Saturday, July 17, 2010

Study Interruption: Pure Descendants of Ishmael and Esau


As we were studying these portions of scripture, someone requested a study on the “pure descendants of Ishmael (not those mixed with Isaac's progeny) and the descendants of Esau as they exist in the Middle East today). I was happy to oblige to the best of my ability.

1. Ishmael was born to Abraham and Hagar (Genesis 16:15).
2. Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarai (Genesis 21:3).
3. Esau was born to Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 25:25).
4. Ishmael then was Esau’s half-uncle as he was his father’s half-brother.

5. Ishmael gets married but we are not given his wife’s name (Genesis 21:21). We do know she, like his mother, was from Egypt.
6. Ishmael has twelve sons (Genesis 25:13-15).
7. Ishmael has at least one daughter whom he gives to Esau in marriage (Genesis 28:9).

That much we know from the Bible. But from there things start to get complex. Let’s start with what we know about Ishmael’s genealogy. Most Jewish and Islamic traditions hold that Ishmael was an ancestor of the Northern Arab people. Another designation to this group for the sake of emphasis and distinction is “Arabized-Arabs”. They are different or separate from the group of Arabs who were descendents of Ya’rub. Think of Northern and Southern Arabs as occupying the whole of Arabia (as the land came to be known around the first centrury B.C.). The Northern “Arabized-Arabs” lived in the northern, central and western parts of Arabia. This group is also know as Adnan, Ma’add, or Nizar, after some key ancestors.

The Qahtani Arabs lived in the south and southeastern part of Arabia. They are the Kahtan or Semitic peoples who originated from or claimed genealogical descent from Yemen and the surrounding southern extent of Arabia. According to Islamic tradition the Islamic prophet Muhammad descended from Qahtan, the ancestor of this southern group of Qahtani Arabs. Having said that, some believe that some modern Arabs see their ancestry as being of Isaac’s bloodline.

Here’s where we are: the Qur’an contains no genealogies. And neither does the Holy Bible tell us anything more about this Ishmael, Abraham’s son.

Into the story comes a place or site known as Kaaba. According to Wikipedia, the Kaaba is a cube--shaped building in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and is the most sacred site in Islam. The building predates Islam, and, according to Islamic tradition, Abraham built the first building at the site. The building has a mosque built around it, the Masjid al-Haram. All Muslims around the world face the Kaaba during prayers, no matter where they are. Qur’an 2:127 tells us that Abraham and Ishmael “raised the foundations” of this site. It is not clear whether that means ‘built’ or ‘rebuilt’ as some Islamic traditions claim Adam was the original builder. Do you see the emerging weaknesses in all these various claims?

Returning to Ishmael, you remember that he was about to die of thirst when an angel showed his mother a well and told her again that he would become a great nation (Genesis 21:18). According to Genesis 25:9-18, Ishmael’s twelve sons had ancestors of twelve tribes that dwelt from Havilah to Shur, land that was crossed, on route to Egypt, on route to Assyria.

There is no undeniable evidence to be found which can correctly and with total certainty identify Havilah with a modern-day location. The same is true for the place called Shur. Thus it becomes difficult to pinpoint who Ishmael’s exact descendants are today.

In Rabbinical literature, we read that the angels protested to God on the issue of Ishmael being given water when he was dying of thirst because they believed his descendants would destroy the Israelites by thirst. The literature goes on to say that God replied that at that point in time, Ishmael was innocent and that He judged him according to what he was at that time. (Which by the way, is an interesting take on God’s view of both the time we operate in and how he deals with us during various stages of our lives.) Rabbinical literature goes on to claim that Ishmael returned to his father Abraham in his later life and did in fact repent of his evil ways.

Switching to Esau’s genealogy, we find this in the Jewish Virtual Library: “Traditional enemies of the Israelites, the Edomites were the descendants of Esau who often battled the Jewish nation. Edom was in southeast Palestine, stretched from the Red Sea at Elath to the Dead Sea, and encompassed some of Israel's most fertile land. The Edomites attacked Israel under Saul’s rulership. King David would later defeat the rogue nation, annexing their land. At the fall of the First Temple, the Edomites attacked Judah and looted the Temple, accelerating its destruction. The Edomites were later forcibly converted into Judaism by John Hyrcanus, and then became an active part of the Jewish people. Famous Edomites include Herod, who built the Second Temple.” I’ll let our readers study that on their own for more details and in order to arrive at their conclusion.

The majority of the material that I was able to peruse came to the conclusion that either Edomites no long exist today, or we really do not know who they are. One possibility is that indeed if we consider Esau’s blessings, we would have to admit that his descendants would also multiply and scatter throughout the world. It is possible they have done just that and integrated many other diverse societies and culture. They are still around, but not as Edomites. If we accept that possibility, then who we think they may be today depends greatly on our worldview. Some may believe the descendants of Esau have given up their hatred of the Judaic people. Others may think they have gravitated towards those cultures and peoples whose very singular goal in life is to obliterate Israel. Perhaps one day, and maybe soon, we will know. In the meantime, I will leave the guesswork to you.

In summary, the bottom line is still this. Ishmael did come from Abraham’s line. Esau did come from Isaac’s line, which in turn came from Abraham. Jesus came from Jacob’s line, which in turn came from Abraham. Today we have Jews and Arabs. The great majority of original Jews (those not converted to Judaism) come from Jacob’s line. It is possible that some descendants of both Ishmael and Esau may have at one time or another converted to Judaism, but for the most part the rest existed as Arabs and either integrated into more vibrant Arab cultures or died off. As a result, we must contend ourselves with the realization that what matters today, from this perspective of this discussion, and with respect to the end times is this – there are Arabs and there are Jews. And of course, there is God.

Join others following Ken on Twitter
Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

Sign up (on the right) to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends and while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.

Also, I’ve read some good books and make some great recommendations for you at http://astore.amazon.com/accorconsu-20 which you can purchase right from there.

Check our firm out at Accord Consulting.

Finally, if you like what you read here, you may want to donate to my favourite charity, SCA International, by clicking on the logo below. Ken.

43 comments:

  1. I find it interesting that Muslims claim decendancy from Ishmael and thus Abraham, but all they offer in support of that claim is the visions of the prophet. The fact that this disagrees with the only literature on the subject seems unimportant to them.

    The Qur'an has many points of disagreement with the Old Testament which is a problem for me since they also revere Abraham and his predecessors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Karl: Thanks for commenting on the blog, but can you clarify your statement, "The fact that this disagrees with the only literature on the subject seems unimportant to them."? Are you saying Muhammad's claim disagrees with the "only literature" being the Scriptures? Can you clarify your meaning a little for us?

    That the Qur'an disagrees with the First Testament is mostly due to two things as I sit it: First, the timing of the writings and secondly, the motivation behind the writings. Both very different and the motivations are totally at odds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous23/6/12 14:18

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Anonymous. I did find this study motivating. I don't know what more one could say about this topic. It is what it is -- God alone knows all the answers to all the gaps we discover. If you had a specific aspect or a question you may want someone to try and answer, do let us know. In the meantime, keep on studying this most interesting history that will play an incredible role in a most exciting future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous30/8/12 09:07

    this is way interesting article , but i have something to say if you allow me , prophet Mohammed didn't descend from Qahtan , he was was descended from Adnan who was a descendant of Qedar the son of Ishmael , prophet Mohammed also said that in one of his speeches:((Allah choose Abraham,from Abraham he chose Ishmael,from Ishmael he chose the Kenana,from Kenana he choose Quraysh tribe,from Quraysh he chose Hashem,from Hashem he chose me)) this Hadith can be found in ((Sahih Al-Bukhari)) , so prophet Mohammed gave the people his bloodline to make sure he's a descendant of Ishmael but that's what some Christians are trying to deny while the Jews fully agree with it , so according to this Hadith we can see that prophet Mohammed was from the descendant of Hashem the descendant of Quraysh the descendant of Kenana the descendant of Ishmael the son of Abraham, now Kenana is known in the archaeological studies to be the descendant of Adnan who was the leader of the Qedarite Arab tribes in their wars against the king of Babylon ((Nebuchadnezzar)),so this is the line between prophet Mohammed and Ishmael ((peace be upon all of them))

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for this latest input "Anonymous" -- although again, I do not understand why people submit information of this nature anonymously. Nevertheless thank you for your input. I do not believe it changes my last paragraph and especially the last line. Blessings to you. Ken.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very interesting article, thank you for sharing your knowledge!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12/7/13 14:22

    They are all ARABS,forget the politics, if Abraham was an Arab, what do you expect his children and descendants to be?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Abraham was Abraham -- a Friend of God's. Much more can be said about him. However, the issue of Jews and Arabs only comes to play a generation later -- with Isaac and Ishmael, to my knowledge. Jews descend from Isaac, and Arabs descend from Ishmael. That's the simple and quick answer. Both can live together today through Christ. But it appears that the Quran seems to give very contradictory instructions to Muslims with respect to Jews -- and the later of the instructions is for Muslims to eliminate Jews. Not a good situation. As far as Abraham goes -- he is either both Jew & Arab, or neither Jew nor Arab. Take your choice and work from there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous25/2/14 15:05

    It is interesting to note that both Jacob and Esau share the same lineage. Both have the same father (Isaac), the same grandfather (Abraham) and half uncle (Ishmael), the same grandmother (Sarah), and the same half grandmother (Hagar). The split came after the birth of Jacob and Esau, and Jacob's wrestlings with the angel (Gen 32:24), and the fraternal twin brothers reconciling (Gen 33:8-11), and then splitting up to go their separate ways. (Gen 33:16-17) But their split came only after Jacob saw Esau as having the "face of God," (Gen 33:10) and they loved each other as brothers. At the point of their agreeing to go their separate ways, Jacob became the ancestor to Christianity and Esau/Edom to Islam. Each one had their different choices to make.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Anonymous for your comment. Sorry that you will not identify yourself, but nonetheless, thank you. I am not quite sure what you are aiming at or what point you are making, especially from the "But their split came only after. . . " part of your comment onward. The fact that Jacob saw Esau as 'having' the "face of God" simply means this to me: "And what a relief to see your friendly smile. It is like seeing the face of God!" as the New Living Translation puts it. What you say after that, is also true. That is the origin of Christianity and Islam, respectively. Perhaps you can be more direct about the point you are making. Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous26/2/14 11:33

    Hello Ken, my new name is “Anonymous Tulip.”
    To explain, I was responding to something someone wrote about Ishmael and Islam. I guess that all through Bible history there were needed splits between good and evil, Christianity VS non Christianity, Ishmael and Isaac, Abram and Lot, Jacob and Esau, etc. etc. Jacob’s nature was changed as he wrestled with the angel and as a consequence his name was changed to Israel. As the story goes, it was at that moment he saw the spiritual nature of his brother and himself; and was able to let go of the fear and hatred of his brother and began to truly love his brother. When he saw his own and his brother’s real spiritual nature emanating from the face of God, (Gen 33:10) I think he realized that God, Spirit (Jn 4:24) created all, and created man in His image and likeness, (Gen One) and that God’s creation is finished (Gen One) and that nothing can be added to God’s creation or be taken from it. (Ecc 3:14). Consequently, that wrestling stopped the war with Esau, and enabled the two brothers to rekindle their love for one another, even though they were opposites in their character and thinking. (They had been two fighting nations in their mother’s womb. Gen 25:23) But that didn’t mean that they needed to go on together in life, ----and because they thought differently they parted ways, one to establish Edom (Esau) and a follower of “Ishmaelism” (later Islam) and the other (Jacob) to be the follower of Isaac’s faith, becoming the forefather of the Christians---- two opposite, competing forces. The Edomites became fierce enemies of Israel which war we Christians are still fighting today. I think the story of Jacob and Esau shows all Christians how to wrestle with the angel of love, to learn to love our brother and our enemies, and heal the wars of today the way Jacob did. I believe strongly that that is how we become one of the “Children of Israel” (Jacob) by wrestling as he did, to find the basic spiritual nature of all peoples as the Lord’s Prayer emphasizes, “OUR Father which art in heaven.” I found it very interesting to find out what the angel really did to Jacob when he “touched the hollow of his thigh” making it limp and out of joint. It was exactly what pointed out to Jacob (and me) that he and God’s man were not the children of Adam’s Lord Jehovah (Gen 4:1) “remaking” God’s finished creation, but of God, Elohim as in Gen One, and realizing that God is the ONLY creator, All in all and the great I AM. The Bible says that Jehovah never appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--- It was always God Almighty-- Elohim (Ex 6:3) I used Strong’s concordance. I’m rambling.

    Oh by the way, I made a mistake in writing that Hagar was Jacob and Esau’s HALF grandmother----- I really don’t know what to call her as the boys and she were not blood related. Hagar was just a concubine of sorts, the same as if my grandfather might have had a child by an affair he had outside of his marriage to my grandmother. What would she be to me?

    The reason I don’t like to use my name as it sometimes directs mean evil thoughts and comments toward me personally by those that disagree with my views, and who needs that? It’s a safety issue. I’m a self-taught Bible student, and try hard to live by the inspired words of the Bible. I liked what you and others wrote when I first opened up your site. It looks like a good and very respectful site. Thanks for answering.

    Signed, Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Anonymous Tulip for your complete and thoughtful response. I understand your concerns and your points. Well said. Let me add some thoughts:

      First, I tried to get some help on what you call a child born to your parent or grandparent out of wedlock and I did not get much help. But I did find one very interesting blog on the whole subject that you and our readers may enjoy. Here it is: http://affaircare.com/2013/05/25/a-child-born-of-adultery/

      As far as what I would call a child like that, I can only say it would depend on how that child had been treated by my own family. At the very least it would be, "my sibling/cousin/uncle(or aunt)/great uncle (or aunt) with whom I am related due to unfortunate circumstances" and at the very most, he/she would be accepted as "my sibling/cousin/aunt (or uncle)/great aunt (or uncle), etc."

      Secondly, on the main point of your argument re. "two sides" -- I would agree that this is to be our approach to those that are different than us, and even dislike us. The problem arises when others are influenced by their leaders (spiritual or political) in a way that causes them to want to eliminate us from the face of the earth. At some point, as they make that more evident by their actions (attacks, terrorism, etc.) there needs to be a recognition that we, for all intent and purposes, are enemies, and we need God's wisdom in how to defend ourselves. I'd appreciate your views on this as well as the views of others. Blessings.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous27/2/14 23:23

      Well Hagar was Abram’s concubine for the purpose of bringing forth an heir, and that heir, Ishmael, was a blood relative and a half brother to Jacob and Esau. The boys really didn’t have any blood connections with Hagar. I think that brings up an interesting thought of how two brothers and twins at that, with the same mom and dad, and presumably raised the same way, can turn out so differently. Esau’s dad loved him and Jacob’s mom loved him, it is written.
      I think the Esau side is still at war with the Christians, and that war seems serious. Deep down though we know that God is supporting the Christian side, and we should find some comfort and strength from that. One with God is a majority. There are numerous stories in the Bible how God came to the rescue of the Children of Israel (Jacob). God is on the side of the state of Israel too, being born of Abraham and Sarah the mother and father of nations. Of course God’s first rescue was their trek out of Egypt. One other fantastic rescue by God is 2Chronicles 20. The attack was coming from a group of people the Children had saved. They were the children of Moab and Ammon, (ancestors of Esau and Lot, Ishmael’s cousin) born of incest. I believe there are lessons to be learned in all the Bible stories. The first thing Jehoshaphat did when he was in dire fear for his life and the life of his people, was to gather his congregation together, calling a fast to seek the Lord. He declares his faith in God in heaven and iterates God’s power and might over the enemy to his congregation. There are some beautiful verses of trust: 2 Chron 7-13. That was step one. Step Two was to “Be not afraid or dismayed by reason of the great multitude; FOR THE BATTLE IS NOT YOURS BUT GOD’S! Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: SET YOURSELVES, STAND YE STILL and SEE THE SALVATION OF THE LORD WITH YOU!” Step three was, “FEAR NOT, nor be dismayed: tomorrow go out against them; for the Lord will be with you. Step four was, PRAY and PRAISE God. Step five was to be obedient, go forward into battle in the morning, and guess what? SING!!! They praised God in song and at that point God saved them. The respect of God then came on all those countries and then the Bible reports, “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet: for his God gave him rest round about.” I think this is a very good formula for mankind to follow.
      Not many people or armies follow this, nor do they follow God’s will without fear, trusting Him. They don’t set themselves in God, standing STILL in God (without trembling with fear) and they don’t look at the salvation coming from God before going to battle. Not many people follow Jesus example when Peter lopped off the ear of Jesus’ attackers, and said to Peter, “Put up thy sword” and then healed the man’s ear in forgiveness.
      I don’t believe we are in that stage of human history where we can put up our swords, and in forgiveness heal the wounds of the enemy as Jesus suggested. But nevertheless, in future history, we really need to do just that. My thought is that we are still in the stage of those people and armies of thousands of years before Christ Jesus---- in Jehoshaphat’s times. But going into present day wars, we can take good lessons from Jehoshaphat and do the best we can toward learning how to love our enemies as Jesus did and told us to do to the end of putting up our swords. How long that will take, who knows? “God “do!” Am I digressing in answering your question of what I thought of war and peace? Oh yes, let’s not forget Jacob’s handling of war! Both he and his brother, put up their swords. I might say I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in abortion or the death penalty.

      I enjoy our communications.
      Anonymous Tulip

      Delete
    3. HI again Anonymous Tulip: Thank you for your comments above. I think Ishmael was a half-brother to Isaac, not to Jacob and Esau -- maybe a half-cousin to them.
      I agree that two twins can grow up very different and the favoring that one parent may have for one of them over another can play a big role.
      As a committed Christian, I still am not convinced that I can say, "Deep down though we know that God is supporting the Christian side, and we should find some comfort and strength from that." God is God. We can certainly point to His only begotten, Jesus Christ, as having died for our sins and that a religion that does not accept that has issues, but I am not yet prepared to say that God "is on the side of one people over another". Who knows, maybe in the very long run, God's "final act" will be very different than what we think it will be, and still not contradict the Scriptures. After all, He is God. Thanks for sharing. Ken.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous1/3/14 00:08

    Ken,
    Oh my gosh, of course you're right---- Ishmael is half brother to Isaac and half uncle to Jacob and Esau. And that's what you said above. That was the very thing that piqued my interest in your site. I sometimes have to take this genealogy stuff very, very slowly and think it through very carefully to keep it straight. I have been working some months on the genealogies of all the families of the Old Testament and your original blog fit right in to my studies.

    About putting up swords, there's a part of the Bible somewhere that says beat your plowshares and pruninghooks into swords and spears, and in another place it says to beat your swords and spears into plowshares and pruninghooks. I think that one might be a reference on how to fight war in Jehoshaphat's day and way in the Old Testament, and the other is what Jesus advocated. Prophecy from the O.T., "Nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." The new millennium. (Now?)

    Do you think there is a spiritual thread running through the Bible and runs through these families and is the fulfilling of prophecy?

    What is your thought about your site? Is it a church site? Ministerial? How long have you been up? Is is mostly about the war in the middle east? Where do you get most of your information? What bent is your readership?

    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous1/3/14 01:37

    I forgot to reply to your last email, I don't think God is against people, he is against what people do. He is against sin and evil. God supports Christ, not the anti-Christ so he must support CHRISTianity. He supports His ONLY begotten Son, CHRIST, Jesus. I have to believe that all peoples, through God's love of them, will be brought to Him as CHRISTians. (that's the only way to get to God) Even the evil acting people in the world. The way to "kill" a sinner is to make him stop sinning and it's not to kill his body. God is Love, and to kill the person would not be a loving act from a loving God but to kill the sin, then the SINNER is "dead" and the same but SINLESS person is "alive." That's the difference between God Elohim, (Gen One) and Lord God Jehovah (Gen Two). As described by Moses, Elohim is pure goodness and love and the Lord God Jehovah is a god of love and hate, a man-like god worshiped by the old time Hebrews. Gen One is purely good, Elohistic and spiritual creating a God-like man, and Gen Two and forward is a Jehovistic man-like god and the story of material man made of mud, in a deep sleep (hypnotized); it has a serpent in it, a tree of evil and good, temptation to sin, Jehovah cursing his own man and sending him out of the garden, punishing Adam and Eve, then causing them to create the first murderer, and rupturing the brotherhood of mankind. That's Jehovah's creation and why Jehovah never appeared to the "fathers" of CHRISTianity Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their god was God Almighty (Elohim), the great I AM. (Ex 6:3; Ex 3:14) I think it is interesting that Jehovah is mentioned only four times in the Bible and only in the Old Testament, God is mentioned 4,095 times in the Bible and Jesus never mentioned Adam.

    One interesting fact that really enlarged my thinking was to realize that the first and second and forward chapters of Genesis were written by the same man Moses. To me that was an important fact, because if it had been two different people writing Gen One and Two, it would have been an argument between two persons; but since Moses wrote both himself, he obviously wasn't arguing against himself or against his own first chapter of Gen. I think he was teaching something---- that the first is the true, spiritual idea of God/Elohim where everything is good and finished, and then he pointed out the opposite belief of sinning mud-man, of Jehovah, the "deep sleep" of Adam, and woman born of a rib, and the etceteras of the story of man fallen away from his spiritual nature as depicted in Gen One.

    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think A. Tulip that God is indeed Christ and thus it is difficult for me to talk about God supporting Christ. He certainly wants us to have a relationship with His Son and thus have access to His entire entity -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Christianity as you and I well know has often gone beyond that and added many "man-made" or "man-inflicted" requirements that aren't always from God.

      I thank you for bringing us the distinction between the Lord Almighty and Jehovah God. I had not noticed that before in that way. I am not prepared yet to concede to the differences that you allude to, but I am prepared to think about them when doing further study in those in the future. I use the NASB primarily and I see no such distinction in Genesis 1, 2, or 3. In it, the word "Almighty" begins in Genesis 17 and is used 58 times in the Bible. The word "Jehovah" is not at used in the NASB. Genesis 1, 2, and 3 all refer to the "Lord God". So, I'm not at this point where you are on the use of the names for God.

      Delete
  15. No problem. We all make mistakes. Glad my blog could help you in your work on the genealogies of Biblical persons.

    I struggle on the issue of "war" and "peace". Clearly, we all recognize that the Scriptures are full of both of them, although admittedly, Jesus is more about the latter, except at the end days when the Enemy and his colleagues will get their due share. But I not sure we are at the point of history that the O.T. talks about nation not raising sword against nation. That is to come in my mind.

    All of the history of Israel in my opinion, is but part of a journey for mankind. Non-Jewish Christians like myself ride on the coat-tails and the benefits of God's Chosen People. Not that they are perfect by any means, but that they were His Chosen people, He still cares for them very much, and yet today we can all be Chosen through Christ Jesus.

    My blog's site is neither a church site, nor a ministerial. It is simply a place where I can share my thoughts on what I study or think about Scriptures and from time to time, other key interests of mine. And people are welcomed to comment and exchange ideas. I have been up for several years now. This site actually started in April 2005. I have primarily been working through Genesis and Exodus phrase by phrase. Most of my information, and thus ideas which I write about, come from the following, and in this order: the Word of God; what the Holy Spirit brings to mind while I study the Word; and daily events occurring in the world as I follow them from the media. It is hard to say what the majority of my readers are all about. I would say the majority would be conservative Christians. Hope this helps A. Tulip. Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1/3/14 17:23

    Hi Ken,
    I have a collection of Bibles from almost every possible denomination, and interpretation. I have oodles of lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, several sets of commentaries, Hebrew and Greek etc. I use Strong’s Concordance every day, mostly for the translation of the English Bible words into the original biblical Hebrew and Greek back into English with their ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek meanings in English. Am I making any sense? As for study I use the KJV exclusively, except when I use other versions to clarify (maybe) the beautiful KJV. I use the KJV exclusively because it is the closest to the original interpretation from the Hebrew and Greek and gosh---- so much is lost in the re-translations of that original translation from Hebrew and Greek. It is maddening sometimes. I do believe we loose something of authenticity by starting with translation of a translation. Each time someone makes another translation about a translation then a revision of a commentary of a commentary something is lost of the original translation. I use commentaries or revisions only in order to figure out a difficult passage in the KJV. Some of those other versions (not the NASB) are ADMITTEDLY written for fourth graders! I find out more by starting from the 1611 KJV.
    I understand that the NASB is a revision of the ASB written in 1901 which was itself a revision of the 1881 version which it too was a revision. As an example of just one of the gems of hundreds I’ve found in the KJV and through Strong’s Concordance, I discovered that the English word ‘PITCH’ used in the KJV was the same word as ‘ATONEMENT’! Soooo that means that Noah pitched his ark with his AT ONE MENT with God. What an inspiring idea!!!! And of course, that’s what we need to find--- the inspiration of the Bible! Strong’s Concordance lists every single word in the Bible (even ‘THE’ ‘AND’ ‘OF’ etc.) so that you can refer to the back of the book to the original meanings of Hebrew and Greek words. Strong’s is concorded only to the KJV and was written in 1890 by Joseph Strong. If you ever get one, get the EXHAUSTIVE one, not the abbreviated one.

    Jehovah was a Hebrew word so that the Hebrews didn’t have to pronounce God’s name. He is more like a mighty man (potentate) than the Almighty Spirit, God, Good. Whenever God does something bad to people, it is Jehovah that does it, not Elohim/God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Ex 6:3 and Ex 3:14) (Just as a little afterthought and something that I coined: Is that “God is a contraction of the word, ‘Good’: Go’d” because God is the Good, and is Good. Some languages don’t have a word for God, so they used the word Good. They really are synonymous.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See below in my response that starts, "All sounds. . . "

      Delete
  17. Anonymous1/3/14 17:25

    I want to reply to your comment, “God is indeed Christ.” I look at it a little differently Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Jesus was the Christ and Jesus was not God, but the Son of God. God said to the Virgin Mary that Christ Jesus (her Son born of her) “shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) Jesus never denied that, and the other people in the Bible knew and claimed he was the SON of God, the Christ of God, not God Himself. Christ Jesus was the SON of God, as a reflection of God. My human reason says that God, as a symbol, is like the sun, and all the rays- sunbeams collectively, symbolically are like the Christ emanating from God. The sun is never the sunbeams, and the sunbeams are never the sun, but they are forever connected. The sun is a father of the collective sunbeam and needs the beam to reflect itself; the collective sunbeam is the son of the sun, and forever connected to the sun and needs the father-sun to be a son.

    People in the New Testament (and once in O.T.) I think, correctly believed Jesus was the Christ not God. Christ Jesus is used 58 times in the Bible; “Jesus Christ” used 189 times; Jesus the Christ, one time; “Thou art the Christ” or “The Christ of God” or just plain “the Christ” mentioned 19 times in relationship to Jesus, not God. Peter when asked by Jesus, “Whom say ye that I am?” answered, “The Christ OF God.” (The beam of God) Jesus was the human part, and Christ was his divine nature “beamed” or reflected to him by God. A drop of the ocean is one with the ocean, but not the ocean itself, even though it has all the qualities of the ocean in quality not in quantity. There is one God and one Christ, and that total Christ was reflected totally by Jesus. Father and Son are one, but not the same. My children and I are one, but not the same. One is still the mother, and the other is still the daughter. The sun and the beams are one, but not the same. I hope I didn’t misinterpret your meaning when you said, “God is indeed the Christ.” God indeed reflects out the Christ.

    Matt 16:15-17, 20; He [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.------- Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
    Luke 9:20 But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ OF God.

    Thanks for replying back to me.
    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to believe like you, partly because of what I learned as a child and youth. I struggled with the Trinity for years because of the very reason you give in your response -- that nowhere in Scripture does it say "so". But then I read a book that changed my mind -- one that took me throughout the scriptures and should me that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly evident throughout all parts of the Bible -- as One entity. It's a complex read, but I got it. I don't expect all to agree with me on this, but neither do I want to debate this one. It gets us no where. Both sides of the argument can be held by Christians that help fulfill God's intentions for mankind. To argue this is like asking men and women to go to a professional debate on Islam vs. Christianity -- rare is the person who will change their mind after the debate. Other questions and issues I am glad to discuss. Blessings A. Tulip.

      Delete
  18. All sounds good to me. I guess my point is that God is God. And He has many names. If I do things at home with my loving children and wife and I do them as "father, husband" and I do things at the office as "Mr. G." -- I am still the same person. The law does treat me as two people. So, I guess while what you found is interesting, I still believe that our God is so Great that His actions towards people are not always understood or even welcomed -- but He is still God and does all things for His purposes ultimately.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous4/3/14 12:09

    Ken, I agree. As a father you are the father of a son but you are not your son, the son is the EXPRESSION of you (and your wife); as a loving husband, you are not the exact love itself but as EXPRESSING God’s love; as an employee, you are not your work-resuldts itself, but the father of the results of what you do; you are EXPRESSING something, but not the thing itself. Important: You are ONE as a family, and family activities, all different in their expressions of the ONE family, expressing just as Father-Mother God, the Son, and activities of the Holy Spirit/Ghost are one as a spiritual family.

    Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
    John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Why wouldn’t Jesus have said, “----- because I said, I am God?” instead of what he did say, “I am the Son of God?”

    Your comment, “----that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly evident throughout all parts of the Bible -- as One entity.” I agree! I would say, “---that God the Father of the Son, God with his “only begotten Son,” and God the Omnipresent Omnipresence radiating the Holy Spirit/Ghost, are clearly evident throughout all parts of the Bible -- as One entity.” Yes! In the N. T. it is written, Holy Ghost not Holy Spirit. They are the same thing in both languages. Jesus said to “baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt 28:19 The word NAME in the Greek always means: “CHARACTER.” I don’t disagree with your definition of the Trinity and its oneness, or your not wanting to debate it.

    I don’t want to be impertinent, but so I can understand I have some questions.
    I’m just kinda curious what your definition of the word “father” is? My thought is that in any language it would have the same meaning including Greek and Hebrew. A father is a father, a son is a son, and God the Father is God the Father of an offspring, and Jesus the Son of the Father is the Son of the Father. Clearly related but different. If God and Jesus are the same being, I don’t believe that God was crucified and was dead for three days. God is Omnipresent Life and is never dead. If He were dead there would be an absence, deadness of Love, Spirit, Truth, which are God. “And Jesus answering said unto them,-----He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.” Mark 12:27, Matt 22:32. Was Jesus speaking of himself or of God? If Jesus and God are the same, wouldn’t they “both” dead in the tomb? How did God raise Jesus/God if God was dead along with Jesus/God? Was it God/Jesus that talked to Moses or any of the O.T. Prophets? Did the Virgin Mary give birth to her own Father-God/Jesus, and gave birth to Jesus’ Father: Jesus/God? Was God the father of Himself as God/Jesus? Why was Jesus’ name “Christ Jesus” instead of “God Jesus?” When Jesus talks to God, was he talking to himself? How does God know when the stones and buildings would be thrown down and Jesus not know that information if they were the same person? Mark 13:32 If Jesus was in the bosom of his Father, was he in his own bosom? John1:18 We need not debate what we shouldn’t debate, I agree. I was just curious how you thought all this worked.??


    I would like to read the book you mentioned reading, What is the name of it, and where can I find it? I’m open to differing opinions. On a different topic, I would like to know the lineage of the Philistines, and if their generations came down to the present day. Do you know anything about that? Are they connected to today’s problems in the Middle East and still fighting against Israel?

    Respectfully,
    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am re-posting this comment because I had made an obvious error (not sure what I was thinking -- mixing Pharaoh up with Moses -- perhaps it was because I personally was studying Moses earlier in the day. Nevertheless, my error and Anonymous Tulip caught it, so the corrected post is below. (A. Tulip I will reply more fully to your last posting soon.)

      Hi A. Tulip: Thanks for your reply, even though we are getting into areas I feel are not the kind of thing I would like to be debating with anyone, because I know how I felt before I came to the realization that I did about the Trinity.

      I too would not find fault with your examples and your first three paragraphs at least. But I feel we are both arguing from different sides of the same coin. The realization I came to was that because of who God was, is, and will be, He can do everything that we may think He cannot do. He can be Father and Son at the same time. He can die as Son and be very much alive as Father and Spirit. And so on. You see, Tulip, on my trip to Israel, I spent nearly three weeks learning to think more in line with Judaic thinking and stop thinking like the Hellenics (of which I am one) and like the western world thinks. As an example, the Bible says, "God hardened PHARAOH's heart" and then later it says for the same plague, "PHARAOH hardened his heart". So which was it? The Hellenic thinker says it can only be one; the Judaic mind says "No, it can be both -- from a human perspective, Moses did it; from a spiritual or divine one, God did it."

      So for that reason, there is no point in giving you my definition of the word "father" because it is a limited human Hellenic one.

      I to don't believe that God was dead for three days, but I believe God suffered the loss of His Son for three days and in that sense He identified with His Son, as if He Himself had died. Or put another way, when a chef cracks open an egg, and the egg spills into the bowl, while the yolk remains in the altered shell -- does only the egg white drop down, or can we say that that part of the egg is lowered into the bowl? Again, it all depends on whether you are Hellenic or Judaic in your thinking. And so on, with the rest of your questions.

      Recently I watched the Olympics -- there are certain events that depend on each member of the team helping the team to act and appear as one single body. Speedskating and luge come to mind; there are others. In the summer games there is synchronized swimming. The idea is that the team is one solitary unit --- but it clearly is made up of parts. We do not talk about them individually, we always talk of them as being "one". To me, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are like that.

      The book I read was called: The God of Glory by Ronald F. Hogan Loizeaux Bros., Neptune, N.J., 1984 , 190 pages. I do not believe it is in print any longer. I do have a copy, but I would prefer to put you in touch with the author's grandson or his sons, which could arrange for you to have one.

      On your question of the lineage of the Philistines, may I recommend the following: if you go into your browser or Google, you can put in the Google search spaces the following: lineage of the Philistines. There you will get hundreds of hits on the internet, some better than others that tell you all about them. Basically, they are descendents of Noah, through Ham. And yes, they are related to the situation today. You can read more about that in this site: http://www.biblebasics.co.uk/natcit/philist.htm

      Hope that does it for now. God bless you as you think about these things. Thanks for feeling free enough to challenge my own thinking in such a loving way. Ken.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous4/3/14 22:41

    Hi Ken,
    This is what I understand the Trinity to be: Father, Son, Holy Spirit/Ghost representing a trinity in unity, three in one, — the same in essence, though multiform in office. I think we agree with each other on that as far as I can tell. Hooray!!

    I looked up on Amazon the book, The God of Glory by Ronald F. Hogan and it’s for sale for $3.99. It’s probably a reprint. Thank you for the offer, send your friends name along.

    Thanks for responding. Can you tell me the place in the Bible that Moses’ heart was hardened? My Bible says that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, never Moses. Hardened is used 15 times in connection with Pharaoh every time in Exodus. Never with Moses although Moses was named in these verses too. Ex 9:34 and 35 “And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the Lord had spoken by Moses.” Your NEB Bible essentially says the same thing being taken from the KJV Ex 9:34-35 “And when Pharaoh saw that the downpour, the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again, he and his courtiers, and became OBDURATE. So Pharaoh remained OBSTINATE; as the Lord had foretold through Moses, he did not let the people go.---- KJV Ex 10:1, 20, 27, And the Lord said unto Moses, “Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: ------And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would to let the children of Israel go out of his land. The NEB writes the same passages,---- But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go. Ex 11:10 and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land. Ex14:8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel; No where else in the Bible is the word HARDENED used in connection with Moses. There are only 13 other places where the word HARDENED is used---- nothing about Moses. Ex 7:13, 14, 22, 8:19, 32; 9:7, 12; Duet 2:30 The two words the NEB uses for Hardened is “Obstinate and Obdurate.” Moses really was a loving Shepherd. Where did you find your verses that Moses had a hard heart? If you tell me in the NEB I can look it up in the KJV. and NEB.

    Thanks for the Ham information being the ancestor of the Philistines. It was Shem that was the ancestor to Jesus. I haven’t gotten any farther than that about Noah’s boys. Are there any books you find useful for your research? I hope we’ve settled ourselves about our communications. I don’t want to argue either. It’s not good for Christians. I would really like to know about Moses hard heart though, can you find that for me please? That would really change some of my thoughts. I want to keep in touch with your site from time to time. Would you find anything useful from the KJV so you can look up in the NEB, which seems similar? Off our topics, do you think Christians and their values are under attack in the U.S and in the world to day, and what are our prospects of winning that war? Oh yes, what’s a Hellenic? Greek?

    Respectfully,
    Anonymous Tulip in Sisterhood



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello again A. Tulip: Thanks for your last post and comments. As mentioned earlier, I apologize for my careless error writing "Moses" when I did mean Pharaoh. I think I covered that mistake above. Now to answer some of your other thoughts or comments.

      First, I think we're very close if not bang on with respect to the Trinity. Thank you. Most of the people I discuss things with take a very ethereal approach to proving a point, while I try to use very real and practical illustrations as best as I can. I find that helps me form my thinking if not always the thinking of others.

      I won't say anything more about Moses for as we said that was my clumsy error.

      With respect to the book I referred you to -- you may wish to contact the grandson of the author, Mr. Jeff Hogan, at jeffrey.d.hogan@gmail.com . Feel free to use my name.

      My reading is far and wide. I have often made reference to Strong's in my studies as well as commentaries from the writings of David Guzik; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown; Chuck Smith; Ray Stedman; and Matthew Henry. I have in my possession for extra assistance, Vine's Expository Dictionary and the New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. I like the KJV version as it was the one we memorized verses from and it is still an authoritative work, although I am not thrill with how it came about.

      I think from day one in the garden of Eden, the Enemy has sworn his commitment to attack anything that God set up for mankind. This continues today in North America. Man wants to become God and make decisions that are reserved for God only -- abortion and euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality are just some of those areas. Of course, the Enemy has discovered two excellent tools for this purpose called "equality/fairness" and "political correctness".

      The prospects for us winning the battles from a human perspective are very slim. We can certainly slow down the process if we work hard. But as far as winning the war ultimately, I have to live as if it is already won for us through Christ Jesus. My job while I am still alive is to help implement the win.

      A Hellenic is indeed a reference to being Greek -- or more precise a Greek age, philosophy, way of thinking, culture, etc. Much is available on the Internet. I was using it in reference to how a Hellenist tends to think -- everything must be explainable, approached in a logic order, and non-contradictable, or it can not be.

      So there you have it A. Tulip. I pray God's blessing on you today as you study, think, and share the Good News.

      Delete
  21. Anonymous6/3/14 22:35

    Hi Ken,
    I have many of the the same books as you. Strong's Fausset, and Brown; Matthew Henry, Vine's Expository Dictionary and the New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. I have Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon and it’s very handy too, same size and color as Thayer's. Another really really excellent book is Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew-English, and two others are The New Standard Bible Dictionary and Young's Concordance to the Bible. I have a set of 5 Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible and a set of 10 by Kittle, and a couple of other sets. I LOVE researching the books. I guess I was naive in thinking you didn’t know about Strong’s, Sorry if I sounded impertinent.

    I did a cursory perusal of the word Hellenic and it says. “relating to its people, language, ancient history, culture, art.” Do you live differently than Westerners so that we could spot you on the street as being a Hellenic? What does that mean? In short what is their philosophy and how does it compare to Jewish Jesus’ teachings and differ from Western thinking? There must be a sentence or two that would explain the basics, I love logic and order, does that make me an Hellenic? Jesus was taught all the stuff of his ancient Hebrew ancestors. I didn’t think that Jesus cottoned to either Romanism or Grecism, Gnosticism, Johnism, or that clan that went into the wilderness to live, for the life of me I can’t think of the name.

    Jehovah's creation Gen Two (a/o to Elohistic of Gen One) is about the enemy the serpent that tempts the woman. She has no name yet. How rude to be a nameless non-entitiy and a tempted temptress.

    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi A. Tulip: The best way for me to help you understand the difference between the Hellenic mind and the Judaic mind is to introduce you to this book: Our Father Abraham: Jewish Rots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin R.Wilson, published by Eerdmans of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1989. Fascinating reading.

    You cannot spot a person on the street as being Hellenic. Two sentences that try to describe the difference between the two may be: "The Hellenic mind's model of faith is that it first has to close any gaps of thought or intellect and make total sense and failing that it requires leaps of thought. The Hebraic or Judaic (and I believe biblical) model of faith requires simply a leap of action, once one believes in God."

    I am a little confused by your use of "Gen One" and "Gen Two" -- are these the same as what I call chapters? If so, it is not until Genesis 3 that the serpent appears to tempt the woman who is named in verse 20. But keep in mind that since that verse starts with "Now the man called . . . " it is possible that it is not in chronological order, and it may just as easily be "And of by the way, the man called his wife . . . Eve." So, tell me about your Gen One, Two nomenclature first.

    Secondly, your last sentence baffles me a little? When something is rude -- we imply an act of rudeness to someone? So who, in your opinion, is being rude here? Adam, God, Eve herself, or the Enemy? Blessings today.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous15/3/14 11:54

    Hi Ken, I'm sure you mean Jewish ROOTS not Jewish ROTS! Ha ha! So funny!
    Thanks for the book reference.

    When I say Gen One and Gen Two I'm making a distinction between Gen 1 and Gen 2. It's just my way of writing it, not any particular religious thing. Gen 1 is called Elohistic because Moses characterized God as Elohim who created the spiritual creation of every thing including man. In it EVERYTHING was GOOD and FINISHED. "And God/Elohim saw everything He had made and behold it was VERY good, thus the heavens and earth were FINISHED and ALL the host of them. And on the seventh day God ENDED his work which He had made." Gen 1:31-Gen 2:2 “I know that, whatsoever God (Elohim) doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it nor anything taken from it.” Ecc 3:14; “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Ecc 1:9 I keep in mind that one man Moses is teaching through his two different opposite stories in Genesis. The stories from God are for a reason. Logic: so if the above is true, how can the second creation be true? Two opposites can’t be true at the same time. All is all, finished is finished, done is done, nothing is no thing, forever is forever, nothing added is no thing added.

    Time is not a factor in the first chapter of Genesis; it is eternal eternity. Moses wrote both chapters of Gen 1 & Gen 2 (& all the Pentateuch) to show the difference between the Mind of God/Elohim/Spirit/Love and the tribal god of the Jewish people called Lord Jehovah, an evil and good material god of material good & material evil, making a material man out of mud putting him under a deep sleep (hypnotism) and tempting the woman w/o a name (rude of Jehovah) w/ a tree of material knowledge of good & evil, a poisonous fruit that evil Jehovah, through his serpent, tempts the woman & she then tempts Adam. This wicked Jehovah, after he had made the evil beast called a serpent to frighten the woman out of her gourd then tempting the woman & man, w/ poisonous fruit kicks them out of the garden of Eden (Garden of Pleasure in Hebrew language) cursing Adam to sweat tilling the soil (of which he is made) & cursing the woman with pain in child birth. What a god this is!!!! This is NOT a good/god/go’d. Woman is still a nameless physical female creature. Jehovah never called the woman a name Adam in his deep sleep did that Gen 3:20. In Then Adam in his deep sleep had physical relations with Eve, they produced the first murderer & murder crime in the Bible. (This all happens after God/Elohim had already finished the 100% good spiritual creation in Gen 1:1-2:4.) God/Elohim never orders Adam and Eve to recreate His perfect creation---- the material good & evil Lord Jehovah did that. Because of Adam’s carnal desires he begins the race of material murderers. Moses’ point is that we must worship the God of Spirit, Love, whose total being is 100% Love and does 100% loving things. This is God/Elohim, not the tribal god named Jehovah who makes a man and woman father to a murderer, the god that curses his own Adam and Eve, the god that kicks them out of his garden, the god that the Bible describes as being angry. The anger of the Lord (Jehovah) is mentioned 32 times in the Bible.
    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HI Tulip: Yes, I meat Jewish Roots. I did publish your comment although Tulip I have to tell you I do not agree at all with your distinction between Elohim and Jehovah. Moses got "no instruction" to distinguish between them. This is a man-made idea that I learned about in first-year liberal university courses under the guise of Near Eastern Religions. Sorry, God does not work against Himself. God does what He considers is necessary to bring about His plan. The Bible's account of Jehovah God Elohim, Prince of Peace, Christ My Savior is one of the most unified and coherent books in the world. We'll agree to disagree here.

      Delete
    2. That should be "meant" not "meat".

      Delete
  24. Anonymous15/3/14 11:58

    I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Christ Jesus’ purpose was to oppose this tragic story of Adam and Eve and the first murder in the Bible. If you can stretch with me for a minute---- His crucifixion was the last murder in the Bible & that was no mere coincidence. He nailed death to the cross, (Col 2:14) and proved death had no power over God’s Gen 1 man--- he proved that when he waed out of the tomb, being the same visible fleshly manifestation for all to see 40 days and nights after his cross experience viewed by hundreds if not thousands of people after his resurrection. So the birth through material means of Adam’s re- creation and the murder was all answered by Christ Jesus raising the dead of himself others. All prophets in the Bible when they raised the dead proved that too.

    I should mention that my use of God as Elohim and Lord Jehovah is not my say so, it is what the Bible scholars have discovered----- that there is an Elohistic and Jehovistic writings in Genesis.
    This has been sitting on my desk top for over a week. I tried to send it and it was too large so that's why it's so long in sending and in two parts.

    Happy Day,
    Anonymous Tulip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not have all my references with me, but while Christ's crucifixion was indeed the most significant event in history save and except His resurrection, I am not sure it was the last murder mentioned in the people. Paul when he ws Saul, had many Christians murdered before he became a Christ-follower.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous17/3/14 23:06

      Hi Ken,
      I just saw your blog of 6/3/14 where we agree to disagree. I just feel more comfort in knowing the God that I worship is the God of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; John the Apostle, Habakkuk, Jesus and others. My God is the great Elohim called “I AM” of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; John’s God that is Love, Spirit and Truth, and Habakkuk’s God who sees no evil (nor does evil), and the God of Paul where God is “all-in-all.” To me it is logical to know there is nothing beyond ALL. So if God is “ALL and in ALL” (1Cor 15:28, Eph 1:23) and God is Love and Spirit and Truth, there can be nothing beyond ALL Love or ALL Spirit or ALL Truth--- they “is” ALL. That’s Elohim. Jehovah does some mean and unloving things and is not a loving God that I worship. Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't worship Jehovah: Ex 6:2-3: “And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I NOT KNOWN to them." Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (to deliver [us] them from Egypt) So Abraham, Jacob and Isaac didn’t even know Jehovah, let alone worship Jehovah. In full peace and comfort I say with Habakkuk, “Art thou not from everlasting, Oh Lord my God, mine Holy One,----- Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity;” Hab 1:12-13. Obviously Jehovah sees evil everywhere and harshly punishes everyone. Jehovah is good in half his ways. My All-in-all God---- is Love and Spirit and Truth all the way. (1 John 4:8, 16. John 4:25); Jesus said, “as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” Jehovah is mentioned only four times in the Bible, but his mean qualities exist all through. The tribal Jews made up the name so that they didn’t have to mention the word God. They then gave him good and evil qualities. Moses describes their beliefs about Jehovah. I agree, let’s just agree to disagree on this.

      Joyful day to you!
      Anonymous Tulip :>)

      Delete
    3. Yes, we will agree to disagree here on this one. But just so you and others know where I am coming from, please refer to:
      http://carm.org/jehovah-is-elohim

      Delete
  25. Anonymous17/3/14 21:47

    Hi Ken,
    You're right, I completely forgot about Paul. I've been thinking the crucifixion was "end of story" and in some ways it was. Paul saw the H.S. after Jesus was crucified and ascended. I wonder if Paul himself killed people? I don't think so. But no matter, I'm sure there were murders after the crucifixion by whomever and forever.
    Forget I said that!!!

    A.T.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8/4/14 16:43

      Happy Easter! :>) I'm on a lengthy sabbatical now until May. Anonymous Tulip

      Delete
    2. Enjoy and rejoice. For He is Risen Indeed.

      Delete
  26. Hello and good day, Kev here
    Esau married Ishmael's Daughter, they had children, and they whole family was not in China, Alaska, the Amazon bush, etc etc, but the middle east "somewhere".
    Considering how the middle east is today and has been for 1000's of years.
    should it not be apparent the God's "plan" for Ishmael's descendants to be where they are? God had a plan for Ishmael from the womb, so why not the rest of it? simple? smile, kev

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello and good day, Kev here
    Esau married Ishmael's Daughter, they had children, and they whole family was not in China, Alaska, the Amazon bush, etc etc, but the middle east "somewhere".
    Considering how the middle east is today and has been for 1000's of years.
    should it not be apparent the God's "plan" for Ishmael's descendants to be where they are? God had a plan for Ishmael from the womb, so why not the rest of it? simple? smile, kev

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hello Kev: Good to hear from and so glad people are still reading this old post. Yes, Genesis 28:9 tells us that Esau did marry Ishmael's daughter.
    And one could safely assume they resided in the area. And yes, it makes sense to believe that God did have a plan for Ismael's descendants. But where we get into trouble is, without specific reference to Scripture, assuming what that plan was exactly and especially where "where they are" refers to. And He still has a plan for Ishmael now. Thanks for sharing, Kev.

    ReplyDelete