moses 5-4-3
abraham continued
until now: abraam heard the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. meanwhile abram traveled to "Grar" and abraam said his wife was "my sister" to save his life. a similar story is in egypt but that story has less details. the Grar-king took sara and then-
that night he dreamt that she was married. he returned her saying "you said she was your sister so i did not know". god did not punish him for his mistake. if so the story with paro seems unjust! why was paro and his house afflicted? for some other sin? or the way the righteous suffer? no-and-no! genesis says it was because of her! a just god should not punish one who was misled! in the way god did not punish the grar-king; showing god is justly just.
if we see in this story that god does not punish mistakes then it is unjust to afflict the egypt-king and a corruption of justice to punish house?
shall we defend god by saying it was justice to punish the paro-mistake? then it is not equal to exempt grar-king and not equal is also not justice!
do not say god is not justly just- not just yet! do not jump to conclusions that the two stories are the same story that happened once and the storytellers adjusted the story because of this question. the differnce is simply not written! in the tale of egypt sara did not lie, the story lacks the detail "she was asked" because she was taken with no question!
the takers of paro-house were punished- afflicting house- for they did not ask! the story lacks that paro asked because paro did not ask her! so he was punished.
when he was in pain he realized that it was a message- for his act of that day- not an illness that happens to anyone but a message. in contrast to grar, abraam said "she is my sister" so they were misled!
they acted in error and the only way grar-king would know was if god said so. to protect sara god said so. what happened before he slept and dreamt? king dozed off early and dreamt the dream before touching her, the people thought they did touch but god testified that the king was innocent.
another possibility is that he was undressing her when he saw her stomach near and realized she had a growing baby inside her, and so without touching said "let's just talk". this is supported by the context of isac born 21.
ishmael is sent away-
reminding the reader that through isac the promise will be fulfilled about SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" as in genesis and romans 9.7 "Neither=not because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." excluding ishmael who was not from sara according to romans NT, because "not all" of abraams children get the promise.
the next verse in this context refers to ishmael excluded. we should not ignore ishmael in this exclusion nor ignore what is near the verse called "context" and verse 8 also refers to ishmael: "That is, They which are the children of the flesh[=ishmael], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." which is revealed in the next verse- promise=SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son". only by ignoring what is near it would someone think "not the israelites who are flesh- these physical descendants are explicitly called "not children" ignoring ishmael and ignoring the words near it, but ishmael was a child of flesh and he is excluded since not sara in verse 9.9 see footnote.
abraam tied isac 22.9 as an offering and is praised for fear of god. BUT THIS SEEMS IMMORAL TO HARM his son. he should decide "god would never command this" and it is not from God!or tell god "over my dead body" to pass the test and show I must protect my son- that would be the proper answer on this test! and morally abraam failed, and did evil, because he did not respond "i do not kill unless i rescue lot".
without knowing hebrews 11it seems this way- NT adds faith in promise of son in genesis 15 god would revive him from dead THIS was the faith- not the binding but faith in the promise of a son that when i kill him he will die and revive- [reminds me of the movie mummy of 1930's] revive isac from dead to keep the promise.
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS was a disputed book- not to include in the holy list- but this detail is good and we are blessed to have this detail [preserved in the bible] to understand abraam's faith. sara reached old age and died 23 and sleeps until the revival of the dead. it is sleeping both in hebrew and in theology [matthew 22.30+ 24.31] abraam BUY=bought land to bury her 23, abraam sent slave to bring relative for isac to wed 24. after they marry, abram died and JACOB born 25
**it took me 8 minutes to read this seven remain
***footnote: the listeners who did not see what is near and close to these words in romans 9.7-9 would be fooled- and say "the promise" means if you believe in the correct version of christianity- yet that ignores ishmael who was a physical child. and the context of the verses before and after help us understand gods message through paul that ishmael is out and isac from SARA=the promise: "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" the promise is defined as the promise of SARA.
besides context interpreting in a way that jacob is excluded=rejected would conflict romans 11.1-2 ""I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" so we should not doubt if it refers to jacob or ishmael.
also romans 11.28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes" those who ARE called enemies are still beloved due to fathers despite themselves being unworthy. these crafty jews got their defense into the new testament too! just joking.
paul was assited by the spirit of god to write that his promises are irrevocable=god does not turn=kjv-repent as the next verse continues. however the listeners would be fooled- especialy if it was an idea which they want to hear eagerly.
abraham continued
until now: abraam heard the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. meanwhile abram traveled to "Grar" and abraam said his wife was "my sister" to save his life. a similar story is in egypt but that story has less details. the Grar-king took sara and then-
that night he dreamt that she was married. he returned her saying "you said she was your sister so i did not know". god did not punish him for his mistake. if so the story with paro seems unjust! why was paro and his house afflicted? for some other sin? or the way the righteous suffer? no-and-no! genesis says it was because of her! a just god should not punish one who was misled! in the way god did not punish the grar-king; showing god is justly just.
if we see in this story that god does not punish mistakes then it is unjust to afflict the egypt-king and a corruption of justice to punish house?
shall we defend god by saying it was justice to punish the paro-mistake? then it is not equal to exempt grar-king and not equal is also not justice!
do not say god is not justly just- not just yet! do not jump to conclusions that the two stories are the same story that happened once and the storytellers adjusted the story because of this question. the differnce is simply not written! in the tale of egypt sara did not lie, the story lacks the detail "she was asked" because she was taken with no question!
the takers of paro-house were punished- afflicting house- for they did not ask! the story lacks that paro asked because paro did not ask her! so he was punished.
when he was in pain he realized that it was a message- for his act of that day- not an illness that happens to anyone but a message. in contrast to grar, abraam said "she is my sister" so they were misled!
they acted in error and the only way grar-king would know was if god said so. to protect sara god said so. what happened before he slept and dreamt? king dozed off early and dreamt the dream before touching her, the people thought they did touch but god testified that the king was innocent.
another possibility is that he was undressing her when he saw her stomach near and realized she had a growing baby inside her, and so without touching said "let's just talk". this is supported by the context of isac born 21.
ishmael is sent away-
reminding the reader that through isac the promise will be fulfilled about SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" as in genesis and romans 9.7 "Neither=not because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." excluding ishmael who was not from sara according to romans NT, because "not all" of abraams children get the promise.
the next verse in this context refers to ishmael excluded. we should not ignore ishmael in this exclusion nor ignore what is near the verse called "context" and verse 8 also refers to ishmael: "That is, They which are the children of the flesh[=ishmael], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." which is revealed in the next verse- promise=SARA romans 9.9 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son". only by ignoring what is near it would someone think "not the israelites who are flesh- these physical descendants are explicitly called "not children" ignoring ishmael and ignoring the words near it, but ishmael was a child of flesh and he is excluded since not sara in verse 9.9 see footnote.
abraam tied isac 22.9 as an offering and is praised for fear of god. BUT THIS SEEMS IMMORAL TO HARM his son. he should decide "god would never command this" and it is not from God!or tell god "over my dead body" to pass the test and show I must protect my son- that would be the proper answer on this test! and morally abraam failed, and did evil, because he did not respond "i do not kill unless i rescue lot".
without knowing hebrews 11it seems this way- NT adds faith in promise of son in genesis 15 god would revive him from dead THIS was the faith- not the binding but faith in the promise of a son that when i kill him he will die and revive- [reminds me of the movie mummy of 1930's] revive isac from dead to keep the promise.
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS was a disputed book- not to include in the holy list- but this detail is good and we are blessed to have this detail [preserved in the bible] to understand abraam's faith. sara reached old age and died 23 and sleeps until the revival of the dead. it is sleeping both in hebrew and in theology [matthew 22.30+ 24.31] abraam BUY=bought land to bury her 23, abraam sent slave to bring relative for isac to wed 24. after they marry, abram died and JACOB born 25
**it took me 8 minutes to read this seven remain
***footnote: the listeners who did not see what is near and close to these words in romans 9.7-9 would be fooled- and say "the promise" means if you believe in the correct version of christianity- yet that ignores ishmael who was a physical child. and the context of the verses before and after help us understand gods message through paul that ishmael is out and isac from SARA=the promise: "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son" the promise is defined as the promise of SARA.
besides context interpreting in a way that jacob is excluded=rejected would conflict romans 11.1-2 ""I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" so we should not doubt if it refers to jacob or ishmael.
also romans 11.28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes" those who ARE called enemies are still beloved due to fathers despite themselves being unworthy. these crafty jews got their defense into the new testament too! just joking.
paul was assited by the spirit of god to write that his promises are irrevocable=god does not turn=kjv-repent as the next verse continues. however the listeners would be fooled- especialy if it was an idea which they want to hear eagerly.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה