are we afraid of what the bible tells us?

Originally posted by queenannie38
An Egyptian magician saying 'this is the finger of God' is not the sentiment that you believe it to be. A little education in the nations that Israel lived amongst is something that wouldn't hurt your understanding. You are not Egyptian and you do not live in the bronze age. So you are not understanding that these Egyptians had no concept of God as we do right now. They knew sorcery and idols and magic and how to mummify the dead for a grand send off. A 'Living God' was not an idea that the people had back then.

Correct, I do not live in the bronze age but neither do you(unless maybe you did) sorry couldn't pass that one up. I don't really know if I have any Egyptian in my blood from ancestors or not.

But what I am is human and human nature is the same. The sorcerers imitated the same things Moses did for awhile. So they're thinking was "Big deal we can do that too, you aren't dealing with any God other than the one we deal with." Then when they couldn't do what Moses God was doing they got a little scared because they were not in control anymore. They knew something else was happening. Moses had access to Someone who had power.

I will continue to disagree with you, they knew Something bigger than themselves or what they knew up to that point had entered the picture. Maybe they and their families were some of the Epyptians who left with the Hebrews. This last sentence is merely speculation and food for thought .

Originally posted by queenannie38
Besides the fact that you have no ears for anyone else's words, and obviously think you know already all there is to know, but you seem to be reading out of another bible that has a whole different story.quote]

I HAVE specifically said in other posts I don't know everything. But what I won't deny is that I know more than I did yesterday and they things I am learning I won't deny. And it's not to puff me up,(so anybody who thinks that, to be blunt, quit it) If you want to think someone is a "know it all" then think that about God, that is Who does. There is a God who wrote the Bible and has deep things in it.

As for where is the part about the Egyptians that left with the Hebrews and the other one I will have to find it again. I heard someone else say it then looked it up for myself and sure enough there it was. But I don't have a photographic memory so I will need to search for it and I can't do it because kids need to go to school and I have to work.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Besides the fact that you have no ears for anyone else's words, and obviously think you know already all there is to know, but you seem to be reading out of another bible that has a whole different story.quote]

I HAVE specifically said in other posts I don't know everything. But what I won't deny is that I know more than I did yesterday and they things I am learning I won't deny. And it's not to puff me up,(so anybody who thinks that, to be blunt, quit it) If you want to think someone is a "know it all" then think that about God, that is Who does. There is a God who wrote the Bible and has deep things in it.

As for where is the part about the Egyptians that left with the Hebrews and the other one I will have to find it again. I heard someone else say it then looked it up for myself and sure enough there it was. But I don't have a photographic memory so I will need to search for it and I can't do it because kids need to go to school and I have to work.

Originally posted by dbrandt
I HAVE specifically said in other posts I don't know everything.

Which isn't necessary, since I know that. None of us do. That's a given. Making a statement that might seem to express some sort of humility doesn't mean that you are humble and while most take words at face value, it still doesn't mean a thing.

But what I won't deny is that I know more than I did yesterday and they things I am learning I won't deny.

That, too, is a given. Again, for all of us.
Whether we are learning directly from God or through various other ways (life), we are still learning at the same school of which God is the dean and principle.

And it's not to puff me up,(so anybody who thinks that, to be blunt, quit it) If you want to think someone is a "know it all" then think that about God, that is Who does.

It's not about being puffed up, it's about being deceived. We all masters of our own self-deception, meaning we can lie to ourselves and fool ourselves more masterfully than others can and than we can others.
To say that because we read a story in the bible, and understand it on any given level, doesn't mean that we've learned something, at all. And I personally feel that by even saying we have learned something and then not allowing any more education to come from that specific source, we are deceiving ourselves into a non-receptive state of mind.

There is a God who wrote the Bible and has deep things in it.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that you know God doesn't have a hand that writes with a pen on a scroll. Men wrote the bible, human beings like the rest of us. They were moved by the Spirit of truth to write it, but even that doesn't ensure than the words are true to everyone that reads them. They can be and if they are not, that doesn't make them not 'truth,' but just reading something we say is God's word doesn't mean we are getting the unadulterated truth straight from God's mouth.
I personally have found the bible to be a masterpiece of an unequaled value. But I didn't always, although I knew it had a value I could not fathom. But it is not so simple as just reading the book and as a result knowing what God knows and understanding His ways. That cannot come by reading, it happens in an altogether different way. But then the bible is the guidebook once the way is clear. It is not the only possible way of learning God's ways, or understanding truth, but if it isn't being used in the right way, then it's better off left alone for the duration of not understanding what it's about. I'm not saying that about you, though--just pointing out that we cannot press the bible on others who aren't of the mind to receive it right now. And to say that God wrote it and it is the truth, and then to explain what we think we understand out of it and declaring that to be the truth that must be found in order to find God--that's putting up stumbling blocks for others and ourselves, too.

I agree there are deep deep things in the bible (or held there)--and you may not like what I say, but from what you demonstrate you understand, you are barely dipping your toes into that deep. I'm not saying that for any other reason that what I said above. If you think you are already in there deep, then you might preclude yourself from going deeper.

You seem to think that what I post seems in contradiction to what you understand and that maybe I'm trying to one-up you on the interpretation part, but that's not so. It's not that we are opposing, but rather on different levels of deep. And since you don't see what I'm saying, but I know what you are, yet know there is more to it, I know the level you are at. But when I try to help you to see, all you see is someone opposing what you believe you already know, and since it's someone who doesn't agree to your overall doctrines, you just count my words as not of any worth or perhaps mislead by a 'deceiving spirit' (that's one I've heard a lot). That's to be expected, though, so it's no problem for me. I'm just trying to explain how it might be a problem for you, because none of us need unnecessary hindrances.

As for where is the part about the Egyptians that left with the Hebrews and the other one I will have to find it again. I heard someone else say it then looked it up for myself and sure enough there it was. But I don't have a photographic memory so I will need to search for it and I can't do it because kids need to go to school and I have to work.

Perhaps you are thinking of Abram and Sarai, when they left UR to go to Canaan, and Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarai's maid, was with them?

Originally posted by queenannie38

Perhaps you are thinking of Abram and Sarai, when they left UR to go to Canaan, and Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarai's maid, was with them?

No it's not that. It may not be where I think it is so I might have to search for it.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by dbrandt
Correct, I do not live in the bronze age but neither do you(unless maybe you did) sorry couldn't pass that one up.

BUT
What I am saying is that you are processing this from an understanding of your own situation, time, and setting. What you think these magicians thought is based solely on that--not from their own perspective as much as possible. While we both missed out on the bronze age, we do have things that can help us to get in their shoes the best we can. That's the only way we can qualifiably say 'what they thought.' And still, it is not what they were actually thinking, impossible with contemporaries, even--what we can do is understand the general way of thinking at the time.

But what I am is human and human nature is the same.

That's not quite the same thing. How we view the world influences on how we process our world. The viewing is a culture and age thing, and the process part is the human nature part. Looking at their world through your eyes fitted for this world is not going to work that way.

The sorcerers imitated the same things Moses did for awhile. So they're thinking was "Big deal we can do that too, you aren't dealing with any God other than the one we deal with." Then when they couldn't do what Moses God was doing they got a little scared because they were not in control anymore. They knew something else was happening. Moses had access to Someone who had power.

No, Moses had access to the 'Hebrew god' and the Egyptians were relying on their gods. They had no 'God.' They had gods.

The point was not made with a bunch of follow-the-leader parlor tricks, God did something, through Moses, that He knew these magicians could do--if you look at the word 'did' in regard to what the Egyptian magicians 'did' so with their enchantments you will find that it is not 'did' as in 'do, does, did, have done, etc,' instead it is the same word used in
Genesis 1:7 ( And God made the firmament,)
and Genesis 1:11 (the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,)
and Genesis 2:2 (from all his work which he had made.)
and even Genesis 3:14 (And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle...)

It is not a word implying any certain verb tense of 'did'--it means something more like create or perform or conjure up.

The only reason they could imitate Moses is because God did things, at first, that He knew they could do. It wasn't the fact that they could do anything Moses could do, or that then they couldn't and that meant Moses's God won. It was very likely that it took summoning all their abilities, to the point of exhaustion. When they were not able to do more, they surely didn't see it as Moses having access to someone they didn't--the Egyptians had a different mindset and were the dominant empire of the world at that time. The 'finger of God' wasn't coming at them from Moses--the 'finger of God' was the actual power of all powers making itself known; which although that was indeed the case, they wouldn't have seen it as power outside or apart from their pantheon. The fact that Moses snake ate their snakes is more significant than anything else. That was an unmistakable sign of superiority, the 'finger of God' is an idiom describing that sign that was understood as such--but not in the way you are saying.

Exodus 31:18
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deuteronomy 9:10
And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Luke 11:20
But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

I will continue to disagree with you,

Just on principle, alone? Or is important to be right?
Have you studied any Egyptology or ancient civilizations, in general? If you have some background, then a disagreement is a debate, and we can both benefit. Otherwise you are just trying to prove something.

they knew Something bigger than themselves or what they knew up to that point had entered the picture. Maybe they and their families were some of the Epyptians who left with the Hebrews. This last sentence is merely speculation and food for thought .

I hear you. But, more than likely, the Pharoah's magicians were executed, by order of Pharoah, when their abilities failed. That's the most probable guess, based on what the ways of Royal courts were in those days, in Egypt and Babylon, et al.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Maybe they and their families were some of the Epyptians who left with the Hebrews.

I was half right, I said that I read where some Egyptians left with the Hebrews in the Exodus. There were probably more than just Egyptian nationalities in this mixed multitude.

Exodus 12:37
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

12:38
And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

And at least twice we are told that through all of these events one of the things being accomplished was it was being proven to the Egyptians that God is God.

Exodus 7:5
And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by dbrandt
Maybe they and their families were some of the Epyptians who left with the Hebrews.

I was half right, I said that I read where some Egyptians left with the Hebrews in the Exodus. There were probably more than just Egyptian nationalities in this mixed multitude.

Exodus 12:37
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

12:38
And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

'Mixed multitude,' according to the Hebrew more than likely is describing Arabian slaves.

Exegesis...

Without it you are assuming.

And at least twice we are told that through all of these events one of the things being accomplished was it was being proven to the Egyptians that God is God.

Exodus 7:5
And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.

Right. But in that in no way qualifies an assumption that the Egyptians left with the children of Israel. And objective research into the cultures and the times definitely supports the opposite assumption, as well as the verses before 12:38--the people were hastening the Israelites out of there and not one household didn't wake up to at least on corpse that morning. I don't think they were wanting to run away with these people. The other slaves that were also under the Egyptians might have seen it as a golden opportunity.

are we afraid of what the bible tells us?

Fear can be the only source cause behind people not interpretting the bible the same way, so obviously being afraid of what the bible tells us is the only reason people don't know what it is the bible is saying.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Pharaoh was warned before any of the plagues, that this would end up with the death of the firstborn. Now after the first nine plagues you would think pharaoh would want the firstborn to live seeing that one was his son. But he was out to defeat THE ONLY GOD, at any cost.

Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

4:23
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Moses was to warn Pharaoh that if he didn't let Israel go, his firstborn would be taken in death. This was before any of the plagues. When pharaoh saw the plagues come and especially the ones his sorcerers couldn't copy and heard his sorcerers tell him that this is God doing this, the words that his firstborn would die should have resonated in his ears and head. He could have stopped. Pharaoh was warned but hardened his heart not to hear and he placed himself above the life of his own son.

Now let me guess at least one person will tell me I'm wrong and that's not what this means.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

You cite verse 22--and omit verse 21. Why is that?

He could have stopped. Pharaoh was warned but hardened his heart not to hear and he placed himself above the life of his own son.

Now let me guess at least one person will tell me I'm wrong and that's not what this means.

After all the accusations you throw at me about 'twisting' scripture?

You obviously didn't read the part where it says, from the very beginning, to even right before the last plague--that God hardened Pharoah's heart. Pharoah had no choice.

I'm not voicing my opinion--I'm just pointing out what is plainly written in black and white in your bible and mine.

What it says really doesn't even matter--unless you insist on falsely representing it to others. Your opinions are not truth. Even if the bible was total fiction, what it says is God hardened Pharoah's heart. Do you tell your kids that the big bad wolf didn't actually get in grandma's bed--that it was really just Gram having a bad hair day? What's the point?

Originally posted by queenannie38
You cite verse 22--and omit verse 21. Why is that?

What's the point?

The point of this post was to show that pharaoh was told before it was actually done, that his first born would die if he did not let the Hebrews go. When he was told it was God and saw God plaguing/judging/punishing Egypt with the plaques he grew more obstinate.

You and I fail to agree on what God hardening pharaoh's heart all entails, but that wasn't what this post about. You and I disagree, what else is new.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38
You cite verse 22--and omit verse 21. Why is that?

What's the point?

The point of this post was to show that pharaoh was told before it was actually done, that his first born would die if he did not let the Hebrews go. When he was told it was God and saw God plaguing/judging/punishing Egypt with the plaques he grew more obstinate.

But what does verse 21 say?

You and I fail to agree on what God hardening pharaoh's heart all entails, but that wasn't what this post about.

Right. It was about your opinion about what the bible says. And my point of contention being that you disregard what is plainly and straightforwardly written in favor of what you 'think.'

If you haven't ever had God soften your heart (or harden it), then maybe you don't fully realize what God can do with a human heart. He can soften or harden it beyond the will of the one whose blood it pumps--and to think a person can resist, in either case, is limiting the boundaries of God's power.

And so what you understand it to mean, or believe it to mean, or whatever, is
based on what you think. But what I am trying to get across to you, without having to blatantly just say it (but oh well) is that I know that if God didn't want Pharoah making his mind up in one way or the other, God could surely control every thought Pharoah had, in that direction. And Pharoah none the wiser.

Not wishing to add to God's reputation of infamy as an oppressive despot with unlimited power--I must clarify that I also understand God is not given to do these things, in this type of negative way, unless it is for a greater benefit and good for the whole, even if at the apparent expense of the one. What seems like cost is not--God doesn't charge us for His own workings when He appoints us to serve His will in whatever way.

And since God hasn't made a habit of causing mere mortals to unknowingly perform as scapegoats for the sake of His plan, then we can't assume that God gave Pharoah a chance and that Pharoah, although having a heart hardened by the one who even gave it life to beat, still had some sort of chance to 'do the right thing' and resist God and let God's people go.

That's so complicated. Let me try again.

Hardening Pharoah's heart is, to me, causing him to have no softness in it that would influence his decision, by way of the love for his own family and first born or even, less likely, any kind of sympathy toward the Hebrew slaves. God did not want Pharoah letting the people go until the very end. Therefore He did not leave it up to Pharoah. God basically, and temporarily, withdrew Pharoah's free will. It wasn't detected by Pharoah, that he wasn't making his own mind, I don't think--but I really don't know. It doesn't say.

But what I said above is the heart of the matter:
'some sort of chance to 'do the right thing' and resist God and let God's people go.'

We have an obvious contradiction when stated so bluntly. To do 'the right thing', according to you, would have been to resist God's will and let the people go--which was not God's plan. He stated this all along--and I doubt Pharoah had the ability to resist--if he had, he would have still been freely deciding. But no where does it say that. Only that God caused his decisions.

Now, to me, it's not even a matter of 'doing the right thing' because to resist God's will is always the incorrect choice. But of course, in a situation of God's
will vs. our will, if God imposes His will, we cannot make any choice, because we do not have the means if He is calling the shots. So there is no 'wrong' connected with resisting God's will in the rare occasion that He exercises His will, and no possibility of 'wrong.' And if there is no 'wrong' there is no 'sin.' And if there is no 'sin' then it wasn't a question of Pharoah setting out to defeat God, but the demonstration for the people then and even us, today, just what God can do--if He opts to do it. And He rarely does, truly--but when He does, it is never for the types of gain that man counts as gain, but rather for the ultimate gain of the whole world.

So, it follows, that God didn't set Pharoah up for certain doom and entrap him--if He did, then Moses didn't save the people, Pharoah did, by a sacrifice he was unknowingly forced to make.

And God is not like that. He can and does impose His will, but never in a way that makes a scapegoat out of a non-volunteer, in such a way that takes them out of the possibility that they were born with, along with the rest of us.

You and I disagree, what else is new.

That doesn't matter, because it's not about opinions or proving points to one another. What matters is if we can be taught. Not by each other but through each other.

but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go

harden--Strong's #H2388

châzaq: A primitive root;
to fasten upon; hence to seize, be strong (figuratively courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify), obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer: - aid, amend, X calker, catch, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good (take) courage (-ous, -ly), encourage (self), be established, fasten, force, fortify, make hard, harden, help, (lay) hold (fast), lean, maintain, play the man, mend, become (wax) mighty, prevail, be recovered, repair, retain, seize, be (wax) sore, strengten (self), be stout, be (make, shew, wax) strong (-er), be sure, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, withstand.

Is that how you understand 'harden' his heart? Or something else?

Originally posted by queenannie38


Is that how you understand 'harden' his heart? Or something else?

God knows everything and as such knew pharaoh and his heart. God allowed pharaoh to follow the natural tendencies of his heart and character. Since God knows everyhthing God interwove pharaoh and what he would do into His(God's) plans and purposes.

Originally posted by dbrandt
God knows everything and as such knew pharaoh and his heart. God allowed pharaoh to follow the natural tendencies of his heart and character. Since God knows everyhthing God interwove pharaoh and what he would do into His(God's) plans and purposes.

So, in other words, you don't care what Moses, or Joshua, or whomever wrote Exodus, actually wrote or what they were trying to get across to the reader, by using that particulary term, repeatedly, when describing how God influenced Pharoah?

Is that why you don't use a concordance? Because you already have your own ideas and the actual meanings and uses of the words in the bible undermine your ideas?

That is exactly what Peter meant when he said 'no prophecy of scripture is by private interpretation.' You are privately interpreting and then presenting it as the nature and ways of God. Is that responsible? Are you interesting in sharing insight or just validating your attachments by spreading opinion in the name of guidance by the holy spirit?

Congratulations. You have, by demonstration, proved the OP of this thread--you are afraid of what the bible says.

Originally posted by queenannie38
That is exactly what Peter meant when he said 'no prophecy of scripture is by private interpretation.' You are privately interpreting and then presenting it as the nature and ways of God.

Congratulations. You have, by demonstration, proved the OP of this thread--you are afraid of what the bible says.

I agree that is what Peter meant but it also has a dual application. It is also that scripture comes from God, not man.

The Bible clearly tells us not all will be saved(I am not joyous over this), and that reincarnation is not part of the truth. Yet you insist they are.

It seems silly to say to me that I am afraid of what the Bible says. Clearly we are told this yet you cling to them, so it seems to me that you are denying these facts because they aren't pleasant for you to think about.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38
That is exactly what Peter meant when he said 'no prophecy of scripture is by private interpretation.' You are privately interpreting and then presenting it as the nature and ways of God.

Congratulations. You have, by demonstration, proved the OP of this thread--you are afraid of what the bible says.

I agree that is what Peter meant but it also has a dual application. It is also that scripture comes from God, not man.

The Bible clearly tells us not all will be saved(I am not joyous over this), and that reincarnation is not part of the truth. Yet you insist they are.

It seems silly to say to me that I am afraid of what the Bible says. Clearly we are told this yet you cling to them, so it seems to me that you are denying these facts because they aren't pleasant for you to think about.

please tell me where you found in the bible that it says that reincarnation is not part of the truth??? please show me where in the bible it mentions reincarnation anywhere....... now im shure as i have before i can point out where the bible eludes to reincarnation, but i dont remember anything in the bible saying anything about reincarnation.....

fear
1. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.
2. A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in fear.
3. A feeling of disquiet or apprehension

i do feel fear because of the bible, i see it as a possible threat to peace in the world.
scratch that, more about what the words in the bible can be used for.
control, fear-mongering, hate-mongering, genocide, all of these can be found in the bible.
the bible is a document to be feared, especially in the wrong hands.

But...

fear the hands, not the document.

I get your point, though.