Gematria

[Anonymous]

Hello Everyone
I've been in a discussion with an anti-poly gentleman. He is claiming that a system known to the Hebrews, called "Gematria" is the only/best way to interpret the Bible. He is also claiming that Gematria "proves" that polygyny is wrong. I have heard of Gematria but I'm not overly familiar with it. It's some kind of system of numeric value on Hebrew letters. I thought I would post his letter to me here and see what ideas/opinions people may have regarding this. Personally, I'm thinking it's rather dubious. Here is his letter:
Blessings,
Fairlight

I don't know who this man is who calls himself a doctor, or even if anyone has credentialed him. I'd like to know what insttitution issued his Ph.D., or even D.D. Doctorates in Divinity are notorious for being fatuous.
Frankly, he doesn't know very much about the history of the Bible or its proper interpretation. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about typology or number symbols in the Bible is not a very substantial guide. I hope I don't upset you too much dismissing your authorities, but what they're saying seems dubious.

Typology is understanding similarities between subjects in the Bible understanding their symbolic significance. It is like this, Adam is type of Christ. Christ is the new Adam. Isaac is a type of Christ. As Abraham was willing to offer up his son. So God offers His Son to us on the wood of the cross. As Isaac was bound to the wood of the sacrifice, so Christ was bound to the wood of the cross. The pillar of fire & the pillar of smoke which led Israel out of Egypt is a type Christ who leads us out of sin. As the pillar of smoke led Israel through the waters of the Red Sea, so Christ leads us through the waters of baptism. As God gave the people manna bread in the desert, so Christ gives us the bread of communion. In like manner, the feeding of the 5,000 w/ the bread & fishes was also a type of the manna in the desert. By understading what is being referenced w/ such parallel images, one can understand the import of what is being said in a passage.

Numbers are CENTRAL to vast system of typology. The number 6 is often invoked as a sign of sin. The day of the Lord, the Sabbath, is the 7th day. One day short of that is short of God, so to speak. To choose the things of the six day is to prefer the things of this world over the better things of God, represented by the Sabbath.

We often find the number 6 being used to signify sintul men who exalt themselves (in their own eys) over the things of God. In Daniel 3:1, Nebuchadnezzar has statue built which is SIXTY CUBITS high & SIX cubits wide. The statue was to be an idol of the king & Meshach, Shadrach & Abednigo refuse to worship it. It is the occasion of their attempted martyrdom in the firey furnace. I Samuel 17:4; Goliath is SIX cubits tall. I Kings 10:14 & II Chronicles 9:13; Solomon has the nations send him 666 talents of gold in tribute. This number occurs in the chapter after the Queen of Sheba story. The chapter immediately following this, chapter 11 is where Solomon falls from grace. He is seduced by the foreign women he marries & begins to worship their idols. 666 is the pivot on which the life of Solomon turns. This is why it is invoked in Revelations. There the number symbolizes how the Roman Empire turns against the Church. 666 represents the Emperor Nero. At 1st, when he is made emperor, he is only a teenager & has no interest in boring politics. His tutor is the famed Stoic philosopher Seneca. Seneca actually rules in the name of Nero. As long as Nero neglects matters of state, Seneca can rule reasonably well. When Nero becomes interested in abusing his power for his own luxurious self indulgence, like Solomon, the degenerate. 666 is a symbol of passing from wise rule to tyranny.

I hope you can see in this brief set of examples how typology works.

In light of it, we can see how pointed the invocation of 6 generations from Cain to Lamech is important. Nothing is said of the other sons of Cain, only the SIXTH generation is dwelt upon in ANY detail at all. The symbolic significance of 6 is clear, & would have been obvious to any ancient Jew reading the story. It is you who is reading Western values into a Jewish story.

Other symbols are also clustered in this point. I've already discussed how it is LAMECH himself who compares his actions to Cain's. If Cain was known as a murderer, Lamech's comparing himself to this notorious murderer show how LAMECH thought of what he had done. Don't take my word for it, take Moses' & Lamech's.

The passage on the generations from Cain to Lamech is in Gen. 4:17-26. Please read the whole passage through carefully & thoughtfully. Then I'd ask you to read immediately following chapter, chapter 5.

This is the account of the righteous generations from Adam & Eve's next son, Seth. It is Seth's line which leads to Noah, who is spared when the sons of Cain are destroyed. Seth is 1st mentioned in 4:25. It is when Seth has a son that men begin to "call upon the name of the Lord." Gen. 4:26 That is, Seth raises his sons to follow God.

There are so many things you must note as you read these passages. 1st, note the parallel names in both the righteous line of Seth & the evil line of Cain. As there was Enoch in the evil line of Cain, there is a good Enoch in the line of Seth (Gen. 5:21). St. Paul in his epistles states that where Genesis says Enoch, "walked w/ God, & he was not, for God took him (Gen. 5:24)." This means that Enoch was taken to Heaven as a sign of the resurrection. As there is the evil Lamech in the line of Cain, there is also a good Lamech who brings forth Noah. (Gen. 5:28, 29)

This very important. The line of Seth called upon the name of God became the father of Noah, who redeems the world by the waters (again a type of baptism). The line of Cain became the father of polygamy. It is clearly shown here that the line of Cain & Lamech, which is symbolic of unbridled sinful passion (anger = murder/ sexual lust = polygamy) is destroyed in favor of the righteous line of Seth.

The two attributes which define the damned line are violence & polygamy. The evil are destroyed by water, as happened w/ Pharoah's army. The righteous are redeemed by the waters.

You must read the accounts of Cain's & Seth's lines in parallel to understand what you're being taught here.

I could write an encyclopedia elaborating all the symbology which is packed in here. Don't listen to these wicked men who are deceiving you w/ the lies of the line of Cain.

 

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the audacity of a man to claim that he has found the best way to interpret and understand the Bible. Does he know something that God doesn't? It seems strange to me that God would produce the all time best seller literature around the world and then hold people accountable for it's truth and then make it neccessary to follow an obscure and difficult method of interpretation to even know what He is saying. Face it world, God wants His Word understood, believed and obeyed, so badly that He made it simple to read and on top of that, He involved Himself, the Holy Spirit in teaching it to us. Gematria is foolish Jewish mythology if it is needed to understand the Bible.

 

[steve]

what is facinating to me is that YWHW was willing to write the bible in such a way that allowed the enemy to twist it in this fashion.
surely He could have cut the enemy off at the pass by avoiding a few parallels, but He chose not to. if men want to creat god in their own image, He just lets them.
of course, when they die unrepentent He tells them;
"You can go to hell"


no, i do not presume to judge their salvation. that would be above my pay grade.
if their "revelations" do not hinder their salvation i will be glad.

 

[CecilW]

With apoloies, the last book of the Bible is the REVELATION of Jesus Christ, not the Gematiac abscuration thereof.

Having said that, there ARE multiple ways to study the Bible, and as one does so, it seems as though passages sometimes have layers of meaning, like an onion, each with significance.

A study of numbers IS interesting, and can bring forth lots of insight. All the 7s in Revelation come to mind. But to discount all other systems of study and interpretation in favor of one obscure method? Personally, I probably would not bother discussing anything further with such a one. Life's too short!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Hey Fairlight,

Here is a link I have also sent to you in pm that speaks of a biblical typology case for polygyny.

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2106&p=20449#p20449

Most all major hermeneutics text books such as Bernard Ramm, Elliot Johnson, Fee and Stuart, Roy Zuck, Robert Thomas, Kaiser and Silva, Henry Virkler, and Robertson C. McQuilkin are all texts we students have used in college and seminary and they all spoke of typology and the OT types are fulfilled in Christ.

Typology is actually a strong case for polygyny. And as noted, even if we grant him the fact that Lamech line could be an evil line that only means that the 666 in the end could be an evil polygyny living leader who trys to be like God in his effort to replicate the Father, Son, and Spirit through him showing up as the beast, false prophet, and antichrist. If Christ is seen as a Head with multiple members in his family the final evil ruler in the end might try and resemble that as well. So even if his case were to be true it would only prove that there is also a antichrist form of polgyny that is built from the evil men who eventually culminates inthe ultimate evil man, the antichrist.

In such a case you would have a righteous typology line and an unrighteous typology line that culminates in the end of history with Christ's people and Satan's people. It is possible but his insistence on knowing who the 666 being or entity is or system is very audacious when the best scholars of the world have applied their minds to it and have come away saying it is not yet something we can know until the time arrives, which is exactly the point of 2 Thess. 2:8. And those who have thought they figured it out have all to date been wrong. So his odds of being right are astronomically slim, so slim we would in statistics say it is virtually no chance at all.

In any case Adam, Noah, Jacob, David, and Solomen are all types of Christ, i.e. foreshadows of the real one to come. In Christ he progressively fulfills these types inb his own life. For awhile he was celibate, then his joining to the first Jerusalem church was a spiritual bond to only one church, which points to a period of monogamy, and then his joining to new churches he established by the Spirit is a type of multiple unions which corresponds to multiple members in the family under one head, thus point to a polygyny like status. Therefore, a man bonding with one or more ladies is like Christ bonding with multiple churches.

Send him that article and let's see if he deals with the arguments or if he just keeps saying the same things over and over without actually dealing with the arguments. Most people when they don't have much to stand on resort to fancy footwork to try and build a case from indirect ideas. I think he might be guilty of that.

If he responds to the article let me know. I'd love to see his thoughts. I bet he will go into a rant and rave but not really deal with the substance of the argument.

Dr. Allen

 

[Tlaloc]

Ask him about racial superiority and the 'curse of Canan' and there is a good chance he will show his true colours (or prejudice relating to colours)

There is certainly something to typology in scripture, and perhaps even something to numerology (which he seems very interested in) but these concepts are not really what he is basing his arguments on. Typology does not show that Lamech (or Cain) are the founders of polygamy, nor is polygamy associated only with negative types. Jacob\Isreal is positive type and he and his line are also associated with polygamy...

He has said many words that have no direct bearing on his argument, then re-stated what we have heard so many times "Lamech is in the line of Cain therefore polygamy is evil." Nothing in the many words he said gives substance to that totally out of sequence assertion, frankly he's just trying to cover up his lack of argument with an attempt at intellectual intimidation. Ah well...

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

This reminds me of those idiots who believe in "bible code". Well, you can rearrange the letters from any translation of any language and pretty much get whatever you want it to say. The branhamites used this method to try and say that william branham was the returned elijah the prophet. With this guy, it's the same thing. You can make connections out of anything. In fact, I could make a connection between Jesus washing the feet of the disciples and my morning cup of coffee. Just because two things exist doesn't mean they're connected. And this guy is.....well.......I won't go there. The writers of the Scriptures weren't part of some secret society writing in code that needs to be looked deeper into and interpreted with a secret decoder ring to understand. That's really getting into gnosticism there.

 

[Anonymous]

Hello Dr. Allen
You asked for me to get back to you if "anti-poly" guy responded to your article...well he did It would also appear that he is a Preterist.
Blessings,
Fairlight

All I can say is wow. Such projection & inversion of reality I've never seen. Someone must have point out to him that his "argments" amount to little more then what he is describing hear. After hearing this, he simply parrots this dismissal of limited ideas back at anyone who challenges his strange ideas.

You've apparently invested some kind of guru status to this man, so you might not be too receptive to my criticisms or be able to look at what he says critically, objectively & dispassionately. I will still urge you to go back to what this man said in response to me. Can you see that this is a near perfect description of the "substance" of his "argument?"

He does even seem to have comprehended one word of what I've communicated to him. Though, I am assuming you related what I said verbatem & no distortion was involved. I primarily discussed the number 666 in its original OT context. It was in reference to King Solomon in 1 Kings 10. He seems completely oblivious to this, even though I gave you the original citation. I was showing how the use of this number in Revelation is typololgy & you need the original source to understand what is being said. The traditions re: the anti-christ being Nero are well known & abundantly found in the Early Church Fathers. Any truly credentialed graduate of Moody would know about this. I have read about Nero being the anti-christ in many commentaries.

As for Christ's promise about "no man knowing the hour." That was HIS hour, not the anti-christ's. The coming of the anti-christ & the 2nd coming are not the same thing. It is interesting that he confuses these two subjects. It is illustrative of how some people look to the coming of the anti-christ w/ keener attention then to Christ.

As for what I say about HIS "argument" (as he calls it); all I can say is, what argument? He makes no argument. He doesn't even seem to have anything beyond the vaguest understanding of typology. He is certainly not able to address any of the matters I've raised or cite specific & relevant passages of scripture. He never once addresses the primary passages I've discussed w/ you. He has no understanding about the early figures in Genesis. Where is my interpretation comparison of the Cain-Lamech linve vs. the Seth Noah line mistaken? I doubt if this "doctor" even knew these passages existed.

I only mentioned the matter or 666 in Rev. as a way to illustrate matter of typology. It was, at best, tertiary to my real argument. He never once even attempted to approach ANY of my central points. The 1st citation of an issue in the Bible provides us w/ the context for later understanding how that issue is developed later in scriptures. The association of polygamy w/ the wicked Lamech clues us in on how to perceive all later citations of that issue. It is a source of conflict & is a reflection of man's sinful lusts.

As for Abraham or any of the other patriarchs practicing polygamy, it is always a disaster.

Abraham is instructed to go in to Hagar by his wife, not God. Significantly, she is an Egytian. The land of slavery, where the people of Israel are lead away from God. It is Ishmaelite slave traders who sale Joseph to Egypt. Thus, both the line of Ishmael & the land of his mother's origins, Egypt, are implicated in the enslavement of all of Israel after Joseph. This sinfull occasion of the lack of faith on the part of Abraham begins to echo down through history. This is the proper understanding of typology.

Jacob only practices polygamy by being tricked into it by a sinful pagan, Laban. This is something that occurs outside of the land Israel. It is a pagan & unholy practice, unworthy of the holy land. Jacob does not defile that land w/ this sinful custom, nor does he practice it at all except by being deceived.

It is his sinful, rejected brother Esau which defiles that land by taking bygamist wives in the promised land. A willing deliberate premediated act of defilement. Thus it was a gross knowing act of blasphemy. Thus, we see another acursed & rejected line of descent being established here. Again, the sign of it is polygamy. Go read (do you ever look up any of the scriptures I cited for you?) Malachi 1:2,3 "...I have loved Jacob & I HATED Esau..." Remember, Isaac never practices polygamy. He is the archetypal model for the true son of Abraham. It was God who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Ishmael. The wife of the true son of Abraham, Rebekah, despises the wives of Esau.

Ultimately, I take you back to Solomon. It is his polygamy which leads him astray. & it is an EGYPTIAN woman, Pharoah's daughter, who 1st leads him into sin. It is only after the lamentable number 666 that this matter is discussed. Please read I Kings 10 & 11. Also, was it not an act of sin & faithlessness which lead Israel to ask for a king in the 1st place? Samuel the prophet makes this all to clear. The tyranny of the kings, which begins under Solomon is promised to Israel b/c of their national sin in asking for a king. Polygam also becomes of sign of the tyranny of kings.

We see in all of this how Biblical typology systematically treats polygamy as a sign of evil.

Once again, flea from these crazy people before you get really & truly hurt.

 

[Anonymous]

Any truly credentialed graduate of Moody would know about this.

Dr. Allen
I never told him you were associated with Moody. I recommended he read William Luck's book and mentioned that Mr. Luck had been associated with Moody. He obviously got you two confused.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Hey Fairlight,

I'm not sure if he is a preterist or not from that response. I hope he is not of that persuasion of Scripture however no matter where he stands on this subject. He may very well indeed be that though with his views of Nero etc. that he noted.

Feel free to give him my email address: drkrallen@biblicalfamilies.org

For some reason he has either ignored or not understood what I have said in my response to him.

Argument # 1- to claim we can come up with 666 and know who or where it begins and ends is a fool's errand.

Argument # 2- he plays the guilt by association argument and says Lamech's line is evil and thus those in that line are evil. Even if we grant Lamech was evil this would only prove that there can be a sinful practice of it and certainly we know that is true because some false religions of the world practice cruel and sinful forms of marriage.

Argument # 3- He builds his theology on sub-level principles of biblical theology. Instead of starting with direct statements of Scripture and direct implications of Scripture (levels 1 and 2) he begins with speculation (level 6), general revelation (level 5) and possibly with some inferences (level 4). What he needs to do is start with specific prescriptive statements in the Word of God that specifically address the subject. His beginning point with Lamech is only a descriptive text that has very little to do with polygyny in and of itself. Then his numerology is the base methodology and that approach to Scripture is not a legitimate textual approach.

I know of no standard hermeneutic text by an y Evangelical, Fundamental, or Conservative Bible believing scholar in any segement of Christendom that would say we need to build a theology on that approach to Scripture.

The proper methodology is to look at Scripture chronologically. Lamech's polygyny was not a prescriptive text but only descriptive. When we come to the Mosaic Law Code we find prescriptive legal regulations. The law code, as Paul said in Romans 7, is Holy. We then move to Christ's law and that law code supports it as well with no prohibition and even more so with Christ's typological multiple member body under one head as a man as the head can have multiple members to his body/family.

His whole methodological approach is simply flawed and thus his end results will too be flawed.

Please feel free to email him the links to the various teaching articles I have posted.

Oh and one other thing, here is a little tool I use sometimes with people like this. I always start with the highest truth within the theological triage. See if he will even admit to begin with basic common ground factors like the Tri-unity of God, Christ's full deity and humanity, and salvation by grace through faith, and the full inspiration of the Bible. See if he will even recognize someone as a fellow believer if they confess Christ as Lord and affirm those basic ground level truths. If two people cannot start with the highest truths and then work there way down on the scale to lower level truths then dialog is difficult at best.

Hopefully, he can admit that people can agree on the essentials and then still grow and learn and dialog on lower levels issues such as this one.

But he may be so angry or so opposed to this subject that he cannot reason correctly and it would be clear that would be the case if he begins to assert one cannot truly be saved and hold to such an idea as this. It almost sounds like that is where he leans or might be by some of his word choices.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

According to inner.org's web page about Gematria, it is a system of assigning numerical values to each Hebrew letter. According to the Wikipedia web page, it originated in the Tannaic period of Jewish history, ~70 – 200 AD. (I refuse to use the politically correct "CE" and "BCE"!!! History is HIS story...) (Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a primary source...)

1 Corinthians 2:10-14 NKJV (10) But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. (11) For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. (13) These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Gematria was devised by a group of Jewish intellectuals who had rejected Jesus as Messiah. (Remember, the entire Jewish nation, except for a relatively small group – a remnant - did so.) Therefore, these men could NOT have been Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, regardless of how intelligent they may have been. That makes the entire pseudo-theology of Gematria suspect according to the above-quoted passage.

But like all appealing false doctrines, it contains elements of truth. As has already been noted, there are many numbers in Scripture that are significant – the number "7" was mentioned, for one. But how far do we take the concept? Let me stick my tongue firmly in my cheek for a moment...

...if you count the number of letters in John 3:16 (King James, of course – if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul...) divide by the square root of the number of sons of Ham, and add the number of nails on the left foot of the Apostle John, you can prove...

...EXACTLY NOTHING! Except maybe that Dr. George sometimes likes to play with numbers. (OK, remove tongue from cheek now.)

In sleazy political campaigns, one candidate will make personal attacks against another when he can't discuss the merits of something his opponent said. That type of thing has no place in serious theological debate. Anyone who begins his argument or rebuttal by belittling his opponent's academic credentials should be summarily dismissed from the debate! It's one thing to say, "You don't know what you are talking about because you said XYZ but the Bible says..." and quite another to say, "Your Doctoral degree is probably fake." Argue based on the merits of what you believe; argue based on what the Bible says; but do not argue about the supposed deficiencies of someone else's academic credentials! In plain English: attack the message, if you can, but do not attack the messenger.

(BTW, Dr. Allen has earned my deepest respect, as have many others who regularly contribute to BFF.)

In general, the simplest interpretation of a given passage that fits with the context is most likely correct. Scripture is its own best interpreter - any interpretation of Scripture that contradicts the most-likely-correct interpretation of another passage is probably wrong. The convoluted reasoning of Gematria that "proves" polygyny to be wrong contradicts the plain reading of numerous passages, including this one:

2 Samuel 12:8 KJV And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The plain reading of 2 Samuel 12:8 says that God GAVE wives to David. God is NOT the author of evil, and would NEVER give one of His most righteous servants something He had decreed to be sinful.

CecilW said,

Having said that, there ARE multiple ways to study the Bible, and as one does so, it seems as though passages sometimes have layers of meaning, like an onion, each with significance.

Some scholars claim that there are 50 such layers to the Scriptures. Uri Harel claims that one layer is – MUSIC! And he has "deciphered" the "music code" for many passages. Some of it is beautiful music, some sounds like an orchestra warming up. You can check out his work here: http://musicfromgod.com/index.html

If there really are 50 such layers, then ALL WE NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE IN THE HEREAFTER AND LIVE THE ABUNDANT LIFE NOW CAN BE FOUND IN THE FIRST LAYER. We don't need to go through complicated mental gymnastics to decipher what our Father expects of us, or how much He desires to bless us. The other 49 layers might be interesting, if indeed they exist...and I believe they might. But they would be like the icing on the cake, not the main course of the meal for which said cake is the desert. And we should not form doctrines based on them.

Gematria might be interesting, but it does not lead to correct doctrine. It's like Saul going to the witch of Endor – something a believer should not do. Stay away from the unclean thing!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Amen Dr. George.

I think you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. This fella starting from the unclear to try and overturn the clear is simply a terrible way to approach Scripture. In your words, his numerology approach means "EXACTLY NOTHING!"

And, about the ole sensus plenior debate, as Rome likes, I drastically am opposed to that. The golden rule is that each and every text of Scripture has only one sense meaning though many applications.

The idea that each text of Scripture has multiple meanings to it came forth from the mystics such as Philo and then others in early NT history. Some came to teach something called the four-fold sense of Scripture. The literal, typological, moral, and allegorical. Some even went further. It was the seed for Roman Catholicism that came along and said, "well you really need the Pope to decree what it means since he can speak for God." In their minds since each text means numerous things we need the Cardinals and Popes to determine for us what is the right sense and meaning of the many options.

This fella using the numerology system is another way to undermine the golden rule of literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutics where we take each text seriously in its historical context and find its single meaning that does not alter from one day to the next as the mystics from Rome like to claim.

Dr. Allen

P.S. Also, thank you for your most kind and gracious compliment there. You are a very generous brother. I look forward to all the Lord is going to do with you in the common work we share. Good days are ahead.

 

[CecilW]

The 1st citation of an issue in the Bible provides us w/ the context for later understanding how that issue is developed later in scriptures. The association of polygamy w/ the wicked Lamech clues us in on how to perceive all later citations of that issue. It is a source of conflict & is a reflection of man's sinful lusts.

Yah, yah, yah! Actually, we deal with his sort of logic all the time.

First mention of nudity is in the Garden, and it is pronounced "very good." Some of us think it still is. But I seriously doubt that he's using his principle, as stated above, to justify doing his shopping at Walmart in that state. Hope not anyway. So maybe he's missing the boat by one or two waves.

And maybe not. When we all get to heaven, if God says, "You were 'posed to take Gematria seriously, Sir BumbleBerry," I'll gladly sign up for classes. In the meantime, it's all I can do to keep Cecil headed in the right direction in being a good husband. He's a real handful!

Sir BumbleBerry the PutUpon

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Once again, flea from these crazy people before you get really & truly hurt.

Well, there you have it. We're all crazy!!! Crazy good looking that is!

I still don't understand that whole preterism thing though. If the end of the world has already come and gone and there's no point in trying nowadays, you go ahead and prove that to me and I'll be the biggest heathen that ever lived. WORLD DOMINATION HERE I COME!!!

 

[Tlaloc]

WORLD DOMINATION HERE I COME!!!

No, that Post-millenialism, not preterism

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

No, that Post-millenialism, not preterism

Well shoot!! preterism just takes the fun out of everything, huh? lol

 

[Tlaloc]

 

[Anonymous]

I'm posting this response from the gentleman in question because he isn't bashing Dr. Allen.
Blessings,
Fairlight

As to your opinion about the Catholic Church, you'd do well then to learn what Dr. Scott Hahn (a real Dr.!) has to say. As I said, he was a very conservative Presbyterian minister b/f Jesus lead him to the Catholic Church. But it is not my purpose here to try to convert you. At this point, I'd be happy just to get you into any other church.

If you're still under Jack Hayford's church, why don't you contact him & ask him about this group you've entangled yourself in. I am fairly sure he'd have an opinion on the subject.

All your citations of examples of polygamy amongst the patriarchs prove nothing. It only proves that God made legal allowances for the practice. As Jesus demonstrated in what He said re: divorce, many laws only exist b/c of man's hard heartedness. The ancient Israelites were often so rough, if they had been taught the truth about the sinfullness of divorce, they'd have killed their wives. God made allowance in times & places to help bend people over time to a better understanding of His will.

You can't provide one example of God commanding anyone to marry more then one woman. The example of Isaac, whose meeting w/ his wife IS guided by God, is a strictly monogamous matter. The binding of Isaac is one of the most profound types of Christ in the OT, w/ Isaac being replaced by a lamb w/ its head caught in thorns. A type of the crown of thorns. Isaac carries his own wood to the place of sacrifice. Isaac was a young man by the time this occurs. He easily could have resisted his elderly father. He also consented in faith to what the Lord had commanded. Isaac has only one wife. Abraham's consenting to mere concubinage, & not polygamous marriage, is only at the misguided prompting of his one & only wife. God clearly rejects the relationship w/ Hagar & refuses to recognise it or its offspring. Sarah was Abraham's only wife for as long as she lived.

Only the grandsons of Abraham practice polygamy, another example of social degeneration over time. Esau is rejected by God. The Bible says: "Jacob have I loved, Edom (the nation descended from Esau & incidentally the progenitor of King Herod who mocks Christ) I have hated" Mal. 1:2,3 Only Esau voluntarily practices polygamy & his own mother despises him & his wives for it.

Jacob is tricked into polygamy by a pagan who is trying to force Jacob to remain outside of the promised land, like Pharoah did. Jacob is enslaved to Laban so he can collect the one & only woman he truly loved. Again, like Pharoah. Pharoah tries to bind the women of Israel to Egypt forever by killing off their men folk. Polygamy is what was supposed to bind Jacob to Laban. The story of Jacob & Laban is about the seperation of Jacob from the ungodly life of Laban. Polygamy again is a symbol of Laban's ungodliness. Jacob is lured into polygamy by fraud & only enters into it in the land of pagans outside the promised land. An unholy practice for an unholy people in an unholy land. Esau's actions are more sinful b/c they are knowing & voluntary. Esau defiles the holy land w/ his sinful practice, thus he is rejected. Remember, the covenant of circumcision had not yet been given to Abraham when he took Hagar. Ishmael is circumcised at 12 yrs of age under Egyptian custom (& now the blasphemous Moslems), Isaac is circumcised at 8 days. This is the establishment of the Jewish covenant by circumcision which is properly done on the 8th day after birth. The legitimate line of descent passes through the monogamous Isaac.

Your Biblical case for polygamy is a fantasm. It disappears like smoke. You must read the Bible closely & thoughtfully. You wouldn't want to justify human sacrifice merely b/c one of the judges of Israel sacrificed his daughter? At least God actually commanded one man to sacrifice his son. No one is ever commanded to marry a second woman, no one. You'd have a better case for arguing that human sacrifices were for our day.

 

[CecilW]

With respect, quite a number of his statements, along with his whole premise, are simply wrong. Ignorant or willful is outside my purview. We could spend a bunch of time once again answering these statements. But to what point? A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

He's not in "conversation" mode. He's in full cry "teaching" mode, and appears uninterested in being taught.

Jesus led a pastor to the Catholic church? :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

With respect, quite a number of his statements, along with his whole premise, are simply wrong. Ignorant or willful is outside my purview. We could spend a bunch of time once again answering these statements. But to what point? A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

He's not in "conversation" mode. He's in full cry "teaching" mode, and appears uninterested in being taught.

I agree.

esus led a pastor to the Catholic church? :shock:

:lol: I know ! :lol:

Blessings,
Fairlight