A problem with premillennialism

[Arial]

I know you're going to take a neutral passage and make it say something to support Gentiles being among the Hebrews.

How are the passages (not one passage) of Scripture I gave neutral? Are there neutral passages in the Bible, or does everything God says have meaning? Is there even any such thing as a neutral passage anywhere? Who are the mixed multitude? Tell me.

Keeping in context and reason Hebrews lived in Goshen, Hebrews married Hebrews in keeping with the Abrahamic Covenant promise and direction of "YOUR SEED", and Scripture says God delivered Hebrews, Hebrews observed the Passover, Hebrews were the ones enriched by Egyptians giving them - not slaves, not captured enemy soldiers, not Gentiles - much gold, silver, and other valuables.

Joseph's brothers and their families were given the area of Goshen to live in, by edict. Do you suppose it was a completely unpopulated area? If it were, there would have been no wars over it. Egypt claimed it as their land, and they took it from their enemies. But it was not left empty.

God's PURPOSE was to bring the descendants of Jacob out of slavery, and that is what He did. But according to Scripture, that does not mean only Jacobs descendants came out. It did not bother God, as it bothers you, that there were non Hebrews among the group. In fact, as I have shown you and you ignored, in the covenant with Abraham, God did not excluded non-Hebrews from the covenant, but commanded that Abraham give all the male foreigners the sign of the covenant---circumcision. Scripture cannot be broken.

You break it again when you say Hebrews only married Hebrews. Manasseh and Ephraim had a royal Egyptian mother. Also, Boaz married a Moabite, which is in the line of David, the line of Jesus. There are many accounts IN THE SCRIPTURES, which cannot be broken, of intermarriage with Gentiles. And it did not phase or deter God one iota in fulfilling His purpose, either with Israel or the Seed of Promise for the redemption of a people and creation. He does not present Himself as a raciest as you present Him. His purpose are much bigger and greater than you, evidently, can grasp.

The reason God commanded them not to intermarry with pagans in the nations that surrounded Israel, had nothing to do with ethnicity. Nothing. God Himself, when giving the command, said why. Because it would divide their loyalty, which was to be only to Him. They did, and it did.

 

[Musicmaster]

Is it? I do not know if you are one who believes in the "rapture" of the saints before the "seven year Tribulation" or in the middles of it, or if you believe in the removal of the church for a time at all; but if you do, that forms the supposition that God's wrath is poured out on all on the earth. IMO it turns this seven years into the judgement.

But I do not believe in either a removal of the church or a seven year tribulation as described by dispensationalists. Or a literal thousand year reign of Christ over temporal things. It does not fit with what I see the Bible saying. I find no room for the existence of a literal thousand year reign in the Scripture. Neither Jesus or any of the apostles ever mention it. Jesus and and Paul only ever speak of two ages. This age, and the age to come.

And a believer is always protected, in the only way that truly matters. The promised resurrection of the dead in Christ to dwell in the New heaven and new earth with God dwelling among us. God can do whatever He wants. If we die, we are still with Him. He can also have a bird bring food and water to nourish one who is perishing. He did not spare His own Son from suffering in life to the point of death, in order that those Christ died for, might inherit the promise of Rev 21.

You can disagree with my view all you want. I really do not care. What does concern me, is that it is given no credence as to its possibility of being based on Scripture. That it is out of hand declared to be wrong and unsupported by Scripture. And that is not a remark aimed at you personally, just an experiential observation.

I do not state any claim to be able to interpret Revelation line by line. I have not even tried to do so, as there is mystery in it, and I think intentionally so, though it is quite likely that its original recipients could understand it more easily, as apocalyptic writing was a familiar thing to Jews of that era, and it is not to us. But I do see the overall message, and I do see an overall picture that spans much that we find in the OT, and in the first coming of Christ, as seen from the perspective of heaven, whereas the Book give us the same thing from its historic perspective, in the way mankind experiences it. As well as sometimes from the human, historic perspective, of things that have been occurring since Christ's first advent--this age---and will continue until His second advent.

If I were to ask you why Revelation was written and what it gives to all believers throughout time, what would your answer be?

Then please try to explain away this:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

I've been forward and backwards through the Greek of that text, and have been assured by a number of Greek scholars that "appointed unto wrath" means what it says in English, and that the Greek word translated as "salvation" does in fact elicit the definition "delivered from wrath" given the context rather than salvation itself as its assumed root meaning of "saved from sin."

So, having done my homework quite extensively on this, I'd like to see your take on this. Is Paul not speaking about the Church as a whole? Is not the logical and natural meaning of this passage a clear indicators that the Church will be delivered from the wrath of the Lamb? There is no other wrath for the entire world to fear apart from that of the Lamb, which is FAR worse than anything the man of sin can dish out as a world dictator.

Dare one try and kick this off to the side by claiming that the wrath of the Lamb doesn't begin until after the sixth seal...pure rubbish! That's easily itself kicked to the side as the nonsense that it is!

So, what say you?

MM

 

[Tambora]

You know nothing about genealogy, especially when it refers to the seed of the woman - those belonging to God. They were called "sons of God" from the Sethian family line for a reason until they disobeyed and unequally yoked themselves to unbelieving women producing children that were lawless and became "bullies" and "tyrants" as they grew up.

Wrong.
We don't have any scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were called the sons of God.
The flood obliterated everyone except Noah and sons and their wives.
To say that none of the line of Seth perished in the flood is an argument from silence since scripture only records the genealogy of only one of his sons or daughters, and to try and claim that no descendant of Seth perished in the flood is just naïve.
We have nothing in scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were righteous.

 

[Arial]

Then please try to explain away this:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Why do you start with the presumption that whatever I say will be explaining something away? That is disingenuous. If I have a different view than yours, why is that already counted as explaining something away?

I've been forward and backwards through the Greek of that text, and have been assured by a number of Greek scholars that "appointed unto wrath" means what it says in English, and that the Greek word translated as "salvation" does in fact elicit the definition "delivered from wrath" given the context rather than salvation itself as its assumed root meaning of "saved from sin."

What did Jesus deliver us from? Salvation is used in many instances in Scripture. Always it represents being rescued from something that is happening or is about to happen. In the OT it was often applied to being rescued from the enemy in battle, by the hand of God. It can apply to being saved from an illness, one's enemies, a natural disaster, etc.

What did Jesus deliver us from? Save us from? Rescue us from? To be blunt---God. From the sure most catastrophic event that awaits all mankind but for His grace. His wrath. We are delivered from His wrath, because our sins are forgiven. He took their penalty for us and that is how He delivers us from God's wrath. It is the reason we are not appointed to wrath.

So, having don my homework quite extensively on this, I'd like to see your take on this. Is Paul not speaking about the Church as a whole? Is not the logical and natural meaning of this passage a clear indicators that the Church will be delivered from the wrath of the Lamb? There is no other wrath for the entire world to fear apart from that of the Lamb, which is FAR worse than anything the man of sin can dish out as a world dictator.

They will be delivered from HIs wrath. They never face it. It is the difference in how we are viewing the book of Revelation and NT eschatology as a whole, and even OT eschatology, that causes you to see the saints enduring the wrath of God, if they are present in what is in your eschatological view, a seven year tribulation period. My view does not limit revelation to a seven year period but to "this age" the church age, age of grace, whatever you want to call it. The time between Christ's first and second coming. Final Judgement occurs at His second coming. And I agree that it will no doubt escalate in intensity as we draw nearer to that time. And I tend to think that persecution of the church will become worldwide, intense, and perpetrated by governments. But that is not God's wrath. That is satan's last futile attempt to destroy the people of Christ. But even if they die physically, yet they live, and not a one can be taken from Him.

Our eschatology is different.

Dare one try and kick this off to the side by claiming that the wrath of the Lamb doesn't begin until after the sixth seal...pure rubbish! That's easily itself kicked to the side as the nonsense that it is!

I am not kicking anything off to the side. I disagree with your interpretation of the sixth seal. There is a difference between those two things. The wrath of the Lamb begins when the Lamb returns. And it isn't waged against His people. Then His people who have died are raised to life with imperishable bodies, and those who are still alive, are changed in the twinkling of an eye. And we rise to meet him in the air as He is returning, and come with Him in triumphant procession, behind our King, as He strikes the final blow to death and forever destroys all His enemies. The beast and the false prophet, that serpent of old, Satan, and all who reject Christ. And then there is a New Heaven and a New earth, and God Himself dwells among us. The goal and aim of everything, since God cursed the serpent and said that from the seed of the woman would come one who would crush his head.

 

[Arial]

Wrong.
We don't have any scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were called the sons of God.
The flood obliterated everyone except Noah and sons and their wives.
To say that none of the line of Seth perished in the flood is an argument from silence since scripture only records the genealogy of only one of his sons or daughters, and to try and claim that no descendant of Seth perished in the flood is just naïve.
We have nothing in scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were righteous.

I am not agreeing with J in 99.9% of what he says, but FYI, Noah is a descendant of Seth.

The line of Seth is the Seed bearing line (see Luke's genealogy.)

J makes Abraham's DNA the central issue in redemption, whereas God has the Christ as the center of redemption, and the Seed bearer as the point of the genealogies. Gen 3.

 

[Musicmaster]

Why do you start with the presumption that whatever I say will be explaining something away? That is disingenuous. If I have a different view than yours, why is that already counted as explaining something away?

The difference is in whether one's view aligns with scripture in its original language, or not. I've explained the meaning of that verse, meaning derived from the context and grammatical construct, which point to the actual definitions that are not subject to personal interpretation, as many out there are prone to endeavor in discussions of this type. An example is "cleave," the choice between opposing definitions expressed in the context and grammatical constructs. I think you get the picture.

What did Jesus deliver us from? Salvation is used in many instances in Scripture. Always it represents being rescued from something that is happening or is about to happen. In the OT it was often applied to being rescued from the enemy in battle, by the hand of God. It can apply to being saved from an illness, one's enemies, a natural disaster, etc.

What did Jesus deliver us from? Save us from? Rescue us from? To be blunt---God. From the sure most catastrophic event that awaits all mankind but for His grace. His wrath. We are delivered from His wrath, because our sins are forgiven. He took their penalty for us and that is how He delivers us from God's wrath. It is the reason we are not appointed to wrath.

This is troubling. If I'm understanding you correctly, I would have thought that you would not limit the scope of the meaning for "salvation" on the basis of who is doing the "saving." Yes, Yahshuah grants salvation from sin and its consequence, and in the 1 Thessalonians 5:9 verbiage, the "salvation" spoken of there is deliverance from (not within, but FROM) that same Yahshuah's wrath that will be poured out soon after His "salvation" (deliverance) from the very planet where His wrath will be poured out.

There is also the deliverance Israel will enjoy after felling into the desert mountains to escape the clutches of the man of sin. No other deliverance is mentioned for the saints across the rest of the world, which gives ample indication that they all will be subject to that wrath and its effects since we see a multitude standing before the Throne in just the first 42 months of the tribulation.

So, trying to make that verse about deliverance from the wrath of Hell, no. That is not the meaning within that context and the larger context within which that context is couched. The blessed hope of which Paul spoke doesn't give to us reason that it was merely dabbling in the obvious, for the people knew they were soul-spirit-saved for all eternity. Their fear was that they were in the beginnings of the tribulation at that time. It's the tribulation they feared, not the salvation of their souls.

Our eschatology is different.

It does appear that way, yes.

I am not kicking anything off to the side. I disagree with your interpretation of the sixth seal. There is a difference between those two things. The wrath of the Lamb begins when the Lamb returns. And it isn't waged against His people. Then His people who have died are raised to life with imperishable bodies, and those who are still alive, are changed in the twinkling of an eye. And we rise to meet him in the air as He is returning, and come with Him in triumphant procession, behind our King, as He strikes the final blow to death and forever destroys all His enemies. The beast and the false prophet, that serpent of old, Satan, and all who reject Christ. And then there is a New Heaven and a New earth, and God Himself dwells among us. The goal and aim of everything, since God cursed the serpent and said that from the seed of the woman would come one who would crush his head.

The issue is the belief that the Church will be here on earth through the tribulation. Is that your belief?

MM

 

[Arial]

The difference is in whether one's view aligns with scripture in its original language, or not.

No it doesn't. That would mean that the Bible is only for those who read and understand the original languages.

I've explained the meaning of that verse, meaning derived from the context and grammatical construct, which point to the actual definitions that are not subject to personal interpretation, as many out there are prone to endeavor in discussions of this type

Everything is subject to personal interpretation. The fact that you say you derived your meaning from the context and grammatical construct, and that you did so by looking at what the original language was, does not change that, and neither does it prove that your conclusion was right. It also ASSumes that translators did not do that, or that you can do it better.

I figured out what the sentence meant also from the grammatical construct and context, simply by reading it. Again you presume I didn't. In case you hadn't noticed, your postings fall under a tremendous load of suppositions, presuppositions, and presumptions. And what is happening is exactly what I said earlier generally happens when trying to have this discussion with a dispensationalist, and which you replied that what I said did not apply to you. Although the context I used also included the whole counsel of God on what we are saved from and what we are saved to. Since you were asserting that the root meaning of salvation is saved from sin---which is something I have never heard and never thought---I told you the different ways salvation is applied in the Bible. I told you what our salvation relating to Christ's work is, and that it saves us from His wrath. I told you exactly what God means by that sentence. Those who are redeemed are not appointed to wrath, but rather to salvation from it. Which can only be done if someone took care of our sin problem. WHich He did. It is not rocket science.

 

[Arial]

This is troubling. If I'm understanding you correctly, I would have thought that you would not limit the scope of the meaning for "salvation" on the basis of who is doing the "saving."

I didn't. I don't know why you think I did.

Yes, Yahshuah grants salvation from sin and its consequence, and in the 1 Thessalonians 5:9 verbiage, the "salvation" spoken of there is deliverance from (not within, but FROM) that same Yahshuah's wrath that will be poured out soon after His "salvation" (deliverance) from the very planet where His wrath will be poured out.

I never said the deliverance was within God's wrath. You are again, superimposing your own beliefs onto mine.

Let me put 1 Thess 5:9 into its actual context. Starting with verse 1 and going through verse 11. Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.So then let us not sleep, as other do, but let us keep awake and be sober.For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk,are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up just as you are doing.

Paul is teaching about the Day of the Lord. There is nothing in there that indicates Christians will not be on the earth on the day of the Lord. In fact, just the opposite. He is telling them to not get complacent. He will come like a thief in the night. They have the promise, the assurance that they are not destined for God's wrath, but rather to obtain salvation. They are already saved--- they are "all children of the light." He had already told them in chapter 4 what happens to the dead in Christ and those in Christ who remain alive on that day.

Do you think that we are not now, and always have been since Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, living in the midst of His wrath. Look around. All the destruction and evil around us, the subjection of the very creation to futility, is a product of our fall, and His judgement on sin. Our treason. In Christ He is undoing what Adam did. In chapt 4,Paul is teaching about the coming of the Lord. The resurrection of the dead and hIs coming are simultaneous. (4:13-18) There is no room in there for a second coming with a temporal temple, with the glorified Jesus reigning from it, overseeing temporal animals being sacrificed with temporal blood, and temporal people, and certainly not a thousand years.

There is also the deliverance Israel will enjoy after felling into the desert mountains to escape the clutches of the man of sin. No other deliverance is mentioned for the saints across the rest of the world, which gives ample indication that they all will be subject to that wrath and its effects since we see a multitude standing before the Throne in just the first 42 months of the tribulation.

What? Now you sound like @jeremiah1five !

Their fear was that they were in the beginnings of the tribulation at that time. It's the tribulation they feared, not the salvation of their souls.

There is no record of the tribulation as you see it being discussed with them, ever. There is not a hint of a mention of it in the entire letter. It is absolutely, read into it. It just is not there.The majority of the letter is commending them and encouraging them. They were concerned about the fate of those who died in Christ, and themselves even, if they should die before He returned. Which shows that they knew what His return meant.

The issue is the belief that the Church will be here on earth through the tribulation. Is that your belief?

Yes and no. I do not believe there is a seven year tribulation period as you see it. I see the tribulation as this age---the time between His first and second advents. We experience continuous tribulations and all of those things mentioned in Matt 24., that Jesus says are birth pangs,but not the end. I think the closer we get to His return, the more intense will be, specifically, persecution of the church. Perhaps worldwide pesecution of Christians and Christian institutions. Haven't I already said this?

 

[Musicmaster]

No it doesn't. That would mean that the Bible is only for those who read and understand the original languages.

That's right! Translations that mislead people down the path of falsehoods will not give to them the truth by some magical means. Modern believers with internet access have no excuse for not delving into the original languages with all the tools available online.

And beyond that, one doesn't need the internet to seek out and find absolute truth. The Lord leaves nobody to flounder around seeking the truth, at least those who make the effort to seek Him out for it.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So the Lord Himself takes away all excuses from everyone, having made available His very Spirit to teach all things to those who ask of Him. Men are liars, but Yah is true. The bleeding hearts out there who don't like pointing out responsibility upon all will just have to try and think up an excuse when standing before the Most High.

Everything is subject to personal interpretation. The fact that you say you derived your meaning from the context and grammatical construct, and that you did so by looking at what the original language was, does not change that, and neither does it prove that your conclusion was right. It also ASSumes that translators did not do that, or that you can do it better.

Are you serious? That sounds VERY liberal. Are you a dabbler in liberal theologies?

I figured out what the sentence meant also from the grammatical construct and context, simply by reading it.

Whatever...

Bottom line is that nobody is left with no source for absolute truth. Most do not seek the Lord for His truth, and thus debates.

MM

 

[Arial]

That's right! Translations that mislead people down the path of falsehoods will not give to them the truth by some magical means.

I trust God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to lead me to truth, and I trust Him to both preserve His word, through the translations and to lead me in straight paths as He says He will, as long as I do the due diligence, and have a deep desire to no the truth, whether I like it or not. That isn't magical. Anyone only trusting themselves is bound to take wrong turns. Of course we all do take wrong turns as we grow, but I have found, unless we stubbornly dig in, we don't stay there. It is called learning.

Modern believers with internet access have no excuse for not delving into the original languages with all the tools available online.

I do make use of it. I just don't believe it is the only way to understand what the Bible is telling us. People also use those tools to change the word of God. You can do anything with anything when it comes to that.

Are you serious? That sounds VERY liberal. Are you a dabbler in liberal theologies?

I am about as far from a dabbler in liberal theologies as one can get. I have no idea how you concluded that from what I said? But do you know that liberal theologies and cults use the Greek and Hebrew language to completely change the biblical meaning? If a person wants to twist something, they will twist it.

 

[jeremiah1five]

How are the passages (not one passage) of Scripture I gave neutral? Are there neutral passages in the Bible, or does everything God says have meaning? Is there even any such thing as a neutral passage anywhere? Who are the mixed multitude? Tell me.

It doesn't specify but being used with "flocks" "herds" and "livestock" implies these animals are the mixed multitude.

Joseph's brothers and their families were given the area of Goshen to live in, by edict. Do you suppose it was a completely unpopulated area? If it were, there would have been no wars over it. Egypt claimed it as their land, and they took it from their enemies. But it was not left empty.

Yes, it was unpopulated. Only the best for his family.

God's PURPOSE was to bring the descendants of Jacob out of slavery, and that is what He did. But according to Scripture, that does not mean only Jacobs descendants came out. It did not bother God, as it bothers you, that there were non Hebrews among the group. In fact, as I have shown you and you ignored, in the covenant with Abraham, God did not excluded non-Hebrews from the covenant, but commanded that Abraham give all the male foreigners the sign of the covenant---circumcision. Scripture cannot be broken.

The Scripture describes Hebrews being delivered. So, Hebrews were delivered. There is no mention of any other people in the deliverance narrative. God is keeping His promise to Abraham.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. Gen. 15:13–14.

There is no room to add to the bible. Hebrews were prophesied to go in, and Hebrews were prophesied to come out.

You break it again when you say Hebrews only married Hebrews.

We're talking about Hebrews being delivered from Egypt.

Manasseh and Ephraim had a royal Egyptian mother. Also, Boaz married a Moabite, which is in the line of David, the line of Jesus. There are many accounts IN THE SCRIPTURES, which cannot be broken, of intermarriage with Gentiles. And it did not phase or deter God one iota in fulfilling His purpose, either with Israel or the Seed of Promise for the redemption of a people and creation. He does not present Himself as a raciest as you present Him. His purpose are much bigger and greater than you, evidently, can grasp.

We're talking about Hebrews being delivered from Egypt.

The reason God commanded them not to intermarry with pagans in the nations that surrounded Israel, had nothing to do with ethnicity. Nothing. God Himself, when giving the command, said why. Because it would divide their loyalty, which was to be only to Him. They did, and it did.

I agree. The same thing happened when the Sethian "sons of God" married the disobedient "daughters of men" and their children grew up to be lawless tyrants and bullies, exactly the definition of "nephalim" by Strong's.
Thank you for the support proving the godly line of Seth marrying the ungodly line of Cain, and other ungodly children from Adam and Eve.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Wrong.
We don't have any scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were called the sons of God.

Not necessary. Study the family lines and come to the knowledge of the truth. There were two groups of people in the world. The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Godly people and ungodly people. Obedient people, and disobedient people. Noah was a descendant of Seth.

The flood obliterated everyone except Noah and sons and their wives.
To say that none of the line of Seth perished in the flood is an argument from silence since scripture only records the genealogy of only one of his sons or daughters, and to try and claim that no descendant of Seth perished in the flood is just naïve.

Noah is a descendant of Seth. He found grace in the eyes of the LORD. God delivered him.

We have nothing in scripture that says all the descendants of Seth were righteous.

Good Lord. How stupid can someone be?
Study the thing before making foolish statements.

 

[Musicmaster]

I trust God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to lead me to truth,

That is indeed the noble pathway, and I applaud that. I wish more people would do that.

and I trust Him to both preserve His word, through the translations

That's like saying that I trust the Lord for a new Cadillac... The Lord does limit Himself in what He dies, HOWEVER, in a manner of speak, I agree with you. The translations, by and large do indeed reflect what is said in the original languages. The problem areas in translations do at time corrupt key points that affect doctrinal beliefs in many denominations and sects. That is when I delve into the original languages. When THAT doesn't produce fruit of understanding, I seek the Spirit of the Lord. Actually, I don't seek Holy Spirit only as a last resort. My prayer is that the Lord give to me ALL that is above the earth as is the heavens, which is even His Thoughts and His Ways, along with wisdom and knowledge.

Amen

I am about as far from a dabbler in liberal theologies as one can get. I have no idea how you concluded that from what I said? But do you know that liberal theologies and cults use the Greek and Hebrew language to completely change the biblical meaning? If a person wants to twist something, they will twist it.

It was something you said that smacked of liberalism. Maybe you didn't mean what seemed to come across in your words. I'll give you that.

MM

 

[Tambora]

I am not agreeing with J in 99.9% of what he says, but FYI, Noah is a descendant of Seth.

Yes I know.
But Noah was not the only descendant of Seth.
Seth had other sons and daughters besides Enosh who was the ancestor of Noah.

Genesis 5:7 ESV​

(7) Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.​

Enosh just happened to be the only child of Seth that scriptural genealogy keeps record of and was silent about the genealogy of all his other sons and daughters.
So it would be naïve to think that Noah and sons were the ONLY descendant of Seth alive when the flood happened.
J was trying to claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, which would not be true if any others of his line were destroyed in the flood.

Long story short .......... no one can make the claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, as J tried to claim.

 

[Tambora]

Not necessary. Study the family lines and come to the knowledge of the truth.

No one can study the whole family line of Seth because scripture only records the genealogy of just one of his sons (Enosh), but is completely silent on the genealogy of Seth's other sons and daughters.

Genesis 5:7 ESV
(7) Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.

So you are making a claim that cannot be substantiated.

There were two groups of people in the world. The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

Oh my.
Are you claiming that the serpent fathered hybrid humans?????

Godly people and ungodly people. Obedient people, and disobedient people.

Which doesn't mean that a whole particular bloodline was righteous.
We know this because Jesus called descendants of Abraham the sons of the devil.


John 8:37 ESV
(37) I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.

John 8:44 ESV
(44) You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Noah was a descendant of Seth.

Noah is a descendant of Seth. He found grace in the eyes of the LORD. God delivered him.

Good Lord. How stupid can someone be?

Noah was not the only descendant of Seth.
That Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD does not mean that all of Seth's descendants did.

Study the thing before making foolish statements.

Take your own advice.

 

[Arial]

Yes I know.
But Noah was not the only descendant of Seth.
Seth had other sons and daughters besides Enosh who was the ancestor of Noah.

Genesis 5:7 ESV​

(7) Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.​

Enosh just happened to be the only child of Seth that scriptural genealogy keeps record of and was silent about the genealogy of all his other sons and daughters.
So it would be naïve to think that Noah and sons were the ONLY descendant of Seth alive when the flood happened.
J was trying to claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, which would not be true if any others of his line were destroyed in the flood.

Long story short .......... no one can make the claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, as J tried to claim.

My apologies. I didn't realize that is what J was saying. He seems to think the entire plan of redemption is DNA based.

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes I know.
But Noah was not the only descendant of Seth.
Seth had other sons and daughters besides Enosh who was the ancestor of Noah.

Genesis 5:7 ESV​

(7) Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.​

Enosh just happened to be the only child of Seth that scriptural genealogy keeps record of and was silent about the genealogy of all his other sons and daughters.
So it would be naïve to think that Noah and sons were the ONLY descendant of Seth alive when the flood happened.
J was trying to claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, which would not be true if any others of his line were destroyed in the flood.

Long story short .......... no one can make the claim that all of Seth's descendants were righteous, as J tried to claim.

God is not a racist. Flesh in a rainbow of colors combinations .

Its the righteousness of faith (things not seen) The law of faith .let there be and the testimony seen was God alone good

Romans 3:21-23King James Version21 But now the righteousness of God without the law (letter death) is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;( sola scriptura) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith (labor of love) of Jesus Christ( not seen )unto all and upon all them that believe: (not see) for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God( Not seen)

No differnce between Jewish flesh and dying gentile flesh and blood .God is not dying mankind. A wile of the father of lies. .

So, there are eight possible blood types:. . (.none called Jew or Gentile)

• O negative. This blood type doesn't have A or B markers, and it doesn't have Rh factor.
• O positive. This blood type doesn't have A or B markers, but it does have Rh factor. ...
• A negative. ...
• A positive. ...
• B negative. ...
• B positive. ...
• AB negative. ...
• AB positive.

Seth gave birth to Enoch a second born in order to replace Abel, Abel first apostle, prophet who was martyred for his of faith Christ.(not seen)

Enoch another "second born" used to represent a man "must be born from above" . . a carrier of the spiritual (unseen seed Christ) that bruised the heel of the Son of man Jesus .

Same power of faith (Christ) a man must be born agai that worked in Enoch was passed down until the birth of the son of man Jesus .Ending the need of for a geanalolgy of the second born.

Genesis 4: 25-26 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. . . . . .Not the name of a Jew, dying mankind

It was at that time that men began calling knowing they "must be born again".

Abram another second born in his case to represent our Holy Father of all the nations of the world the seed Christ passed o g from Abraham The father of all the nations of the world was passed to Isaac (a second born )

Cain saw no value in the spiritual unseen eternal things of God. Like Esau a first born also seeing no value in the things of faith (the unseen eternal things of God . . sold his birthrate for a cup of haring goat soup .Onan spilled the seed seeing no value in the unseen eternal things of our Holy of all nations

Abraham somewhere in the middle (The middle child) passed in on to Isaac .

Luke 3: 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

Same gospel cry today. .

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
c

 

[jeremiah1five]

No one can study the whole family line of Seth because scripture only records the genealogy of just one of his sons (Enosh), but is completely silent on the genealogy of Seth's other sons and daughters.

The Lord recorded it for that very reason. So that we may see the family line of Jesus through both Joseph and Mary (Matthew and Luke.) But there are those that are ignorant and choose to stay ignorant, which is why you disagree with me. It is because you don't see any worth in studying the genealogies of the people of God. Well, that is an ignorant attitude to have.

Genesis 5:7 ESV
(7) Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.

The ones that matter are the ones named in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, Luke, and Genesis.
Unless you're going to tell me, Jesus' brother is Michael.

So you are making a claim that cannot be substantiated.

Says the boy who will not study.

Oh my.
Are you claiming that the serpent fathered hybrid humans?????

I'm not stupid. I know it is impossible.

Which doesn't mean that a whole particular bloodline was righteous.

That's why it's 'spotted.' Jesus had half-brothers and sisters. Only James is mentioned. Do we conclude that because Jesus other three sisters and four brothers were not obedient, devout, and righteous people? No, we don't, especially being born to such a blessed father and mother.

We know this because Jesus called descendants of Abraham the sons of the devil.

Ignorant. Jesus telling on Himself.
But people can make mistakes. You have.
Post the Scripture, please of Jesus calling Abraham's descendants "sons of the devil."

John 8:37 ESV
(37) I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.

John 8:44 ESV
(44) You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

I see you've bought into the false Constantinian Gentile theology on who the "devil" is.
As a clue I think you should know it is bad grammar to try to make an adjective function as a noun or personal pronoun, which is what you do.

The angels that sinned are locked up (2 Peter 2:4.)

Noah was not the only descendant of Seth.
That Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD does not mean that all of Seth's descendants did.
Take your own advice.

 

[Arial]

It doesn't specify but being used with "flocks" "herds" and "livestock" implies these animals are the mixed multitude

Ex 12:38 A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds.

Numbers 11:4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept and said:Who will give us meat to eat?"

It implies no such thing and is very specific. Ex says a mixed multitude went up with them. It does not even connect the flocks and herds to the mixed multitude, but with what they came out of Egypt with. In Numbers it mentions this same mixed multitude who were among them. Among who? The children of Israel. It does not say who specifically this mixed multitude was, but if it was mixed, it contained many types of people. It could have even contained some Egyptians who were impressed by the miracles they had seen and hitched their horse to that wagon. We don't know. What we do know is that they were NOT "sons of Jacob."

You are not rightly dividing the word when you say it says what you want it to say without considering what else the Bible has said about the same thing. What you are doing is attempting to break Scripture.

Yes, it was unpopulated. Only the best for his family.

Again---writing your very own Bible while ignoring the real one and rewriting history. A barren unpopulated area would probably not have a name or be fought over, and most certainly would not be the best.

The Scripture describes Hebrews being delivered. So, Hebrews were delivered. There is no mention of any other people in the deliverance narrative. God is keeping His promise to Abraham.

I am not denying that God was delivering Israel for His purposes, In fact I said He was. I am refuting your claim that only Hebrews came out of Egypt with them. And actually, God was keeping His promise to Christ ---that the seed of the woman would crush the serpents head.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. Gen. 15:13–14.

There is no room to add to the bible. Hebrews were prophesied to go in, and Hebrews were prophesied to come out.

I never disputed that. Do you think deflection and red herrings will make the issue go away?

We're talking about Hebrews being delivered from Egypt.

No, we are talking about your claim that there were no Gentiles who came out with them, and therefore there were no Gentiles in the covenant.

We're talking about Hebrews being delivered from Egypt.

No, we are talking about your claim that Hebrews only married Hebrews. I showed you two sons among the twelve tribes, who had an Egyptian mother. The sons of Joseph.

I agree. The same thing happened when the Sethian "sons of God" married the disobedient "daughters of men" and their children grew up to be lawless tyrants and bullies, exactly the definition of "nephalim" by Strong's.

Red herring. Plus you insist that redemption is DNA based and God redeems on the basis of ethnicity. WHIch is why I said what I did.

Thank you for the support proving the godly line of Seth marrying the ungodly line of Cain, and other ungodly children from Adam and Eve.

That is not what I was proving at all, and of course, you know that. What I was showing had nothing to do with your interpretation of the "sons of God." I was showing that the line of Seth from which comes CHRIST survived the flood. I mistakenly thought @Tambora was saying that it didn't.

 

[Tambora]

The Lord recorded it for that very reason. So that we may see the family line of Jesus through both Joseph and Mary (Matthew and Luke.) But there are those that are ignorant and choose to stay ignorant, which is why you disagree with me. It is because you don't see any worth in studying the genealogies of the people of God. Well, that is an ignorant attitude to have.

I see worth in studying genealogy correctly, not the way you do.
The genealogy of Jesus being listed in scripture DOES NOT mean that all those listed in that genealogy were righteous.

As a clue I think you should know it is bad grammar to try to make an adjective function as a noun

ROFL!
I can read, write, and speak both Hebrew and Greek.
Hebrew most certainly does use adjectives as nouns in scripture.
It does it quite often.
A lot of languages do.
Case in point:

Jeremiah 9:23 ESV​

(23) Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,​

Wise, mighty, and rich are adjectives used as nouns.
That's why nearly all translations add "man" after those adjectives for clarity, because it is using the adjectives as nouns (men/people).