birth had a particular time God desired to heal him. Lazerus had to die before God would heal him and bring him back. Job had to be tested.

For me, I believe it takes more faith to stay faithful to God during great illnesses than it does to be healed. Who has the greater faith, Job who stayed faithful, or those that were healed and fed by Jesus in the NT that only followed him for bread?

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 02:44 PM
There is ALWAYS a reason for why it's there. Have fun pondering that... it is a great study. :)

always
Jan 24th 2008, 02:50 PM
If a blind person is still blind... then they are still blind. They can have faith and continue to believe they will be healed and they should do that because they will be... either here or there. But they ain't healed if they are still blind and that is just the sort of thing that makes folks look goofy. A blind person walking around telling folks "I CAN SEE" when they are in fact blind as a bat... the word for that is lying. It ain't faith.


Saul struck blind could see the light, something he could not see with his sight. Real Goofy:rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 02:53 PM
Saul struck blind could see the light, something he could not see with his sight. Real Goofy:rolleyes:
Um... alrighty then! Did you just miss the point for missing the points sake?

always
Jan 24th 2008, 03:15 PM
No my point in reference to your post to me, is that sometimes we consider individuals that are handicapped or sick as lacking, when one sense is not active in an individual, the other senses become stronger because of it.

One blind can see in other ways that we can't imagine,

Those that are ill as ,the woman with the issue of blood, should always see their healing in heart and mind (faith), manifested or not, she paid all those doctors that money for a healing, but when she heard about Jesus, she pursued him, because she was desperate and she never loss sight of her healing.

we can't simply sit back and say "OH well I'm not healed, it's God's will" that's a lie!!!!!!!!!!! it's not God's will that any of us be hindered in any way.

He works in mysterious ways if we allow him, to mold us into who HE would have us to be.

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 03:41 PM
Who says it isn't God's will? You? What if God wants them blind for a reason?

always
Jan 24th 2008, 04:54 PM
Who says it isn't God's will? You? What if God wants them blind for a reason?


read the 23rd Psalms that is what our Lord want's for us

The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want. (Provider)

He maketh me to lie down in green Pastures, he leadeth me beside the still waters.(Prosperity)

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake,(salvation)

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me, thy rod and staff they comfort me. (HEALING)

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointed my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (protection)
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

All things work for the good of those who love the Lord!!!!

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 04:59 PM
read the 23rd Psalms that is what our Lord want's for us

The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want. (Provider)

He maketh me to lie down in green Pastures, he leadeth me beside the still waters.(Prosperity)

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake,(salvation)

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me, thy rod and staff they comfort me. (HEALING)

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointed my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (protection)
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

All things work for the good of those who love the Lord!!!!

How did he make Job lie down in green pastures? How did his rod comfort him? The comforting comes after the rod not during. And the green pastures come after the valley of the shadow of death.

Often, God uses illnesses to further his will. Before the fall, they would not have been used. After the fall, there is simply no avoiding them. Though he does heal us, he also uses them. The man was born blind for God's glory. But his healing didn't come till many years after his birth. It was God's will for him to wait for a LONG time. So it was God's will for him to be blind for a period of time.

Elisha died of an illness. Yet, the power of God was on his bones so much, that a slave came back to life when he was tossed on the bones. Sometimes, God uses illnesses to take us out because it is our time to go.

always
Jan 24th 2008, 05:47 PM
How did he make Job lie down in green pastures? How did his rod comfort him? The comforting comes after the rod not during. And the green pastures come after the valley of the shadow of death.

Yes, Job's plight was not of God, it was of the enemy, yes, God allowed it, but he HE is Alpha and Omega, he knew Job would make it. And God is not a man that he would lie, all that mess Job and as wife went through, OH Yes, God made them lie down in green pastures. If we abide in him, and HE abide in us, there is simply no other recourse, we will be made to lie in green pastures.


Often, God uses illnesses to further his will. Before the fall, they would not have been used. After the fall, there is simply no avoiding them. Though he does heal us, he also uses them. The man was born blind for God's glory. But his healing didn't come till many years after his birth. It was God's will for him to wait for a LONG time. So it was God's will for him to be blind for a period of time.

It was not God's will, you have to understand everything that we are dealing with right now is because of sin, Paul is teaching us in

Phl 4:6 to be confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform until the day of Jesus Christ:

If the same God who begins the good work did not finish it, it would lie for ever unfinished. He must perform what he began

We must be confident, or well persuaded, that God not only will not forsake, but that he will finish and crown the work of his own hands. For, [I]as for God, his work is perfect


Elisha died of an illness. Yet, the power of God was on his bones so much, that a slave came back to life when he was tossed on the bones. Sometimes, God uses illnesses to take us out because it is our time to go.

He had already died a physical death, he was spiritually ALIVE

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 08:15 PM
Yes, Job's plight was not of God, it was of the enemy, yes, God allowed it, but he HE is Alpha and Omega, he knew Job would make it. And God is not a man that he would lie, all that mess Job and as wife went through, OH Yes, God made them lie down in green pastures. If we abide in him, and HE abide in us, there is simply no other recourse, we will be made to lie in green pastures.

Oh, God did more than allow it. He caused it. ;)


It was not God's will, you have to understand everything that we are dealing with right now is because of sin, Paul is teaching us in

Phl 4:6 to be confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform until the day of Jesus Christ:

If the same God who begins the good work did not finish it, it would lie for ever unfinished. He must perform what he began

You are right it was not in his original will/plan for mankind. However, testing has always been in the plan. When Adam ate the fruit, illness, death, etc became part of the equation. Because God will test us, and that is his will, disease, death, etc are part of the testing. It can't be avoided. God is far more interested in testing us than in keeping us healthy continuously.


We must be confident, or well persuaded, that God not only will not forsake, but that he will finish and crown the work of his own hands. For, [I]as for God, his work is perfect

Correct.


He had already died a physical death, he was spiritually ALIVE


No one disagrees with you here Always. It just that some folks would tell Elisha that he was sick because he had a lack of faith. He worked great miracles and saw things rarely seen by man. Yet, he died of an illness. But the glory and power of God was with him so much, that his dead bones brought back to life a dead slave man. But that power did not bring back Elisha.

Sometimes, it is God's will that we die with an illness. When Elisha died, his servant saw the same horsemen of Israel that Elisha saw at Elijah's death. Both prophets went out in the same glory, one with an illness, and one that didn't see death.

ProjectPeter
Jan 24th 2008, 08:26 PM
Yes, Job's plight was not of God, it was of the enemy, yes, God allowed it, but he HE is Alpha and Omega, he knew Job would make it. And God is not a man that he would lie, all that mess Job and as wife went through, OH Yes, God made them lie down in green pastures. If we abide in him, and HE abide in us, there is simply no other recourse, we will be made to lie in green pastures.



It was not God's will, you have to understand everything that we are dealing with right now is because of sin, Paul is teaching us in

Phl 4:6 to be confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform until the day of Jesus Christ:

If the same God who begins the good work did not finish it, it would lie for ever unfinished. He must perform what he began

We must be confident, or well persuaded, that God not only will not forsake, but that he will finish and crown the work of his own hands. For, [I]as for God, his work is perfect



He had already died a physical death, he was spiritually ALIVERead Hebrews 11 for what it really says.

Not all receive the promise while here in the nasty now and now. It's a biblical fact... it happens. That's biblical reality. The promise is in green pastures... but not all get that. Faith... faith isn't in the getting those pastures. Faith is in continuing to believe... regardless of here in the nasty now and now. As a friend says often... it's about eternity stupid!!! (For those that think I am calling her stupid... stop and think. It is a play on the common phrase heard in previous elections and this one... it's the economy stupid... figure I'd clarify just to make it clear)

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2008, 08:29 PM
Read Hebrews 11 for what it really says.

Not all receive the promise while here in the nasty now and now. It's a biblical fact... it happens. That's biblical reality.

Yes indeed. The end of Hebrews 11 is a very difficult passage for some, but it is there in black and white.

Clifton
Jan 25th 2008, 05:07 PM
Perhaps then you will revert back to those great reading skills you have and go back and read my post. I didn't say you were "out of context." You are the one that told me in the beginning of the second paragraph that I used the passage in Isaiah out of context.

Yes, out of context with the rest of the Bible. Say for example, if you want to take “Drink and be merry” to stay drunk, that would be out of context, and that is what I meant. You took a snippet which was taken out of the context with the rest of the Bible, in a manner “as if” these other verses weren’t there, and the other meanings in ημαρτεν <264> where not there: pitting scripture against scripture. And BTW, there is MORE than ONE word underlying the English word “SIN” (I’m holding back for now *SNEAKY SMILE*), but I will give you a HEADS UP, and say what I have already said in regards to ημαρτεν, none of them are “limited” to mortality and moral laws in the flesh, or “knowledge of good and evil” in the flesh - it’s a different stage of the soul.


My comment was that "here we go... never heard that before."Well, it is not surprising that you have not “heard” about “spirituality” in the womb (also referred to as “belly” or “bowels” in the Bible, especially the Hebrew Scriptures) - Biblical Knowledge, History, and the texts related or attached to it do not fall in our laps all at once. If it did, think of the fun and enjoyment we would not have! :-) When hearing something “unheard of”, it is best to investigate. But reading the Bible chapter to chapter reveals this anyway.


Point being... everyone that disagrees with someone generally uses that phrase but then they never really go on to show exactly how it was used out of context. That is exactly what you did. OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Quite to the contrary - you have done much to claim I have done things I have not, and claim I not have done the times which I have - The Bible and the FULL meanings of the underlying words of the English, plus, I had already referenced other passages as well, not to mention, the original quote, John 9, unaltered, already shows and proves you were out of context. My references and quotes are in the spirit of the context with the bulk of the scriptures. I was a writer on the local scene for years, and I understand well the real meaning of “context”.



But then you don't show how it is such as if the simple phrase itself is proof enough! I don't much pay particular attention to folks post when they just use that phrase without anything to back up their claim.At times the text speaks for itself. If you do not hear, then you do not hear. I could go on and on about spirituality in the womb, and about a soul in the womb being “called”, “elected”, etc. Esau was elected, but refused, and even try to kill his twin brother in the womb. There are strings of verses throughout the Bible to support the spiritual issues in the womb (you can hear such scriptures referenced by our “anti-abortion” brethren);

Then the word of ADONAI came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:4-5 IAV)

Upon You I have been supported from the womb; You are He who took me out of my mother's belly; my praise shall continually be of You. (Psalms 71:6)

And the list goes on, to show why the issue has always been known, believed, and even taught for millennias, and never “disappeared” - And I don’t need to even address them upon John 9:2, the unedited Greek speaks for itself - it says what it says, and the syntax is included as well, and does say what it does not say. The unedited Greek and syntax is consistent with the rest of the Bible and historical data.


I did address it. You didn't like the passage I used to address it with. Not true at all, I love the passage, I just keep it context with the bulk of the Bible, in the intact and integral sense. All you did was take a passage out of context of the Bible and selective-isolated definitions of ημαρτεν. Again, it is not always dependant upon mortality and morality in the flesh beyond the womb. It can even mean something as simple as “missing the mark”.


Point being... Jesus did correct them when he said it was neither the parents or the man that sinned that caused his blindness.True, but if it were not possible for one to sin in the womb, and this was not an already well known thing throughout the millennias, then the question would make no sense. You admit this with your very own quote. Astonishing. Now, there is another so-called conclusion in reference to John 9:1-3, as well as other passages, but “at least” it does not “rework” the verse into a new whole Greek, and that is, “the Pythagorean notion of a transmigration of all souls.” Perhaps now, you understand the issue of spirituality and mentality in the womb, as an antidote to the notion of a transmigration of souls? One or more houses of the pharisees believed in this. The disciples knew better, so they were not asking if the man had sinned in a previous life/body. And that my dear friend, is why, the issues relating to souls in the wombs has been taught. When the business of “transmigration of souls” is mostly squashed, though not totally, the teaching becomes rare until this business of the transmigration of souls surfaces too much again - as it did in the mid 20th Century, by Edgar Cayce (of my home State, BTW), which uproared the Christian community.


You are taking that and making it into "folks sin even in the womb." And your proof for that is because the Bible "doesn't say folks can't sin in the womb."It cannot say that because of the rest of the Bible. If it said that, it would contradict other passages. It is a belief and doctrine held since AT LEAST the issue of Jacob and Esau, and never died out, not even since English Bibles have come about, it has been in the English Historical texts throughout the centuries. It is simply not a “common” and “regularly” teaching, but I would suggest that more people know about it than they do that “2 Kings 19" and “Isaiah 37" (Deja Vu) are virtually the same per verbatim - enough the make one wonder if their bookmark got misplaced when reading one too soon after the other (usually Isaiah 37 since it later comes after 2 Kings 19.


It has nothing at all to do with his having morals from the beginning. The point was... it speaks clearly that there is an age when folks don't know to choose good over evil. That was the point. And certainly it was speaking of Jesus and speaking of things that would happen before he reached a certain point in age.Does not change the rest of the Bible and contexts and the possible definitions of underlying language. You’re trying to change to texts of the Bible, that when God calls someone, the unborn has to have a coin to flip, because they do not know which way or another whether to heed the call, reject it, or ignore it. The context of the Bible says otherwise, and as one reference I gave shows, the person knew it. Bible translators struggle over what they are translating when it comes to children, but reluctantly, see there is spiritual discernment with children.


Folks that have been around here a while and folks who come back later who are familiar with me... know well that I wouldn't waste even ten minutes of my time hunting. Rest assured... I'm not going to start now.That was my hope - because you would indeed be wasting your time ;-)


Scripture itself is enough without me hunting up commentary and word studies and all that whatnot. I'll leave that to all you scholarly folk. I don't care for it myself.If you read it chapter to chapter, and not just snippets, then you will have the vital basics and will be close enough to the underlying languages. It appears that many people here have done so. You keep distracting from what I am saying - LET US TRY THIS: if you learn FRENCH, then that does not make you a “scholar”, and when you depend on the FRENCH Dictionary, that does not make you lean upon any scholar. It is up to the FRENCH to supply the Dictionaries - that does not mean the suppliers of the Dictionaries are “scholars” - I’m enjoying this, but I really wish you would not jumble things up. You could evaluate a “FRENCH COMMENTARY IN ENGLISH” and sees if it stacks up to the FRENCH, then if it does, you can be more comfortable in referencing it to someone else. Of course, if someone comes along and tries to change the syntax and meanings of French words and sentences, you know better! Understand now? ;-) Of course, people that would try to change the French are not going to be fond of you if they have distorted beliefs extracted erroneously from the French texts, of which you know better, right?


If that helps you get through the day with a smile on your face... then I am equally overjoyed. Yea, saved me 25 cents on anti-anxiety medicine too :-}


I gotta figure that you aren't totally dense and you've noticed that my name is in orange which is quite a contrast in color for most of the post. So I will go with the assumption that you know the answer already.Lack of knowledge and/or Ginkgo Biloba does not necessarily mean one is densed. I saw your handle under “moderators” on the main page. If orange means you are one of the owners of the house, then thank you for providing these services so we can all share with each other - if not, thank you for the time you commit of your own for the upkeeping, if both, thank you for all of the above ;-)


Let me suggest that you not hold your breath while waiting... it could be bad for you. I guess that means I am not doing so well on English Contractions.

No, I was not holding my breath - my armor and shield may get a bit dusty every now and then, but it cannot be pierced - there’s 35+ years of layers ;-)

Mograce2U
Jan 25th 2008, 05:21 PM
Clifton, #60 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1513368&postcount=60)

At times the text speaks for itself. If you do not hear, then you do not hear. I could go on and on about spirituality in the womb, and about a soul in the womb being “called”, “elected”, etc. Esau was elected, but refused, and even try to kill his twin brother in the womb. There are strings of verses throughout the Bible to support the spiritual issues in the womb (you can hear such scriptures referenced by our “anti-abortion” brethren);

Then the word of ADONAI came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:4-5 IAV)

Upon You I have been supported from the womb; You are He who took me out of my mother's belly; my praise shall continually be of You. (Psalms 71:6)

And the list goes on, to show why the issue has always been known, believed, and even taught for millennias, and never “disappeared” - And I don’t need to even address them upon John 9:2, the unedited Greek speaks for itself - it says what it says, and the syntax is included as well, and does say what it does not say. The unedited Greek and syntax is consistent with the rest of the Bible and historical data.Question:
How many David's are there in scripture that were king over Israel? Or how many Jeremiah's or John the Baptist's? (it is one question).

These examples are not intended to give us a universal truth in that all men receive such direct attention from God which was in accordance with God's prophetic word. Your external references and commentaries are merely men's ideas about such things, and a consensus of opinion is nothing more than that.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 05:32 PM
Clifton, #60 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1513368&postcount=60)
Question:
How many David's are there in scripture that were king over Israel? Or how many Jeremiah's or John the Baptist's? (it is one question).

These examples are not intended to give us a universal truth in that all men receive such direct attention from God which was in accordance with God's prophetic word. Your external references and commentaries are merely men's ideas about such things, and a consensus of opinion is nothing more than that.
THanks... kept me from typing all that out. ;)

Clifton
Jan 25th 2008, 06:31 PM
Question:
How many David's are there in scripture that were king over Israel? Or how many Jeremiah's or John the Baptist's? (it is one question).

One and One And One - is this a Trinitarian question? :-)


These examples are not intended to give us a universal truth in that all men receive such direct attention from God which was in accordance with God's prophetic word.What does that have to do with what was addressed?


Your external references and commentaries are merely men's ideas about such things, and a consensus of opinion is nothing more than that.Not entirely true at all - what I am I to do when looking up a word in one of my English Dictionaries? Say, “well, that’s the opinions of man’s ideas”? Seriously. People that want to cling on to home-made doctrines depend on changing the dictionaries of their country and the underlying languages of the Scriptures. This is NOT a knock off against Commentaries - if they know the underlying languages and the supplementing texts, they can be quite good - I know of a good one, and it is not even a "commentary", but an expository, and then I know of a picture one (which is also not a commentary, per se: for those acquainted with Greek, that is that one I reference at times). For me, a commentary is valued for historical data and other scripture references. A Good commentary, for me, is something that saves me typing time, which addresses what the original languages convey that I can refer readers to, and I DO check them first. One was so horribly bad and distorted that I have to de-active it in my OLB Software, and would BY NO MEANS refer to someone else. But some commentaries are going in areas and other areas they are not (because they slant them according to the doctrines of there movements / organizations, or an earlier error - but not necessarily with any intended foul play);

You cannot learn Hebrew and Greek from "commentaries" - at times, history, yes, but the languages, no. We are analytical exegesis folks, and additionally for me, a grammarian. We share. IOW, We learn from others and they learn from us, respectfully.

Apparently, you missed my analogy given to the user on the analogy of FRENCH (it is a language as an example just picked off the top of my head), PLEASE see that paragraph. When it comes to other languages, if ALL were just “opinions” we have no of the Bible or dictionaries, and we would all just run around yapping “opinions” in non-existing tongues. The fact is, the underlying languages of The Bible protects the right “opinions”, as you term them, and protects us from the erroneous “opinions” - that is why it is up to those whom know the original languages to provide the finer points of the language - we are servants for the servants, and they are the same, and we are all servants OF the Servant.

If you are looking for a Greek Word, by itself in specific passages, is limited to "IMO", so far the only one I know of is Strong's 5507 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1067). ;)

Clifton
Jan 25th 2008, 06:33 PM
THanks... kept me from typing all that out. ;)

Take your time ;) Sometimes I not to feel so well and can only browse until I feel better, and I am giving up on English Contractions anyway :D

Mograce2U
Jan 25th 2008, 06:38 PM
Clifton,
What I didn't miss is that the Talmud is one of your sources.

Clifton
Jan 25th 2008, 10:31 PM
Clifton,
What I didn't miss is that the Talmud is one of your sources.

I have access to those and quotes of those and the various other Hebrew resources, but really don't bother with them. Some of those sources are good to tell what went on and what ancient texts refers to. Consider The Book Of Genesis, which is slightly disordered (but not as bad as Matthew and Revelation, which have been reordered now) - Genesis is liken unto that of a collection of CONDENSED notes, say, for what? 2,000 years. We do not see the daughters listed for Adam and Eve. By the time of Chapter 4, suddenly Cain knew his WIFE... which makes the reader feel booby-trapped. Of Course, right in the next chapter, it tells us that Adam fathered many sons and daughters. I have encountered people that stopped at chapter 4 and never saw Chapter 5, with racist remarks, cloaked in a comical manner. Racism is not something that runs in my family, nor I.

Zorgblar
Jan 26th 2008, 01:51 AM
Possibly it has to do with one sinning before birth - the question comes up in John 9:1ff, but that man had not sinned (nor his parents), thus had nothing to with him being born blind, but that the works of God be manifested in the man.

How can you sin before birth if while your still in the womb you haven't done anything wrong?:confused

Clifton
Jan 29th 2008, 01:05 AM
How can you sin before birth if while your still in the womb you haven't done anything wrong?:confused

I doubt a mother whom gets kicked inside her tummy will agree with you!;)

Now that I got some of the response I intended for this reply into your thread about "Reincarnation", this will more short ;)

First, I will mention an old Hebrew belief that an unborn child can inherit the sin(s) of the mother. However, as you saw the quote of John 9:1-3 in the other thread, that cannot apply here, because the question was not asked in that manner, and there was a separation of which one sinned that he was born blind: 1) the man, or 2) the parents. Of course, as the scripture shows, neither was the case.

As to the matter of spirituality and mentality of the unborn, you can read my other posts in this thread, as well as those of ProjectPeter and MoGrace2U.

Sometimes even after born we still do not learn fully...
Luke 12:47 But that slave knowing the will of his Lord, and not preparing, nor doing according to His will, will be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he not knowing, and doing things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few. And everyone given much, much will be demanded from him. And to whom much was deposited, more exceedingly they will ask of him. (LITV)

Enjoy the ride...:D

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 12:39 PM
Ezekiel 18:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel saying, `The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children's teeth are set on edge´?
3 "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.

One can read the rest of the chapter... but the sins of the father are not passed on to the son.

That well may have been a Hebrew belief... but God corrected it. ;)

Mograce2U
Jan 29th 2008, 03:34 PM
Ezekiel 18:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel saying, `The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children's teeth are set on edge´?
3 "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.

One can read the rest of the chapter... but the sins of the father are not passed on to the son.

That well may have been a Hebrew belief... but God corrected it. ;)If anything the Israelites should have known better since when the fathers sinned in the wilderness it was they who failed to receive the promise and it was their children who did!

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 03:41 PM
If anything the Israelites should have known better since when the fathers sinned in the wilderness it was they who failed to receive the promise and it was their children who did!
one plus one always equals two... yeah... they should have known better. :)

Hyberean
Jan 29th 2008, 03:54 PM
God blinds some of His children because He loves them.
He created these bodies and He knows what we are capable of withstanding and what we are not.
Understanding of the Truth can be a very difficult thing to some in these end times.

Mograce2U
Jan 29th 2008, 05:15 PM
God blinds some of His children because He loves them.
He created these bodies and He knows what we are capable of withstanding and what we are not.
Understanding of the Truth can be a very difficult thing to some in these end times.What an unbelievable thing to say!

God in Christ works to open the eyes of those blinded by their unbelief and the devil with the gospel. The entering in of His truth is what dispels their blindness - Rom 10:17, bringing them to faith.

The prophetic word of God that brought about the cross in the 1st century did require that a certain blindness come to Israel so that the cross could occur. This is no way equates to what you are saying however as the universal truth of how the Spirit of God works thru the gospel.