post

you have misinterpreted post. your argument is with Mark the apostle, and the Holy Spirit that inspired him to write, if you think that he meant something other than "Jesus declared all foods clean" when he said "Jesus declared all foods clean"

i think if you would understand Isaiah 66:15-17 correctly, reading about God's enemies described as eating pigs flesh, you should not omit to read Isaiah 66:3 He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck;he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig's blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol.These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations now, an ox and a lamb and a grain offering are certainly not 'non kosher' are they? aye, amen! let scripture interpret scripture.

Mark seems to have thought it was "that simple" and that it was talking at least in part about food -- and Mark certainly understood the customs of the time. In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean. (Mark 7:19) but if it bothers your conscience, it's sin for you ((re: Romans 14:23)). i've got no qualm with you adhering to dietary law; it's just misrepresenting the scripture, or teaching dietary law as an ordinance for Gentiles who have come to Christ that i would correct.

footnotes from ESV Bible on this chapter include: a 3 Greek gunĒ. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the contextb 5 In verses 5–13, the Greek word gunĒ is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culture in most instances of the word gunĒ. here the ESV translates it as "wife" -- which contextually makes a whole lot more sense. it's my understanding that a shaved-headed woman in Corinth in that day would have been identified as a prostitute - so the contrast with a "wife" here seems a lot more appropriate than a "woman" in general, and as i explained in previous post, i think he is merely using an example from contemporary cultural norm, not giving a "rule" for the church. backing that opinion up, he says at the close of these remarks (verse 16) that if anyone wants to stir up controversy over this issue, or over the length of men's hair, that he & the churches of God have 'no such custom.' so i contend that this is meant to be an analogy to explain how that Christ is our head, and we should display submission to Him, and i agree with the ESV that within the analogy, by way of the cultural context, he's talking about "wives" in particular, not "women" in general.

but it does. in more than one place. here's maybe the most clear: “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19)

it's not contradictory at all -- i don't think you're understanding what he's saying. don't just focus on one little verse here, read the whole thing. this is, after all, a letter, not a collection of proverbs. Paul is making a point, and the point he's making is found just a sentence or two before the ones you're getting hung up on: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) keep that point in mind - and remember that in the place and time that the people originally receiving this letter lived, there were certain customs Paul would have taken for granted that they were aware of and most likely accepted. it doesn't mean the customs are true or correct, but that he's using these customs as an example to make the point that Christ is the head of every man, just as in a marriage the man is the head of the woman. the point is about authority, and our place under it. if we were to claim Christ as our Lord, but not show submission to Him, we might as well not call Him Lord at all. analogously, if a woman should by custom have her head covered, but she doesn't, she may as well have her head shaved - which was, by custom, symbolic of even lower character than doing certain things without her head covered. just as Christ, taking the form of man, if He had not shown submission to the Father, would not have lived righteously as a man, so we, being men, should exhibit what is characteristic of being in submission to Him - which is also to submit to the Father.

https://youtu.be/RdxdnVqn08E All fear, all pain, all hurt, all grief, all lies, must bow to Jesus' name!All kings, all thrones, everything that breathes life, must bow to Jesus' name!The earth, the sea, the sun, the stars, the sky, must bow to Jesus' name!Hallelujah!Kings, crowns, thrones, bow down.Fall face down, bow down.Kiss the ground, bow down.Jesus, you hold the crown! bow down

https://youtu.be/r1vM-w8z6D0 Jesus! The name that makes me frantic, I'm in panic. Need I use His name or is there any other way to say it.I talk at ease with you. The weather's great, and my work is fine. We can discuss your health and my family. But when it comes to that certain name.I can't say Your name. Need You be called Jesus, could I just say God or the supreme power. Even thought I know Your words "I am the way, no one comes tot the Father expect through Me".When the Jesus metal explosion hits. I will come to hear and see. My ways, my rights become Your way, Your will, from then on. I can't be ashamed of Your name. Jesus, You're so good to me. You calm the storm, now I belong. There's no dead ends in You. Let Your name be the highest.So I'm the greatest of warriors! I spread terror with my war face.I always reprimand sinners. Wonder when did I forget that...God in me loves, He doesn't hate. God in me gives, He doesn't take. God in me is patient. Can I say that He is in me?If He is not in me, I cannot love you. If I cannot love you, I talk of Him in vain. For my words will be empty for the lack of His changing power.Salvation is found in one name. For this reason there's no shame. When the Jesus metal explosion hits.

lol i think if anyone is planning on re-writing the Bible they probably need to change this Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

you mean how he washed his hands of the whole affair? and how the crowd said the guilt should be on them, and on their children? or do you mean we ought to sit in judgement on Pilate? i think what matters is what he believes in his heart, and i think God sees that clearly, but i do not.

He taught in parables, so that those who were blinded and made deaf would remain blind and deaf, and those to whom it was given to understand, would understand. when Peter confessed that He is the Messiah, He told him that 'flesh and blood didn't reveal this' but that the Father did. in the same way, i believe, we to whom it is given to know Him, know that He is God - and those whom God has chosen to harden, do not see it or hear it.

. . . unless you happen to be, say, a tachyon . . .

no, no matter how small the or strange the first "something" was - or how long ago or far away, science is still looking at creation "ex nihilo" and it's not explainable. even before the beginning, God! it's funny to me to see an 'atheist bible' have such a poor understanding of cosmology tho, to be starting with hydrogen & skipping stars, since they so often tout their 'superior knowledge'. but then, it's usually the case that someone who point and says "science explains creation" does not know as much science as they think they do. there are myriad problems with a biogenesis (life out of inorganic stuff) for example - and no 'big bang' theory - not even any 'multiverse theory' - is an origin theory. like you say, there's just no explaining where it all began - except that the universe is the creation of God. you can push it back to a few milliseconds after creation, maybe, but 'science' does not explain the initial act of creation - it only highlights details of the how after the fact. so it hardly matters whether it's hydrogen a billion seconds later, or a spin-down quark a million seconds later, or a higgs particle an hundred thousand seconds later - it's still later - after creation. i do have the feeling though that if we ever get all of that 'afterwards' right - that it should all jive with Genesis. and i think that it does, understood correctly.

here's what might be a useful little explanation of what Strong's is and isn't: how NOT to use Strong's concordance understanding that Strong's is not a dictionary, and that "lucifer" is a Latin word, not a Hebrew one, and not a name, but a noun, and that it exists in the KJV because it was not translated from Hebrew into English but was instead substituted for the Hebrew 'helel' directly from the Vulgate together with the knowledge that 'helel' is a word whose meaning is not entirely clear, should, i think, add to our understanding of why there is confusion regarding this verse in Isaiah and the verse in Revelation 22. if you think the KJV is beyond reproach, and cannot be improved on, you should read the 1611 preface written by the translators themselves ((found here)), and if you still think Strong's is a lexicon or dictionary, you're going to have some trouble following why this sheds light on the topic at hand.

can i ask, out of curiosity, do you believe the KJV is the one and only perfect word of God in English and is above reproach or improvement? i hope not. but i think either you didn't really follow the article, or because of some offense you took, rejected it out of hand. i'm sorry that you seem so offended, but this article points out that the word "lucifer" is not a proper name, but a Latin word which was variously used in the Vulgate as a translation for different Hebrew & Greek words. in the KJV, it was not translated in the passage in Isaiah 14, probably because the proper meaning of the word "helel" - which is the original Hebrew in that passage - was not known to the KJV translators, and is not really reliably known now either. if it was a "proper name" then the Hebrew would say "lucifer" but it certainly does not. it is the only place in the Bible that "helel" is found. the notion that it stems from "halal" is not completely accepted and has plausible scholarly objections. it may certainly not even mean "shining one" - though probably something not entirely dissimilar. so this sheds light on the "difference" in that it is not even clear what "helel" means -- though "lucifer" has meaning "morning star" in Latin, and the NIV takes that and inserts it, the KJV does not render "lucifer" as "morning star" in every place it is found in the Vulgate, and only in Isaiah 14 does it leave the word untranslated. so the comparison of the term "morning star" - which i think should be seen as an honorific, not a name - between the passages in Revelation and in Isaiah, is very possibly based on something that does not exist at all. that is, this is not the same term; (helel) son of the morning (in Isaiah) does not equal bright morning star (in Revelation). key to all of that is that "lucifer" is not a name, according to the text. it's unfortunate that the KJV leads people to believe that. i am not 'denigrating' Strong's concordance. a concordance is not a dictionary. that is what i'm pointing out. Strong used the KJV translation to compile a concordance of all the ways that words were translated by the KJV translators. so if something is not correct, or not translated, in the KJV, Strong's will shed no light on it. it remains a standard and reliable work, but it has shortcomings -- it is not a lexicon. it is a concordance. not a dictionary. it is an index of all the Hebrew and Greek words in the KJV with a list of how the KJV translates them, and root words associated with them, according to the KJV work. not a set of definitions. there is a difference. that doesn't "denigrate" Strong's -- though it might come as a reality check in some cases, this one being one of those cases. i hope that helps you understand what i meant, and why i think that article is helpful to this question.

might be worth mentioning that the Greek there in verse 47 does not say "belong to" but says "ek" -- a preposition, meaning of, out of, from, etc. -- it does not mean "belonging to" ((reference: John 8:47 in Greek)) so the KJV & ESV are more accurate rendering this into English -- a-la ".. those who are of God .. " hear the Word, and that the Pharisees Jesus is speaking with do not hear because they ".. are not of God." this isn't a question of 'ownership' in the text as much as it is a question of 'sonship' or 'origin' or 'fealty' - in a meta sense - remember, in the preceding verses, they are arguing about whose 'children' they are -- not literally, but by descent, and in a meta sense, and Jesus corrects them, explaining that genetic lineage doesn't make one a 'child of Abraham' -- as Paul further explains in Romans, saying 'not all Israel is Israel' et al. hope that clears up the thinking. nothing wrong with the NIV or whatever it was the OP originally quoted from -- whenever i have trouble understanding a passage, i try looking at a few different versions, but especially those that are closer to word-for-word translations, staying away from anything "praraphrase" that takes liberty with the original text, like NLV, or especially such loose things like 'the Message' ((ugh!)) and as well as i can, using internet resources like Biblehub.com, look at the Greek/Hebrew to try to piece together what's literally being said. i'm no scholar; never trained to read Greek or Hebrew, but i know how to research, and even my amateur efforts at it often clear things up ((in my head anyway)) straightaway. none of these books were originally written in English -- keep that in mind whenever you're reading, do some study & poking around when you're stuck, and you'll be better off for it.

i'm given to understand that when the KJV was made, the word "helel" was not "translated" in the strict sense of the word, but what was interjected into the English was the Latin word "lucifer," taken directly from the vulgate. that word, "helel" is only used once in the entire Bible, and its meaning is not entirely clear. Strong's uses the KJV as a basis to give definitions - so it's not the best source for actual Greek or Hebrew meaning. the meaning of this word was not apparently clear to the translators of the KJV either - or they would have used an English word, instead of this Latin one. in the Latin version of the Bible (the Vulgate), the word 'lucifer' appears 4 times, not just there in Isaiah, and interestingly, also in 2 Peter 1:19 -- ".. and the day star rise in your heart" in the Vulgate that's "lucifer" rise in your heart. obviously, "lucfer" in latin isn't a proper name -- it's a word referring to Venus, meaning literally something like "shining" -- which is where Strong's gets it's "definition" -- Strong's is really more of a "glossary" than a dictionary. the Greek of Revelation 22:16 on the other hand is explicit, not just a single word, but literally "the bright morning star" ((reference: Revelation 22:16 in Greek)) so -- the misunderstanding & confusion here comes from the prevalence of the KJV, with ignorance of the original languages, and blind acceptance of it as a "perfect" translation. the actual meaning of "helel" in Hebrew is not clearly understood. and, in the case of either verse, "morning star" should be read as a "title" rather than a "proper name" -- then there is no logical problem, seeing how that Satan has fallen, with accepting that Christ has been given the honorific that he once held, the 'star of the morning' -- in neither case is the scripture saying that either Satan or Christ is literally the planet Venus, but as metaphor, the bright light that rises in the morning, as Peter uses the term to signify the Lord 'rising' in our hearts. i found this article to be very good at explaining all this - encourage the reader to have a look. it's primary purpose is addressing KJV-only-ism, but the author there lays out all the facts relevant to this thread's question there in order to present a case against the KJV's claim. so, lol, if you're a KJV-only person, you're not going to like the link , but that's all the mroe reason i think, that you should also give it a read.

it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13) so, God makes a saint, both in will and in work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UI25sayXk Lyrics (sung *mostly* in Hindi, translated here to English) Mukteshwar Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy Praise the name of the God of Liberation Sing my soul, Sing my soul Those who are poor in this world Blessed are they, blessed are they For the kingdom of heaven is theirs Blessed are they, blessed are they Praise the name of the God of Liberation Sing my soul, Sing my soul They who mourn in this world, will have peace The meek in this world, will rule Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy Those whose hearts are pure in this world will see God Those who make peace will be called the children of God Praise, Praise, Praise, Praise Our Father, who is in Heaven Holy is your name Your kingdom come your will be done on earth as it is in heaven Praise the name of the God of Liberation Praise the name of Jesus Sing my soul, sing my soul

doesn't sound that way to me. let's look at the whole context -- 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny." notice verse 24 starts with "So .. " ? this means the reason for the advice given in 24-26 is explained in 21-23. so what does 21-23 explain? than actions are subject to judgement - stricter judgement than what is commonly imagined. "so" -- to avoid placing yourself under judgement, where you may be condemned, Jesus is teaching us to settle disputes 'out of court' if possible. this goes for whether you accept your own guilt (trivially in this case you benefit by avoiding trial) or whether you think you are innocent - because you are not your own judge, but God is ultimately judge - and will hold everyone liable for every careless word, if they fall under judgement. Christ is telling us here to seek mercy and peace, because it is better. if you are guilty, you are guilty - with or without a trial - a trial simply finds you out, and given the extreme interpretation He is presenting in this chapter (i.e. you are guilty of adultery in your heart for so much as looking and entertaining a thought, regardless of action) -- you may very well be more guilty that you believe. isn't this what the gospel is? that Christ has come and made atonement for us, sent by God to redeem us from the law, to forswear judgement? so make peace with God before it "comes to trial" -- accept the absolution of His Son! and so escape judgement

(physics degree here, with minor in astronomy) -- this isn't even consistent with modern cosmology. accepted 'big bang' models certainly don't begin with hydrogen. that's waaay down the line in the first nanoseconds. first, something not even properly called plasma -- nanoseconds after 'whatever' it was that originated from some cosmic point source ((you might say it's God's mouth, as He spoke the universe into existence)), the whole universe was much too hot and much too energetic to be something as stable and complex as hydrogen. first, cooling into baryonic & non-baryonic "stuff" - then, as space expands and everything cools, interestingly, the science points to a definable moment when the universe is cool enough and sparse enough for a photon to travel a whole planck length. i.e. God says, "let there be light" and for the first time, "light" exists. all this happens long before neutrons and protons and electrons form, and so long before any hydrogen atom. in the beginning, "waters" - assuming Aramaic doesn't have a better term for "quark soup" haha - and what could be "earth" - matter, as opposed to forms of radiative energy - was void. so later, hot, energetic hydrogen. and gravity pulls hydrogen atoms together into hot, dense clouds. and these become stars. and every element other than hydrogen is thought to have been formed by fusion reactions in stars - beginning with hydrogen fusing to become helium, going all the way down the fusion chain to lead - and then as these stars nova, these elements are spread out, even while space itself still expands. this kind of action needn't be mindless or Godless. in fact, a host of fundamental constants and balances of energy and substance had to be just so or hydrogen could never form, or stars could not form, or fusion couldn't occur that changed these elements into others - and on and on and on - and there is no physical reason that everything in the universe should be balanced just so. many see this fantastic organization and structure and unimaginably improbable sets of circumstances and measures as evidence of a divine Creator -- and those who reject Him, turn to things like multiverse theories, saying we only experience this one "perfect" universe, because, but the zillions of other possible sets of measures that by random choice are so much more probable, but leave us with a universe incapable of even forming the basic building blocks of matter itself, that all these also exist, but we can't perceive them, because obviously we could not exist in them. you also mentioned the idea that "nothing" became hydrogen. "poof" and there was hydrogen. this is completely inconsistent with any established or theorized cosmological theory. what's more correct to say is that no one except the theist has any idea about where the thing that went "bang" in the big bang came from. the atheist answer is "it has always existed" - and that's weak, and inexplicable - and the honest answer of any scientist, godless or God-fearing, is "we have no idea" - though we that believe, believe that God spoke, and it was - whether we know "how" or not, yet we believe.

David was a military man. this psalm is in fact often called "the soldier's psalm" and it's thought that he wrote it while encamped with his army. so, we fight wars differently these days - but a man with a sword, if he was holding ground, might keep one foot planted, and pivot on the other, to face a foe from any direction. maybe this image helps you understand =]

in general, we know God will take care of things we lay at His feet, because we trust Him. that doesn't mean you should not take any more action yourself - we know He feeds us, but it's also in the book, that the one who does not work, does not eat. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. (1 Peter 5:7) Cast your cares on the LORD and he will sustain you (Psalm 55:22)