Persuaded

Alright, just this one, although I see you've got a 5 page thread elsewhere, and your list remains the same, so I'm guessing your views are entrenched!! So I don't get accused of cherry picking the easiest one, I'll just go with the first, from Mat 5. First, an earlier verse, so you can see the kind of things Jesus is talking about: [Mat 5:20 KJV] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. I submit that 99.9% of christians do not have righteousness of their own that exceeds that of the pharisees, who were professional, diligent law keepers. Is this truly the way to the kingdom? -of course not. Paul explains that the purpose of the law was to show us that we are inadequate to keep the law: [Rom 3:19 KJV] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. In Jesus' time, the leaders of the Jews thought they were doing a good job keeping the law, and were missing the lesson that the law was sent to teach. That's what this whole passage is conveying, that the law goes beyond outward actions and covers your heart as well. If you have clean hands and a filthy heart, you are just as guilty as the one who is outwardly sinful. [Mat 5:27 KJV] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [Mat 5:28 KJV] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Mat 5:29 KJV] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. [Mat 5:30 KJV] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. This whole passage explains God's preferred method of salvation. This sounds heretical, but there are really two methods to get to heaven. Plan B is the cross, where you let Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice cover your sins. But the better way is to live a sinless life, from birth to death, never having an incorrect action or thought, and when you die you can go to heaven and tell God to move over, cause now there's two of us. I hope you see I'm being flippant, but this is the tone of the whole sermon on the mount, to show those that had confidence in their flesh that they had no basis for such confidence. The example of plucking out your eye/cutting off your hand is meant to be repugnant and repulsive, to show how God abhors sin, and how important it is to focus on entering the kingdom. This lesson was taught before the cross was in view, while the kingdom was still being offered to the Jews, while Jesus was still showing himself to be their messiah. It's easy to build spurious doctrine from verses in isolation, but look at the whole passage (or the rest of the NT!) and see what the point of the message is. It is not saying that a believer who has had his sins forgiven by the cross will have that forgiveness rescinded by a new sin. How many sins had you yet to commit when Jesus died? May I suggest, "ALL OF THEM." And yet, He STILL chose you before the foundation of the world. Some of us are especially grateful that He did, because if He hadn't He might be tempted to change His mind. (that's more tongue in cheek)!

I agree, and that's not at all what I was implying- just pointing out the linguistic root of both words. The idea condemned as sorcery then, is not aspirin today. But it's probable that hallucinogenics then were related to occultic practices. In my own past experience, hallucinogenic drugs and the occult are very frequently related, today.

Did thou readest them? Did thou notest there was nothing said about rewards in any of them? I see your whole post copy/pasted on a few other forums, I see you've taken several verses out of context, this is well-travelled and divisive subject material, so I guess I'm responding about as seriously as I think your effort here requires. Pick your best couple verses that make your case, explain how you think they make your case, and I (and I'm sure others) would be happy to offer serious opinions. Speaking for myself, I don't think shotgun copy/pastes are worth a detailed response.

Lots of reward opportunities in that list, though!

Loss? -no.

Drug use and sorcery seem to be scripturally linked. The work for sorcery or witchcraft in each of these verses is pharmakeia which also refers to poisoning, and is obviously the word from which we get "pharmaceutical". It appears that drug use was a part of sorcery in those times, just as it can be an avenue to occult practices today. [Gal 5:20 KJV] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, [Rev 9:21 KJV] Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. [Rev 18:23 KJV] And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Will try to remember to look up passages another time. Having a bad day so was hoping there might be some people in chat but alas with time difference there is not. The NT quotes scripture from the OT several times especially in the gospels. In many cases there is no real difference in meaning but the words should be identical and they are not. One example where this occours is when Jesus is reading scripture in the temple. This isn't a KJV issue; it's because the people of the NT quote from the LXX and not the Hebrew text. Jesus and the apostles spoke greek and quoted from the greek translation of the OT. And, there is often insight to be gained by studying those differences! Example: [Heb 1:6 NKJV] But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." ...which is quoting from... [Psa 97:7 NKJV] Let all be put to shame who serve carved images, Who boast of idols. Worship Him, all [you] gods. Which gives the insight that elohiym *in some contexts* can mean "angels", which has been disputed by some interpreters. (this probably isn't practical knowledge for us, I admit!)

The dream, and its interpretation: [Dan 2:31 NKJV] "You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor [was] excellent, stood before you; and its form [was] awesome. [Dan 2:32 NKJV] "This image's head [was] of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, [Dan 2:33 NKJV] "its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. [Dan 2:34 NKJV] "You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. [Dan 2:35 NKJV] "Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. [Dan 2:36 NKJV] "This [is] the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. [Dan 2:37 NKJV] "You, O king, [are] a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; [Dan 2:38 NKJV] "and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given [them] into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all--you [are] this head of gold. [Dan 2:39 NKJV] "But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. [Dan 2:40 NKJV] "And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, [that kingdom] will break in pieces and crush all the others. [Dan 2:41 NKJV] "Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. [Dan 2:42 NKJV] "And [as] the toes of the feet [were] partly of iron and partly of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. [Dan 2:43 NKJV] "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. [Dan 2:44 NKJV] "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. [Dan 2:45 NKJV] "Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold--the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure." First things to note are that this was Neb's dream, and it portrays events from his perspective, where earthly rulership is a glorious thing. This is in contrast to Daniel's dream in Dan 7, where the same four kingdoms are portrayed from God's perspective as ravenous beasts. Historically, from Neb's point of view, he was the head of gold in that his rule was absolute. (Dan 2:37) The next kingdom, the Medes and Persians, was less absolute: "the law of the medes and persians cannot be broken", meaning the king was subject to the law. (Dan 6:8) And so on with the greeks. These three kingdoms (empires) shared the idea of preserving the culture and learning of those they conquered, often adding local deities to their own culture. Rome is seen in contrast, utterly destroying its enemies and enforcing its culture wherever it ruled. This is the iron aspect. Clay is idiomatic of people in scripture, whether by Jesus' "I am the potter you are the clay", or Gen 2 when Adam was formed of the dust, or as interpreted for us here in Dan 2:43 where clay is "the seed of men", and other passages throughout scripture- it's not a controversial idiom and is widely understood. Whereas the beast dreams of Dan 7 portray the transitional states of the empires, I don't think we see that in the Dan 2 dream except where it explicitly says so from 2:41 onward: -we don't see one side growing stronger/one side diminishing aspect of the mede-to-persian shift in dominance as depicted by the bear "lifting up on one side". -we don't see greece split into four with the death of Alex the Great, as with the leopard's four heads. Looking at 2:41- [Dan 2:41 NKJV] "Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. "The kingdom shall be divided", means it's the same overall kingdom (empire), and it isn't conquered but instead splits. This is the story of the Roman empire, which was never conquered but split into eastern and western parts, but retained an identity or connection to its former self. As it mixed with clay, it became even less absolute, and its power was dispersed through many people. The eastern and western parts further split and divided, and today practically all the nations of europe and the middle east are descendants of Rome. The idiom of the iron legs transitioning to iron/clay feet and toes is one of power diminishing and dispersing over time. "And in the days of these kings", in the days when Rome has been dispersed, divided, and diluted among the people. I happen to think that there will be a ten-nation confederation arising from the remnants of the roman empire, but that is an inference drawn when comparing the implied ten toes with the ten horns of Dan 7, etc. Beyond that, I think it's somewhat conjectural to try to identify the ten nations- the fact that the list changes every few years lends credence to the idea that this is the wrong tree to be barking up. I put this one in the "we'll know it when we see it" category. So there's no "fifth empire", and reading the papacy into these dreams doesn't fit. The papacy may play a part, but that's not inherent or required by these dreams. The ten nations/rulers will band together before one of them becomes ascendant, so it doesn't make sense to look for the one, before the ten are formed.

(Edit is failing me) ... to another poster's point about word for word missing the original intent when it is colloquial or idiomatic, I'd rather work to preserve and understand the original than have the translation too far removed from the original. With any figure of speech, eventually even the translators won't get it. We serve a Jewish God, who chose a Jewish people, and walked the earth as a Jew. I think we ought to work to preserve our Jewish understanding, so that the idioms don't become forgotten. I hear of translators going into tribal areas and trying to retool the scripture to fit their culture and understanding, and I think that's the wrong approach in the long run.

How can they translate the same passage differently in different places? If it is in different places, it is not the same passage. It could be telling a different account of the same thing, but it is not the same passage. Do you have any specific examples we could consider? Not same passage, but same word, translated differently in different places. In general the KJV does a pretty good job with this, especially with using the same words from OT passages when they are rendered in greek in the NT. Of course, the same Hebrew word should frequently be translated into different English words when the Hebrew word has various meanings based on context. Some words that they rendered differently give some significant insight when compared to the usage elsewhere. An example I like is "kofar" in Gen 6, where it is translated "pitch" in describing the sealing or covering of the ark. Kofar, everywhere else, is translated "atonement". The ark was covered by atonement, and by it was faithful Noah saved. This isn't an example of a mistake, just an unfortunate choice that doesn't fully convey the meaning. And we miss the puns, double-meanings, and word play that is present in any language, but difficult to pass through a translation filter. To

I've only done a little digging in this area, but what I think I know is... Westcott and Hort were the chief proponents of the various "critical texts", which were from the Alexandrian type. Because of their writings, it is now difficult to be taken seriously as a Bible scholar unless you use the critical texts. These texts are fewer in number than the Byzantine type (or "majority text"), but were older than most Byzantine types. Westcott and Hort convinced the scholarly world that their few earlier texts were more reliable than the much more numerous majority texts then is use. Westcott and Hort held very unscriptural views- the joke is that you wouldn't let them teach in your kid's Sunday school. From my reading, I get the impression they sought their own fame rather than doctrinal truth, and the textual points that they championed seem to be untrue and unchristian. Examples are the use of young maid for virgin, and the use of them instead of us in Rev 5:10 (which has only fairly recently been re-affirmed as the correct reading, if my memory is correct). The KJV is based on an early or working copy of the TR, which is based on something like 6 copies of the Byzantine type, and one other manuscript, with a couple gaps filled in by the vulgate, and some vulgate language-style was used. So the TR is pretty close to the Byzantine. I lean toward the majority consensus of the Byzantine as the truest reflection of the originals, perhaps tainted by my distaste for Westcott and Hort and the textual critic culture that seemed to derive from their ilk. I grew up with a KJV and I'm used to its style, the verses I learned as a kid are from the KJV, and most serious commentaries and study aids are based on the KJV. The KJV has a few problems, but they are generally widely known and easy to deal with. Two of my favorite KJV errors are in Isaiah: [isa 52:14 KJV] As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: The text (and most modern translations confirm this) says He was beaten past recognition as a human, but the KJV translators appear to have deliberately softened and obfuscated the language to avoid offense. -and- [isa 64:6 KJV] But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Again, to avoid offense and to preserve the majesty of the language, the translators used "filthy rags" when the text actual reads "used menstrual cloths". Think about that, next time you're feeling righteous in front of God! I'd like to see a majority text, modern language, word-for-word (non-paraphrase) Bible. The NKJV is close, but its constant footnote references to the critical texts are really distracting. Still hoping...

I'm a pretribber, but I'm happy to accept folks that think differently. I don't think these verses are part of the gray area that divides us. The times don't start with His return, but surround it. Example, "I was born in the Vietnam era", can mean several years before GI's arrived, to several years after. "Times" (or period) here reads the same way in the context of the passage. It identifies the bigger milestones that His final prophetic fulfillment relate to. I don't know how to make that clearer... Same general argument with "sit at my right hand"- it doesn't mean He's cuffed to the chair! It means He is co-ruling, and has a place of honor with the Father. If He's in the chair, how is He building my mansion??? :-) It is heaven that must do the receiving, because Christ can't fulfill the second coming prophesies until the fullness of the Gentiles are come in, etc. I've known deeply committed Christian scholars on both sides of the pretrib and post-toastie debate, and I'm convinced that scripture has been left deliberately vague so that we'll continue to debate it, and have reason to eagerly await His arrival.

no no no no! He tried to get into God's presence by his own merit, instead of receiving the free covering that God gives to all that will receive it.

Context, context, context? Acts 3 begins with Peter and John and the healing of the crippled man and the "silver and gold have I none" passage. v12 Then, Peter says to the amazed crowd near the temple: "men of Israel, why do you marvel at this..." and begins a discourse to them. v13-16 He reminds them that their God glorified Jesus, whom they killed, and it is by Him that the healing was done. v18 He reminds them that Jesus' suffering was foretold. v19 He calls them to repentance, so that "times of refreshing may come" (2 Chron 7:14, perhaps) v20 He re-affirms that Jesus Christ will be coming again, as they have always heard and believed from the teachings of the scripture. v21 He explains why Jesus isn't King in Jerusalem right now, why the delay, why He isn't a failed messiah. This verse is explaining Christ's current absence to the jews, and assuring them that "al things" concerning the messiah that they knew from the scripture, would still be fulfilled. To get hung up on "receive until the times of the restoration of all things", which appears to be a very general phrase ("receive" is passive, not like He is restrained and held prisoner there; "times" is like season, not a single moment; the "all things" seems to refer back to the things concerning the messiah in the scriptures that Peter has just discussed). Sure, this verse is consistent with other scripture that says he's going away and will return to fulfill the rest of the OT prophesies concerning the messiah. More than that, is reading into it more than is there. The rest of the chapter closes out with more reassurance that the scripture is not broken, it has not gone unfulfilled in Christ, and that His blessing is available to them.

God did not start the big bang. That is nonsense. Let their be light isn't the Big Bang. The Bible says that the stars came after the earth. the BB theory says that they existed 10 billion years before the earth. And yet... there is a distinction between God "creating" (bara) and "letting be" (asah). God "bara" the heavens and the earth (1:1) and living things and man (1:21, 27). Everything else He "asah", or simply said or called (amar). In bara there is a clear "something from nothing" concept expressed, whereas in asah and amar, the text has more of a connotation of allowing, rearranging, or making something fit for purpose. I know evolutionists can use this same argument to support their case, and that's unfortunate and it bothers me to be seen as helping "them", but it doesn't help the biblical cause if we don't try to fully understand what the Word says. So in God making the universe from nothing, I have no problem calling that event "the Big Bang". The elements of the broader BB theory that conflict with Genesis are obviously wrong. Good theology and good science will always agree. It's always important in both fields to challenge suppositions, and remain flexible where the truth is unclear. God created the earth exactly as He described it in Genesis, but our understanding of that process can never be complete. I prefer a conservative view of scripture, but I also prefer an expansive (infinite ) view of God, where He takes full advantage of the physical world, time as only He knows it, and even the space between the atoms to accomplish His purpose. His reality is a lot bigger than ours, and we can do Him a disservice by limiting Him to a box that fits our human understanding. Evolution is not consistent with God's omniscience. An omniscient being would not need, nor use such an imperfect system like evolution. How about instead: Evolution is not consistent with God's Word, full stop. He mentions "after their own kind" or "seed was in itself" after every living thing was made, deliberately destroying the idea that any species can evolve from another.

In the parable, the wedding clothes are provided by the groom. Clothes/garments in scripture almost always speak of righteousness. The guest arrived at the wedding with his own righteousness, not the Host's.

Romans 8: 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. The creation was redeemed at the cross, and awaits re-glorification upon His return. I've wondered whether "subjected to futility", above, refers to entropy. Imagine a world without it, if you can!

How God grows the Church: Act 2:42 KJV And they continued stedfastly in 1) the apostles' doctrine [biblical teaching] 2) and fellowship, 3) and in breaking of bread, 4) and in prayers. Act 2:47 ...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Item 1 is especially rare in most churches. If the good book is even cracked open during a sermon, great. How much better to have a pastor that will teach the word from cover to cover? I think Chuck Smith credited that one thing to the growth of his Calvary Chapel from a tent-church to the expanding movement it remains today. Teach the word, and God will add to the church, simple.

That's the fig tree in Mat 24, with the tender leaves. Fig tree and vineyard are frequent idioms of Israel and Judah (I forget which is which; if you're curious it wouldn't be hard to figure out...)

"Science" isn't as binary as theological doctrine. Things aren't "proven", generally. There is a pile of evidence on one side, and a pile on another, and maybe twenty other piles for different nuances to the theory. Sometimes one pile gets a lot taller, while there remains convincing contrary evidences in another pile. I find eschatology to be similar! I don't support evolution in any of its guises (I see "after their own kind" several times in Gen 1, and that's enough for me!), but I believe it is scientifically possible or probable and theologically probable that God created the universe some time (what is time to God?) before he began his focus on our earth.

When I read of the dragon doing something, I generally see him as doing something through one of the earthly powers/kings. In the same way that Ezekiel 28:12 begins as a lament against Tyrus and then shifts and looks through Tyrus at the power behind his throne and rails against Lucifer himself, or the way the angel in Daniel 10 was withstood by the "prince of the kingdom of Persia". These kings have a spiritual component behind them, and we generally "see" the physical, earthly kings' actions. In John's visions, he is given the ability to see things as they really are, as Daniel and Ezekiel did. So in Rev 12 as the dragon tries to devour the man child as it is born, it most directly refers to Satan's schemes to kill Christ (Herod and the babies of Bethlehem, the jewish leadership trying to stone/throw Him off a cliff etc, and ultimately the cross), but it also refers idiomatically to the woman as Israel giving birth to "the seed of the woman" of Gen 3 as she through her history has been the channel from which the Messiah must come. After the cross, it is a proof of Israel's future role and importance that the dragon has continued to attempt to devour her seed- the world's and the historical church's generally anti-Semitic views that have lead to the crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust, and Islam. Next, the beast of Rev 13 with its seven heads and ten horns has them all at the same time, not sequentially. Same with Neb's image, it had ten toes all at once, Dan 2:44 "And in the days of these kings [the ten toes] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." I take this to be a confederation of nations, consisting of remnants of the never-conquered Roman empire that may or may not exist today. Rev 13:7 KJV " And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." and Dan 7:21 KJV "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;" and Mat 16:18 KJV "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ...all in the Church are saints, but not all saints are in the Church. Tribulation saints are those that are saved from among the earth-dwellers. They are not in the category of "Church". Our citizenship is in heaven, we tabernacle on the earth, and we are not "those that dwell on the earth" that so frequently show up in Rev. It is an interesting study to see what is promised to the Revelation saints, versus what is promised to the Church. Saints serve the throne, but the church rules with Him, that kind of thing. John the Baptist was not Church. Mat 11:13 KJV "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Luk 16:16 KJV "The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Mat 11:11 KJV "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." I know in my life I haven't earned a better reward than John deserves, but here Christ says that we are to receive a different outcome. Rev 13:13,14 KJV "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live." ...in our age of rationalism, we are generally not ready for someone that can work miracles. Although only God can raise from the dead, the beast ha the ability to counterfeit that power so that we would not know the difference. We are too conditioned to believe what we see, rather than hear. "faith comes by hearing..." seeing = experiences = feeling but hearing = reading = revealed truth Rev 13:17 KJV "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." This isn't barcodes or atm cards. It is a mark that one takes to identify with the beast. It isn't a mark he gives you. It his his mark. I don't think anybody nows what this will be today, but I trust it will be obvious when the time comes, to those for whom the knowledge is relevant.

^no, I'm not very clued in to new age stuff, nor have I read the Message, nor plan to...

Yes, and I suggest "light-bearers" means the same as lamp stands, but nudges your understanding a little closer to its meaning in 11 of the 12 places it is used in the NT. (The Heb 9 instance is a reference to the tabernacle lamp stand, which ties the olive tree/oil into the discussion). Candlestick is the unfortunate KJV word used, which further obfuscates the "witness" meaning/connotation that is implied in each usage.

This is a favorite for me as well, Abraham as a father offering Isaac as a son, paralleling the Father offering His Son. I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit seems to actually distort the original text to make it better fit the model. He starts with: "Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest" which is (on its face) untrue in Abraham's case- he had another son in Ishmael. Also interesting is that this is the first use of the word "love", in referring to an only son about to be sacrificed. It takes three days to arrive at the mountain, during which time Isaac was dead to Abraham: Hebrews 11:19 says he received Isaac from the dead figuratively. This is one of the OT scriptures that Paul spoke of: 1Co 15:4 "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" Next, also in v2: "...and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Jerusalem is one of the mountains in the land of Moriah. It is my personal conviction that the offering of Isaac occurred on the same hill where our Father offered His Son. My only proof is a conviction that God doesn't leave his putts 6 inches from the cup! v5:"and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." Abraham believed that God would bring them both back. (again, Heb 11:19 "Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.") v6: Isaac carries the wood of the sacrifice up the hill. Later, another Son carries the wood of His sacrifice up the same hill. v7: Isaac asks "where is the lamb?" In John 1, John the Baptist declares "Behold the lamb of God". v13: The ram is sacrificed instead. The ram becomes it's own type of Christ in the form of the Levitical scapegoat. (Lev 16). v14: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen." Abraham, by choosing this name, knew he was foreshadowing a future event. v19: "So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together..." After the offering, Isaac's name is expunged from the record, so to speak. He obviously came down the mountain with Abraham, right? Most people stop looking at the typology of the offering somewhere around v14, but look a little further! After his death, Jesus returns to heaven and sends the HS in His place, until the time He joins His bride. This is the exact narrative that is played out through Gen 25. Although we know Abraham's servant's name from earlier passages (Gen 15, Eliezer, one whom God helps or comforted), the text leaves him un-named as Abraham sends him to go search for a bride for his son in Gen 24:2 and onward. So? In John 14, 15, and 16 the Comforter is spoken of as coming in Jesus' name, and not "speaking of himself" (16:13). It is not until the bride is brought to the son that we see Isaac reappear in the story, in Gen 25. So in Genesis, and today with the church, the un-named servant goes out into the world to find and prepare a bride, while the Son waits with the Father. I think that's pretty neat.

One other point that is brought out in Job is the value of compassion and listening. It's easy to say to a faceless screen that "God is sovereign" (which is absolutely true!), but it is of no comfort to the person enduring distress. Job's three friends, even if their shallow reap-what-you-sow message were completely valid, delivered their message in a way that completely ignored Job's situation and his pleas. Their theology was correct (we do reap what we sow), but incomplete (God is merciful). That in itself is a convicting insight- that we can be correct but if lacking as complete a picture as we should, God is displeased with us. Study to show yourselves approved, indeed.