That fateful summer, 8:15. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast ― silence ― hell on Earth.
The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails. Their hair stood on end. Their clothes were ripped to shreds. People trapped in houses toppled by the blast were burned alive. Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies―Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead.
Within the year, 140,000 had died. Many who escaped death initially are still suffering from leukemia, thyroid cancer, and a vast array of other afflictions.
But there was more. Sneered at for their keloid scars, discriminated against in employment and marriage, unable to find understanding for profound emotional wounds, survivors suffered and struggled day after day, questioning the meaning of life.
And yet, the message born of that agony is a beam of light now shining the way for the human family. To ensure that "no one else ever suffers as we did," the hibakusha have continuously spoken of experiences they would rather forget, and we must never forget their accomplishments in preventing a third use of nuclear weapons.
Despite their best efforts, vast arsenals of nuclear weapons remain in high states of readiness―deployed or easily available. Proliferation is gaining momentum, and the human family still faces the peril of extinction. This is because a handful of old-fashioned leaders, clinging to an early 20th century worldview in thrall to the rule of brute strength, are rejecting global democracy, turning their backs on the reality of the atomic bombings and the message of the hibakusha.
However, here in the 21st century the time has come when these problems can actually be solved through the power of the people. Former colonies have become independent. Democratic governments have taken root. Learning the lessons of history, people have created international rules prohibiting attacks on non-combatants and the use of inhumane weapons. They have worked hard to make the United Nations an instrument for the resolution of international disputes. And now city governments, entities that have always walked with and shared in the tragedy and pain of their citizens, are rising up. In the light of human wisdom, they are leveraging the voices of their citizens to lift international politics.
Because "Cities suffer most from war," Mayors for Peace, with 1,698 city members around the world, is actively campaigning to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2020.
In Hiroshima, we are continuing our effort to communicate the A-bomb experience by holding A-bomb exhibitions in 101 cities in the US and facilitating establishment of Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Study Courses in universities around the world. American mayors have taken the lead in our Cities Are Not Targets project. Mayors in the Czech Republic are opposing the deployment of a missile defense system. The mayor of Guernica-Lumo is calling for a resurgence of morality in international politics. The mayor of Ypres is providing an international secretariat for Mayors for Peace, while other Belgian mayors are contributing funds, and many more mayors around the world are working with their citizens on pioneering initiatives. In October this year, at the World Congress of United Cities and Local Governments, which represents the majority of our planet’s population, cities will express the will of humanity as we call for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The government of Japan, the world’s only A-bombed nation, is duty-bound to humbly learn the philosophy of the hibakusha along with the facts of the atomic bombings and to spread this knowledge through the world. At the same time, to abide by international law and fulfill its good-faith obligation to press for nuclear weapons abolition, the Japanese government should take pride in and protect, as is, the Peace Constitution, while clearly saying "No," to obsolete and mistaken US policies. We further demand, on behalf of the hibakusha whose average age now exceeds 74, improved and appropriate assistance, to be extended also to those living overseas or exposed in "black rain areas."
Sixty-two years after the atomic bombing, we offer today our heartfelt prayers for the peaceful repose of all its victims and of Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki shot down on his way toward nuclear weapons abolition. Let us pledge here and now to take all actions required to bequeath to future generations a nuclear-weapon-free world.
Tadatoshi Akiba
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima
Previous Declarations can be read here...
44 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pipe Dreams.
Even so...
Are you talking about conventional weaponry? That would be a different topic, since no one here has advocated putting aside all weaponry.
Now, if we were to look to the OT model of war-making, we would see God repeatedly tell Israel to put aside advanced weaponry and large armies and trust in God for deliverance.
Was that irresponsible of God? Was God failing to take into account that there were ruthless, power-mad rulers out there? Was it irresponsible of Israel to take God seriously when they did sometimes?
We would?
We would also see God tell his people to destroy his/their enemies to the last man, woman, and child.
Was that unreasonable of God?
Hmm...is it fear speaking when one puts on a seatbelt?
I say it's common-sense.
How 'bout you?
1. Israel was to trust God, not a huge military.
2. Therefore, Israel wasn't to have a large standing military, but instead pull together a small underarmed militia when needed.
3. Sometimes, God wipes out the enemy for Israel. Sometimes, it appears God tells Israel to wipe out each and every man, woman, child and puppy.
4. BUT, Israel should do thusly ONLY at the command of God, because Peace is the way that God prefers.
Are you advocating that sort of defense - No standing army, only attacking when God tells you to and, at God's command, you commit genocide?
You game for that sort of defense plan?
How 'bout those of your faith.
I wonder if your fear of going hungry...or going without a roof for your family...motivates you to work for a living.
I would like Dan to cite the OT section wherein God instructs Israel regarding the size and scope of their army.
As to whether its fear ever playing a part in our decisions regarding our arsenal, I'd say, hell yeah there's fear. But also practicality as we know that man is a sinful creature and to put our faith in men, particularly those who are fanatical about their false religions, is lunacy, nevermind fear.
"He uses OT examples forgetting that the OT speaks of a direct communication with the Almighty."
As I've said before, Marshall, don't assume you know what I've thought of forgotten. You ain't omniscient enough to speak for me.
I assume that means that neither of you are prepared to sign up for an OT defense system. Good. Then we're all in agreement.
As to OT warnings against a large military, try the story of Gideon, or God's victory for Joshua at Jericho in Joshua 7, or God's warning to Israel about wanting a king, found in 1 Samuel 8, for starters.
Or Isaiah 31:1, which says:
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the LORD.
Or Hosea 2:18, which says:
In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.
The Psalmist tells us in Psalms 20:7:
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
Or, again, in Psalm 78:22:
When the LORD heard them, he was very angry; his fire broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance.
As you read through the OT, notice the repeated warnings for Israel not to trust a military, "their chariots and horses," and that Israel should instead trust in God for deliverance. You will notice, also, that for Israel's earlier days (and before Israel's foundation) it was nearly always God that did the fighting and Israel was merely to stand and be delivered (The Exodus from Egypt, Noah's Ark, etc - and, by the way, do you know why God destroyed the world in Noah's day? Because the world was violent...)
Is it possible that we've been so indoctrinated into the cult of violence that we have a hard time seeing what is in the Bible? Could you be wrong? Read through the Bible and notice how often God says, "Trust me, and I will deliver."
Marshall, Christian peacemakers are NOT talking about putting faith in mankind. That would be folly.
What we are talking about is putting faith in God. Trusting God for our deliverance. Overcoming evil with good, as we are commanded to do. Even in the OT, as you can see, there is no support for Christians supporting an obscenely large military such as what we have. It is antithetical to both Old and New Testament teachings.
WHAT? Who helped you with that interpretation?
What dictators? Start with Kim Jung Ill. Then Iran, (although not officially a dictator ruled country, is neverless controlled by the Ayatollahs, and they are about as close to being dictators as anyone) if left alone, will surely possess nuclear weapons soon.
Remember the Soviet Union? They had nuclear weapons. As Russia, they still do. More than us, as a matter of fact. So does China, which is still ruled by a dictatorship.
Dictators, by definition, are always power mad.
Now as to your apparent assumption that my comment was only my opinion: Actually, the reason I stated for keeping nuclear weaponry is the reason that has always been stated by the worlds super powers since nuclear proliferation began.
Fear is the primary motivating factor behind nuclear proliferation, and always has been.
If I have more capability of destroying your people than you have of destroying mine, you won't launch an attack on me, for fear of retaliation. That's called "logic".
It is stupid reasoning, to be sure. Just between the United States and Russia alone, there is enough nuclear weaponry to totally annhialate the world 4 times. Why do we need more than enough to destroy the world only once? Why do we need them at all?
Because we possess such weaponry, the world remains safe from thermo-nuclear war, for now. It is tenuous safety, admittedly, but safety, nevertheless.
That is precisely the reason why we must not let maniacal dictators like Kim Jung Ill and others to continue manufacturing nukes. In their insane quests to take over the world, they might just use them.
Is it your suggestion we dont try to stop them and let the chips fall where they may? Do you think that is what God would have us do?
I seem to remember a Bible verse or two that states God is not willing that any perish.
Dan, I am coming back to that statement because I read it again KJV and violence came AFTER corruption had taken over lives. Your advocacy for the homosexual lifestyle colors everything you discuss. I am not an advocate for war or violence, but I believe we must seek to follow God and His Word in our daily lives and if we advocate sin, try to dismiss it or say it is alright, we are insulting a Holy God. God is a God of love and justice.
I am not saying that homosexuality is the only sin that is displeasing to God, but it seems to be one that you go out of your way to convince people to think of it as you do.
The Exodus from Egypt, Noah's Ark, etc - and, by the way, do you know why God destroyed the world in Noah's day? Because the world was violent...)
To which mom2 replied with a tone of outrage:
WHAT? Who helped you with that interpretation?
You'll have to take it up with God.
The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
-God, Genesis 6:13
Peace. Or else.
You correctly point out that before God says that the earth will be destroyed because of humanity's violence, the scriptures point out that
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Gen 6:11-12)
It doesn't say in what way the people were corrupt, only that they were corrupt. The only specific sin God points out is humanity's violence.
So, I agree with you totally that we ought to "seek to follow God and His Word in our daily lives" and we certainly ought NOT "advocate sin, try to dismiss it or say it is all right," which is why I stand with Eric and all those who'd say that the sort of violence inflicted with the atomic bomb is exactly the sort of corruption that we ought to be working against as Christians, and certainly not advocating.
We wouldn't want to be found advocating exactly the sin that destroyed the world once already, right? That would be an affront to a Holy God.
Have mercy!
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the Lord said, I will "destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The violence came into the earth because of the wickedness of men's hearts and sexual immorality as a big thing then as it is becoming so today. If we would follow God's ways, there would not be so much violence now either.
I have to run, church starts soon so I have not completely read all your post, but you always choose to overlook the parts that speak of the sin of homosexuality and place the blame of the ills on some other source and war seems to be a favorite source.
Read the first 4 verses and you will see the connection.
You know, though, that's sort of how I used to be, so I understand - I'd find "hints" that homosexuality was condemned in the Bible where none existed.
But homosexuality is not in the text in Genesis 6. At all. So it's not really a matter of my "looking over" anything, at least in this case. It just don't exist and one can't "look over" what doesn't exist.
Specifically, speaking of a nation enjoying God's favor:
16 No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. 17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save. 18 But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love, 19 to deliver them from death and keep them alive in famine. 20 We wait in hope for the LORD; he is our help and our shield.
Although it does not mention homosexuals, it talks about the evil of man and every imaginations of the heart. I believe the perverted sex is part of the evil imaginations of the heart.
Or it could be it's talking about treating women as chattel. Or it could be talking about cat juggling. But none of those are mentioned. The only specific sin that is singled out is violence.
Wouldn't want to add anything to God's Word that's not there, would we?
Amazing. You misinterpret what I've said as badly as you misinterpret Scripture. My comments SHOULD have suggested to you that in the OT, God's contact was as direct as is one person's to another. God spoke directly to Abraham. God spoke directly to Noah. God spoke directly to Moses. God spoke directly to His prophets who related God's Word to the people and proved their sincerity through miracles of God. In such a situation, should God say that one man can defeat thousands, then that man, with God's help, WILL defeat thousands.
Thus, though I have not reviewed all you've linked to as yet, that which you have reprinted here, together with ER's offering, indicates a problem with NOT relying on God, not with avoiding a strong army or defense. There's a big distinction that you miss here. The moral of your tracts is that whether I have a straw with a spit wad, or the entire military force of the USA and her allies, trust in God is still paramount.
In this day and age, we do not enjoy the direct communication with God as did those of the OT. Indeed, unless our president was a Dem or Greenie, you wouldn't believe any such communiques anyhow.
So what those exerpts are saying, is that we need to always maintain our trust in God no matter what size our army, but not that we shouldn't be prepared to defend ourselves. Your kumbaya attitude would only get us all killed.
Now, the Genesis passage clears states the world was filled with violence. No mention of sexual immorality. Neither, for all the passages offered here is there a clear proscription against standing armies. All that is said in these numerous passages you've all offered is a very clear, and blatant assurance that these things cannot save you. The point being, to my mind: It doesn't matter how big or how small your armies are, for if God wants you to win or lose, no army great or small can thwart God's will. God says your armies, horses, chariots, tanks, blackhawks won't avail you diddly if He has it in His mind to see you crushed. But this by no stretch of interpretation should be taken to mean that standing armies are bad, or sinful, or not a proper use of human resources and materials in the defense of nations. I say this in the spirit of choosing to NOT put words in God's mouth... adding to scripture.
Someone a ways up the comment roll made mention of Genesis 6:2, 4 wherein the sons of God and the sons of man, yada, yada... There are two schools of thought on this. Some contend that this is a picture of Angels looking upon the daughters of men and seeing something desirable in them, they therefore took them and with them bore children, creating some new monstrous breed of men on the earth. This, in my view is highly unlikely, and suspect when one considers who were talking about here. If what is meant by 'sons of God' are 'Angels' why didn't the author (Moses) say 'Angels'? The word wasn't foreign to him-- he used it in other places within Genesis. Also, the passage clearly states that the 'sons of God' took the daughters of men AS WIVES... And seriously, what Angel would actually MARRY a human? It's rubbish.
The only other possibility, then, is that the term 'sons of God' refers to the Godly line of Seth, while 'daughters of men' refers to the cursed line of Cain. This is the most plausible and likely of interpretations.
God saw what was happening; that the Godly line of Seth, imbued with wisdom and strength, was mingling with the sinful line of Cain and, according to Gen 6:4, the product of those unions "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Was homosexuality a part of life in those times? Who knows? I surely don't, but I think it a safe bet that it was, and yet was NOT even a primary motivating factor in God's decision to give the earth a thorough cleansing.
You see, it's easy for all of us-- mere humans --to judge individuals by individual actions or sins. This is simply who we are: finite creatures with no real ability to see the really BIG picture. God on the other hand sees everything for what it REALLY is... He sees the big picture, and he calls a spade, a 'spade'. I've said this before in other posts, and I think it bears repeating here in my own feeble attempt to grasp the bigger picture: "Every sin in the universe ever committed can be distilled down to 'Selfishness'" I think God did the same thing. Instead of instructing Moses to give us a laundry list of specific sins, he condensed down to it's primary color: Violence.
It should be obvious, assuming one is bothering to look at scripture and taking it for what it says, where it says it, rather than performing great exegetical feats of interpretation to MAKE scripture say-- or NOT say, as the case may be --that one's personal pet lists of 'sins' are not covered in the Bible-- or ARE, as the case may be.
Furthermore. Until about 400 years AFTER the flood, there was no codification of God's law, WRITTEN IN STONE no less, by which to judge the actions of individuals prior to Moses on the mountain top awaiting samples of the Lords personal penmanship. It's easy to say "Yuck! That Lot, what a sick man! Allowing himself to get so drunk that his daughters slept with him to get pregnant!"
Neither was it written anywhere that a man should not commit adultery, and yet God did not chastise Sarah or Abraham for trying to use Hagar the handmaid to bring about God's promise of a son. Believe it or not, such was a common practice in that time.
Neither was there a command to not marry one's sister, and yet Sarah was Abraham's HALF-sister. And yet despite Sarah and Abraham's incestuous marriage, He still chose to bless them! Who did Seth and Cain marry? Their sisters! Who else? And this was commanded and condoned by God.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, goes against nature. It's one thing to marry ones half-sister in a time when such was not prohibited (Rebekah was Isaacs 1st cousin), it's quite another to go against the natural order of procreation and terms of marriage as described in Genesis 2:24. Homosexuality is simply not within the realm of 'God's perfect plan' for anyone's life, if for no other reason than it profits nothing, as no offspring can come from such a union.
Please note I have not bothered to touch on Sin in regard to Homosexuality. It should be obvious that it is, but it's not the point of this rather lengthy comment. I don't have to point out the sinfulness of Homosexuality to prove my point here. The simple truth is that Homosexuality goes against God's perfect will for ALL men (non-gender), because it is profitless. It allows for no fruitfulness and provides no ability for multiplication. That in and of itself says all that needs saying-- at present --about homosexuality. And yet, how this post degenerated to this kind of discussion beats the crap outta me.
--Hamlet, scene v
I wouldn't want to intrude in purely exegetic discussion, but EL you have allowed your beliefs to lead you to false conclusions.
The fact is that homosexual relations are natural and common behaviors for many animals including many mammals. For wolves homosexual relations helps low ranking males show their submission to dominant males. That lets a pack keep a larger diversity of genes and provides valuable hunting and physical safety. In field mice when the population gets to a large size tensions in nests increase and the incidence of homosexual relations increase which serves to dissipate those population tensions, which allows the field mice to reach higher populations. In flamingos it is common for two males to join together to steal eggs and raise chicks. Those two males can better provide for their chick, which means a stronger population. Whales mate for life, but it has been shown that whales whose mates have died will sometimes join with a like gender and partner. Other whales have committed suicide by beaching themselves when their mates have died. These same-gender relationships allow this threatened animal to survive and continue, maybe not mate and procreate, but at least preserve the genes for longer.
All these examples are well documented and common in these species. Homosexual relationships are a completely natural part of the animal kingdom and in many species enable the larger community to "be fruitful and multiply."
Remember also that man is an animal too. As human population densities and modern communications and technologies advance we will see parts of our psyche and physiology express or promote themselves. Parts that were not needed when man was a dispersed agrarian farming society in the middle-east.
Perhaps your god built abilities and qualities into man for a society of 6.6-billion or more.
You misinterpret what I've said as badly as you misinterpret Scripture.
??
You'll have to help me out if you'd like me to understand what you're talking about. I never "interpreted" anything that you said so far as I can see. I merely answered your question about times God tells Israel not to rely upon a large army.
MA also said:
though I have not reviewed all you've linked to as yet, that which you have reprinted here... indicates a problem with NOT relying on God, not with avoiding a strong army or defense.
The way it is repeatedly phrased and suggested is that having a large army INDICATES a lack of trust in God. God says, "I don't want you to be able to say, 'it is because of our mighty army that we have been delivered'" - thus, God tells 'em to keep it small.
BenT, you're so full of shiite!
IF God's creation was PERFECT until the Fall, and IF "Adam" and "Eve" were meant to have full communion with God and with one another and thney blew it, and IF childbirth, that is, procreation itself, is a consequence of the Fall, which it is, then the following is one of EL's favorite words: rubbish.
"Homosexuality is simply not within the realm of 'God's perfect plan' for anyone's life, if for no other reason than it profits nothing, as no offspring can come from such a union."
Because, procreation, too, is simply not within the realm of God's perfect plan! None of "Adam" and "Eve's" offspring are. There is none righteous, no, not one.
Notice the ifs and thens, y'all. I'm pointing out a flaw in EL's premise. I don't personally believe God distringuishes between any of us ever in God's love for us. And His will is simple: Love God, love neighbor.
Eric, this is just an honest question but in Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Who are the sons of God as referred to there?
I still have trouble with violence being the reason for the earth being destroyed because it speaks of the corruption of the earth and it speaks of the Spirit striving with men. In the OT the Holy Spirit played a most active role in striving to call men to repentance and righteousness, especially as Scripture notes, through the preaching of Enoch and Noah. (from John MacArthur's study Bible.
In Genesis 3:16 god punished Eve with "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception". This does not imply the beginning of something new but rather the "quickening" and "increasing" of something that was already there, allowing for greater pain and sorrow in the bearing of children.
I can only assume one thing by this passage: Before the fall, before eating of the tree they were commanded not to eat, both Adam and Eve would have lived forever, and filling the earth with people would not have been as pressing a need for Adam or Eve. The fact that death was coming to them both AFTER the fall surely meant that they needed to get busy producing offspring.
As to the animal kingdom and homosexuality, when I stated "...but no mammal is capable of this" it should be obvious to the casual reader that was referring to the FIRST half of that sentence which said, "It is a very rare species that is able to change sexes, or spontaneously lay fertile eggs..." I am well aware that some species of animals do indeed act contrary to their design and purpose. It is still an aberration, and it's not as common as many would have us believe. The fact remains that no two males or females in higher-order species can produce offspring. It takes one male coupling is some fashion with one female. Penguins stealing eggs, while certainly curious and perhaps even cute if filmed and narrated properly, is still unnatural. Those two penguins, however cute, could still not produced eggs themselves.
Furthermore, ER, I've made no judgment here about whether or not God loves homosexuals, because I thought it rather obvious that He does! What I firmly believe He does NOT love is to see what He meant for procreation (for GOOD, for PROFIT) to be used in a manner inconsistent WITH His intended purpose (serving no good, and wholly unprofitable) with the human sex drive.
But again, how did we get to this topic? Why does everything here devolve into a discussion of homosexuality?
In Genesis 6:4 "Sons of God" are distinguished from "the daughters" (of mankind), not "mankind." "Mankind" is a part of speech called a Hebrew genitive. This means it is a descriptive noun, not a primary noun in the phrase. The primary nouns are "sons" and "daughters." So God's sons are not distinct from mankind. God's sons are distinct from mankind's daughters.
The term "son of God" is used in ancient literature and the Bible to mean three things (not just one):
a) Angels
b) Men in covenant relationship with God, and
c) Kings.
For occurrences of "sons of God" referring to men (standing in a covenant relationship with God) take a look at Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:4-5; Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2.
The term "son of god" is also an ancient expression for human kings or rulers. Example: on a tablet discovered at Ugarit, called The Epic of Kret, the hero is called Kret who is said to be "a king" and "a son of God." You see echoes of this use in the Scripture where rulers and judges are called "gods": Psalm 138:1 (cf. verse 4); Psalm 82:6-7; Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28.
So this leaves us with two other equally good interpretations of this passage:
1) That "sons of God" refers to the godly line of Seth (previously mentioned in the chapter 5). Seth and his descendants had "walked with God" and been faithful, so they could be the "sons of God" referred to. But now this godly line of people decide to intermarry with the ungodly line of Cain (mentioned in chapter 4). The faithful become faithless.
(2) That "sons of God" refers to rulers (kings, powerful men) who took whatever women they chose (whether the women were married or not married or even wanted to be married). This is an example of the sin of the time of Noah. Rulers abusing their power by means of violence (cf. Genesis 6:11-13).
As to Job 2:1, it should go without saying that Angels are clearly reference here, but here's a quote from a source I found at Jesus Cafe Ministries. Follow the link for the whole article, which will shed much more light on your question....
A phrase with three different meanings in the Bible: 1. In the Book of Job the phrase is used for angelic or non-human beings [Job 1:6; 2:1]. These sons of God presented themselves before God in what might be called a heavenly assembly. Satan appeared with them, although this does not necessarily mean he was one of the "sons of God." Thus the stage was set for the telling of the story of Job. 2. The phrase, sons of God, appears in the New Testament as a name for people who are in a covenant relationship with God. This exact phrase never appears with this meaning in the Old Testament, although the idea is implied. For example, God referred to the scattered children of Israel, whom He promised to gather together again, as His sons and daughters [Is. 43:6; 45:11]. The classic New Testament passage where this phrase occurs is Romans 8:12-19. The apostle Paul encouraged the Christians at Rome to live not "according to the flesh," but "by the Spirit," because those who "are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" [v. 14]. The process is described as one of adoption, by which the believer becomes a child of God, and thus an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ [Gal. 4:5; Heb. 2:10; 12:7]. Other passages use the phrase children of God, with the same basic meaning [John 1:12; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2. 3]. The third usage of the phrase occurs in [Genesis 6:1-4]. Certain "sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose" [v. 2]. The offspring of these unions are described as "giants," "mighty men," and "men of renown" [v. 4]. The question centers on the identity of these "sons of God" mentioned in this passage. There are two basic possibilities. The phrase could refer to non-human beings such as those mentioned in Job [1:6; 2:1]. Or, the phrase may be an unusual way of referring to human beings. The context of the verse gives important clues that the "sons of God" in this case are not angelic beings. One clue is found in the total biblical context. Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that non-human and human beings can mate. There are many parallels in pagan thought, but none in biblical thought. A second clue occurs right in the passage itself. The Hebrew verb in verse two translated as "took them wives" is the standard verb in the Old Testament for marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus stated that angels do not marry [Matt. 22:30]. Thus, sons of God in this passage must refer to human beings.
Many people wrongly point to Armageddon as the "end of the world" but the truth is this world will never end. It will certainly see turmoil and destruction, and judgment, but don't forget that Heaven will, one day, be transplanted to Earth. The term "Heaven on Earth" is an accurate description of where this world is heading. And only the Just shall see it.
Gideon was the son of Joash the Abiezrite from Ophrah. He was Israel's fourth major Judge after the birth of Joshua. A large army of Midianites and other nations united against Israel. The Lord told Gideon that he would be made strong and that he was to save Israel from the Midianites.
Gideon raised an army of 32,000, but after several tests by the Lord, the army was whittled down to 300 men. God did this so the people of Israel would not boast to Him that they saved themselves by their own strength. At night, Gideon and his 300 men lit torches, blew trumpets and shouted "For the Lord and for Gideon." Then they stood by and watched as the enemy panicked, and the Lord caused the enemy troops to begin fighting and killing each other.
Midian never recovered, and the land was at peace for 40 years during Gideon's lifetime. He returned home, had 70 sons by many wives. Gideon died an old man, and was buried by his father in Ophrah. His victory over the Midianites was remembered for many generations as the "Day of Midian" (Isaiah 9:4). The story of Gideon is found in Judges, chapters 6-8. The name Gideon means "he who casts down."
What a revelation!
This is CLEAR PROOF that the Right revend Redneck has absolutely NO clue what God's perfect plan is!
God is LOVE, dude! And you have no concept at all of what that even means.
Sad.
This statement is insupportable. Especially in light of Genesis 1:27-28. Firstly, procreation WAS within God's perfect plan for the fowls of the air and the beasts of the field, and both Adam and Eve were created Male and Female [Genesis 1:27; 5:2]. Also Genesis 1:28 clearly says, "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
In a previous comment I stated:
"In Genesis 3:16 God punished Eve with "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception". This does not imply the beginning of something new but rather the "quickening" [or] "increasing" of something that was already there, allowing for greater pain and sorrow in the bearing of children. [Here's a thought: Was the pain and sorrow of childbirth BECAUSE of the increase in conception?]
"I can only assume one thing by this passage: Before the fall, before eating of the tree they were commanded not to eat, both Adam and Eve would have lived forever, and filling the earth with people would not have been as pressing a need for Adam or Eve. The fact that death was coming to them both AFTER the fall surely meant that they needed to get busy producing offspring."
So Adam and Eve's children were certainly to be part of God's perfect will.
And lastly, by tacking on Romans 3:10 at the end ( "...no not one"), you completely disregard the command of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28, BEFORE the fall... Before the 'No not one' eventuality.
A world filled with Holy, Righteous, and Eternal children WAS part of God's perfect will for His creation.
And finally-- and a bit off topic... just a bit --God's command to not eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was given to Adam, BEFORE Eve arrived on the scene. The test was given to Adam, not Eve. Which is why the Fall did not occur until ADAM ATE of the fruit. It wasn't until ADAM ATE that they (BOTH Adam and Eve) realized they were naked. Adam didn't see Eve as having fallen until AFTER he ate, and vice versa. The test was for Adam, which is why Jesus is referred to as the 'Second Adam'... the Adam by whom all would be made right. The real kicker is this: What would have happened if Adam had chosen NOT to eat? Would he have passed the test? How then would Eve have been redeemed? There's a VERY interesting discussion of this very topic over at Historic Christianity.
As a final, personal, after-thought, I think it's ridiculous in the extreme to say that Adam and Eve, in a plentiful animal-filled garden, never noticed the animals doing their thing and never once thought to themselves... "Hmmm, I think I might like to try that". For, you see, it wasn't until AFTER the fall that God greatly increased child-bearing; probably because His creation would now die, and children would have to come sooner rather than later.
I understood where you were coming from ER, but I respectfully disagree with you.
Dad = Toadsuck.
(EL: Dad's every use of the mocking "Reverend," etc., will be so answered.)
I stand corrected on what Genesis, in its first creation story, says regarding the order: 1. Creation; 2. "Go ... multiply"; 3., Sin enters.
The second creation story in Genesis also seems to suggest that order -- but the naking of Eve, as the "mother of all living" in 3:20 suggest that something profound was going to happen: conception prior to the Fall, yes, but greatly increased afterward. So, I'd say the notion that God's original plan was for a planet teeming with human life is at least debatable.
Of coursel, I could be wron ... wro ... wr -- mistaken.