(04-24-2010 03:10 PM)Here Am I Wrote: [ -> ] In Genesis 1, however, it is written that both animals and Adam and Eve were vegetarian: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." (Genesis 1:29, 30)
So, at the creation, everyone/everything was vegetarian.
Very neat study.
I was reminded that I used to be a vegetarian because I thought that was what God had originally intended for me but I was so hopelessly bad, He gave up. I definitely thought it would make me more spiritual if I did not eat meat because I would not be consuming "death" when in fact, I was dead in my sin without Him -- I had so many mixed up ideas. He opened my eyes with: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:11) and "Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:16-20) I needed to learn God was concerned with my heart, not my stomach.
I feel so bad when I watch my family deal with issues of keeping kosher. Going out to restaurants as a group is a very big production near on par with a United Nations negotiation. They're doing it for God, like I thought I was, but they don't see the whole picture.
"Surfing" puts all the pieces together.
Well I Have been reading through my Bible again. I am just getting started again. But here is a little nugget I discovered yesterday. I actually had the thought before I read Dr. Ruckman's notes on it.
Genesis 4:1. And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Cain and Abel were twins. Because it doesn't say that Adam knew her again before Abel is born.
Then as I read on through Cain's murder of Abel and the curse God put on him. God proclaimed that the person who killed Cain, vengeance would be sevenfold.
Genesis 4: 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Later we read the account of Lamech,
Genesis 4: 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Which got me to thinking. If God would avenge the killing of a murderer of his own brother sevenfold. Why was Lamech considering his sin to be more important. Perhaps, and this is just speculation on my part, Lamech had killed his own son. It doesn't say a name of the young man only that he was a young man.
This is important for two reasons. First, it shows what happens when a person tries to decide what God thinks about something. God never confirmed Lamech's claim of the vengeance which would fall.
Secondly, killing your own child was a direct violation of God's command to replenish the earth. Killing your own seed, would interfere with that.
later in Genesis we read of Onan and his attempt to prevent God's plan for the continuation of a family line.
Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Lots of things to ponder in the Bible.
Gary
(04-25-2010 03:12 PM)Here Am I Wrote: [ -> ]From this morning's Bible study:
Back on I Corinthians 11:27, the cup the apostles drank from at the Last Supper is referred to as 'this cup of the Lord'. At no time is 'wine' mentioned in the description of the Last Supper:
Matthew 26:27 uses the word "cup", and "fruit of the vine", but no wine. Jesus says He will drink the fruit of the vine later, "new", not old.
Mark 14:23-25 says "the cup" and "fruit of the vine", and refers to the drink being 'new' as in Matthew.
Luke 22:17 (etc) goes into more detail, as in saying that it was the Passover (verse 15) and used the previously mentioned words: "the cup" (verse 17) and then "fruit of the vine" again in verse 18.
(Note that in verse 20, the cup is "the New Testament" in Christ's blood, and it matches I Corinthians 11:25. Luke was Paul's physician, and must have had a lot of firsthand witnesses to interrogate in order to write his gospel.)
Back to the 'wine' discussion, above:
Notice in NONE of these references is the word 'wine' used!!
In the Episcopal church, we used to have communion every week, and we'd recite "He took the cup OF WINE, and when He had given thanks..." The word 'wine' just isn't there.
But could they be talking about wine? Probably not:
In Isaiah 65:8 (as per PSR), "new wine" is described as being in the cluster (grapes), see Deuteronomy 32:14 "Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.". This is not fermented or old wine. It is 'new' wine, I believe, the squeezed out juice of grapes.
In Deuteronomy 29:6, it is written: "Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God." No strong drink is allowed, just as in Proverbs 20 and 31 and elsewhere in the Bible (do a search for 'strong drink' and try to find a positive passage about it).
I sort of went all over the map on today's study, but I enjoyed it. I hope you are blessed by reading it.
I was very blessed by reading this Sis. I had a thought while reading about the wine.
Matthew and Mark were both Jews. Whereas Luke was a Gentile believer. Luke I think went into more detail on things because he noticed the little things the jews would take for granted.
Such as the wine used as the Last Supper. It was in celebration of Passover.One thing they couldn't eat during passover was leavened bread, and from the scripture you supplied it seems the Jews weren't supposed to drink strong drink either. Wine as we know it is fermented grape juice. Fermentation is a result of the decaying process of the grapes.
If they couldn't eat leavened bread, it makes sense that they would not drink something which was decayed or fermented.
Luke makes a point of mentioning it because he was learning the aspects of what happened and he placed details in to help his readers understand better. Matthew and mark being Jews wouldn't have thought anything of it being new wine at Passover, they had been raised that was what was drank then. Well the Holy Spirit placed the details in Luke's writing.
Where this idea of it being fermented wine to be used for communion started I have no idea. Prolly a Catholic thing.
Just a something else to ponder. Good stuff Sis.
Gary
Note: this isn't so much a 'surfing' study as my others.
Here goes, starting with 1 Corinthians 12:
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:28-31)
Paul tells us to covet the best gifts, yet Paul is going to show something better, a more excellent way. The next chapter, 1 Cor. 13, is the 'Charity' or 'Love' chapter. I think that maybe what Paul was saying was that 'charity' was a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 13:1
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
It doesn't matter what or how you speak: if you do not have love/charity, your well spoken words will be nothing more than noise.
I read the entire chapter, but felt that I needed to study the next one.
1 Corinthians 14:1-5
"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."
The charity aspect is continued from chapter 13 to chapter 14. To prophesize is better than desiring spiritual gifts. Paul writes "but rather that ye may prophesy".
Speaking in unknown tongues is not for the benefit of others. Only God will understand what you are saying.
But if you prophesy, you are understood by others, and your words are a source of comfort, exhortation and edification (building up). It benefits others, not just self.
Speaking in an unknown tongue only benefits the speaker, it does not help anyone else. However, prophesying helps the church, benefits others.
Paul adds that he would like everyone to speak with tongues, but then adds "BUT RATHER that ye prophesied:", explaining that someone that prophesies is greater than someone who speaks with tongues, EXCEPT that the speaker interprets, so the church can be edified. This idea is matched with what Paul wrote in verse one, "... rather that ye may prophesy"
So, tongues are not to be desired, but to prophesy is. Speaking in tongues does not edify anyone, except the speaker.
"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." (1 Corinthians 6-11)
Verses 6-11 continue the thought that speaking in tongues does not profit others, and that just making noise without communication is without merit.
" Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." (verses 12-17)
Desire gifts that would make you a blessing to the church, and that you would be a help in edifying it.
If you speak in an unknown tongue, you should pray that you can also interpret what you are saying, so others can understand. And if you pray in an unknown tongue, and don't even understand what you are saying, what good is it?
Whether we pray or sing, we should understand what it is we are doing. If what we say is gibberish to others, how can they agree with us in giving thanks? It doesn't profit or edify other people if we are speaking in an unknown tongue.
Paul is repeating the same concepts over and over: I believe he was trying to get his point across!
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (1 Corinthians 14:18-20)
Paul thanks God that he speaks with tongues more than all in the Corinthian church. Note: Paul does not say 'unknown' tongue, as he was mentioning before, so I believe this is about foreign languages that Paul can speak, such as Greek or Latin.
But then Paul qualifies what he just said, that it is better to speak less and have people understand you, than speak in tongues. The desire should be to teach, to help others understand, not 'show off' all the tongues you know.
Finally, in verse 20 Paul instructs the Corinthians to not be like children in understanding: they are to act like adults ('men') when it comes to understanding (see 1 Corinthians 13:11).
And they are to be 'nice', as children, with no malice.
Now, what is the purpose of speaking in tongues?
"In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." (verses 21-26)
Paul then quotes Scripture (Isaiah 28:11, 12), about how people refuse to hear God, no matter what language is spoken to them. Speaking in tongues is a sign to people who do not believe. Whenever I see 'sign', I recall that 'signs' are for the Jews, that they 'require a sign' (1 Corinthians 1:22). Remember how the unbelieving Jews would ask Jesus for a sign? That started back when Moses was trying to get God's people out from under Pharaoh's bondage: they required a sign from Moses, and he had the staff and his leprous hand to 'prove' to them. See Exodus 4.
So, signs are for people who do not believe, but what about people who do believe? Why, that's what prophesy is for, for edifying the church.
If people are all blabbering away in tongues, people who are unlearned will not be impressed, but will think that the people in the church are crazy. Having an entire church talking in tongues is confusion and not beneficial to anyone, but especially the church as a whole. Remember, God is not the author of confusion (see verse 33).
But if everyone is prophesying, then an unbeliever or an unlearned person will see God in that situation, and be convicted in his heart.
Thus we see that prophesying is better than speaking in tongues.
"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (verses 27-33)
Here Paul describes how we should do things in an orderly fashion in the church. If no one can interpret someone's tongues, then the person who talks in tongues should be silent.
And those who prophesy should take turns so others may learn and be comforted.
God is not the author of confusion, so that means that someone else is...and I think it won't take much to figure out who would benefit from the church being confused and not being edified as it should...
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Let all things be done decently and in order." (verses 34-40)
These are some verses that offend, so we need to figure out exactly what God is trying to tell us: if they weren't important, would so many people be so offended?
Verse 34 irks many people, since it seems to say that women need to shut up totally. I don't think that's the context. Here's what I think:
The context of these verses can be seen by looking at the verses before: the people in those verses were speaking in tongues, and prophesying. Women are not to do those things in the church, but remain silent. They're not to start asking their husbands for explanations in the church, but wait until they get home. This makes sense, because if a bunch of people are jabbering away about what they are seeing or hearing, it would be confusion!
Verse 36 sounds like sarcasm. Paul seems to be deflating those who are 'puffed up' with how spiritual they are, who act as if they are the holy men who spoke the words of God, writing them down to form the Scriptures. Verse 37 continues the thought.
Verse 38 reminds me of Matthew 15:14: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." If any man chooses to be ignorant, leave him alone to be ignorant, he's got freewill to do so.
Verse 39 and 40 are a summation of the key points, I believe: we should want to prophesy, to covet the best gifts, but don't forbid people to speak in tongues if that's what they want to do.
And do everything decently, in order, without confusion.
