APlace2Rest

You are not connected. Please login or register

Genesis (Day One)

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Genesis (Day One) on Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:58 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
What I have come to understand about the seven days of Genesis.


As a whole, the seven days of Genesis is the process in which God brings us into; it is His process of us understanding Him and it is His process of us understanding ourselves. More so that it is the framework of how we are to understand everything in His word. In a physical sense, it is like the bones in the body that makes it possible for the flesh of the body to stand; to stand upright. And what I mean by that is; without bones, our flesh would just be a blob of flesh that cannot stand. And in the same way, the bones without flesh would just be a pile of bones that also cannot stand on its own.

They both work together as one, they both need each other in order to stand upright.

Day One:
Verse 1: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth

To jump to a conclusion before something is understood is to speculate of its meaning. What I mean by that is: taking the first three words of the first verse "In the beginning" as: that is exactly the way we are to understand it. I ask the question, Is that exactly how we are to understand them?

In things that I have come to understand, God's word should always define itself and that it is to be understood immediately so that there is no misunderstanding, so that there is no confusion.

When we see the original meaning of these words, that meaning being "the first", in place, time, order or rank, this phrase is a definition of the next word used and what I mean by this is: the definition "the first" is a definition of the word "God"; it is a definition that describes God, that God "is" the first in place, time, order or rank. By understanding it in this way, there is no confusion at all.

We know that God is not a God of confusion, we know this from the words of the apostle Paul when he says, "For God is not of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)  (I left out the words "the author" because they are words that were added by man and may not be in the original text, though it may be implied, which in either understanding the concept remains the same).

So if these words "in the beginning" are to be understood in the context of "a beginning" there is already confusion when the question is asked "In the beginning of what?"

Which brings up more questions: In the beginning of place? in the beginning of time? In the beginning of order? In the beginning of rank? Which one is it?

For me, these words "in the beginning, God" should be understood as "The First, God" and that is because He "IS" the first in place, He "is" the first in time, He "is" the first in order, He "is" the first in rank. All of these being a description of who God is.

Because I see this differently than others; which in other words, because I understand this differently than others, what happens to the understanding of another, do they accept this new understanding or do they reject it and remain firm in what they understand it to mean; in other words, what they were taught it to mean? For me, what I was first taught became an old understanding and I agreed with the new understanding that I was shown.

All this because I fully believe the words "Behold, I make all things new" (Revelation 21:5) to be truth. Because I also believe that this word "all" includes all understanding.

This lead me into the next part of the verse, "created the heaven and the earth".



Last edited by J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D. on Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

2 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:42 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
Before I get into the word "created", I would first like to discuss what I see in the two terms translated as "the heaven" and "the earth".

These two terms, the first term being "the heaven" and the second term being "the earth". In their original definitions, these terms are:

1. "to be lofty" which is translated as "the heaven"
and
2. "to be firm" which is translated as "the earth".

Since His word has to be taken within the context of the surrounding words, if the first part of this verse is understood as "the beginning of physical things", the second part of the verse being, "God created" and the third part of the verse being "the heaven and the earth" ...

it can easily be understood as the creation of "the physical heaven" and the creation of "the physical earth" by God in the beginning of the creation of physical things.

But also, in which the term "the heaven" can also be understood in the literal or physical sense as:
1. the creation of "the physical heaven" or
2. the creation of "the physical universe" or
3. the creation of "the physical atmosphere".

But which one is it, the creation of 1, 2, or 3?

and also

heaven can also be explained as:
4. "the spiritual realm that is a physical place" or
5. "a spiritual world that is a physical place"
both being: a physical place we can go to after physical death  

we now have 5 options of what heaven is by a literal or physical understanding

we can also understand that God's Spirit can be heaven,  or Christ Himself can be heaven or that the Father is heaven ..... how many more options can we come up with in order to define what heaven is?

and then that's not including how many different ways "the earth" can be literally or physically understood
the term "the earth" can also be understood in the literal or physical sense as:
1. "the physical earth that is within the physical heaven" or
2. "the physical earth that is outside of the physical heaven" or
3. "the physical earth that is within the physical universe" or
4. "the physical earth within a physical atmosphere",

and again, which one is it, 1, 2, 3, or 4?

and also earth can also be explained as:
1. "the physical realm" or
2. "the physical world"
again, both being: the place we are in before physical death

but with all these options of what it "could" mean, would that not be putting us into a state of confusion in trying to figure out what specifically it is that is being spoken about?

To me, in what I have come to understand, trying to understand God's word by putting it in a physical sense, or a literal sense causes nothing but "a tower of Babel"; in other words: "a tower of confusion" because everyone can have a different understanding if all this is to be understood as literal or physical.

With that being said in what I believe, it can either be accepted or rejected by another, it doesn't make a difference to me if someone rejects it or not ... and the reason it doesn't matter to me is because I have to stand firm in what I have been shown and convinced of to be truth.

These two terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm" are better understood in verse two, but before we get to that, let's drop back for a little bit and understand the word "created".



Last edited by J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D. on Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:57 pm; edited 1 time in total



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

3 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:33 am

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
The word "created" is taught as "an action of God that created something out of nothing". But if we really think about it, and imagine before anything ever physically existed, and all that existed was God Himself, can God create something out of nothing if He is the only thing that existed, because if He is the only thing that existed than "nothing" could not have existed at the same time only He existed. It is coming to an understanding that "nothing" would have to have been created as a substance in which God created it into something that it wasn't in the first place.

This can be understood in the physical sense as "physical space", physical space is the nothing in which God created matter from, and if that is the case, then "physical space" would actually have to be some kind of substance, from which, matter could be formed into a denser substance by bringing the substance closer together by an outer force pressing inward towards a center, a very simple explanation of this is the force of your hands pressing together loose snowflakes into a denser substance we call a snowball. Man has discovered what they call "dark matter" and that it is what they believe exists in "physical space". And some even believe that this "dark matter" is the substance that all "physical space" is made of.

I am no scientist and come nowhere even close to claiming myself as one, but my whole point to this is: there is some kind of force at work in this physical universe that causes everything to be as it is. And if we believe in God, should we not believe that He is this force that causes everything to be as it is.

Are we to assume, speculate, that Genesis Chapter one is about the creation of the physical universe and the physical earth and then God said "Let there be light", why didn't we first hear the words "let there be a physical universe" or "let there be physical matter" so there would not be any confusion as to what God is talking about?

We, in this present age, have an advantage over those of the past, we have more information in the understanding of God than those of the Old Testament. And I also believe that we, in this present age, have an advantage over those of the New Testament also. The reason I believe this is because we have all of it in front of us to understand. Those of New Testament times only had the Old Testament to rely on and what they wrote about, that is what became the New Testament, it was their understanding of the Old Testament through the Spirit of God that was given to them.

I could go on and on about the writings of the prophets, but that would be getting way ahead of ourselves since we are still dealing with just the first ten words of the Bible that are verse one in the first chapter of Genesis.

Getting back on track here, the word "created" in its original definition means "to create", which by simple reasoning this is a phrase of "present tense" not "past tense" which is the context of the word "created". Why I believe the reason its definition should be understood in the present tense rather than in the past tense is for the purpose of understanding that God is still active in our lives today as much as He was active in the lives of those who lived in the past.

To view it in the past tense can cause us to think that God is "not active" or "not as active" in our lives today as He was in the past. The main reason I believe this is because in the writings of the New Testament there are many examples that were written in the present tense but translated as past tense because the translators thought it would make more sense to the reader to better understand what is being said. To me, this causes us to get farther away from God rather than draw us closer to Him.

Moving on, the word "created" in its original meaning from strong's number  H1254 is: A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

But it also has a second number in parenthesis, its number is H853 with its definition as: Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)

so with this definition we also need to take into consideration H226 which is defined as: Probably from H225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.: - mark, miracle, (en-) sign, token.

and with this definition we also need to consider H225 which is defined as: A primitive root; properly to come, that is, (impliedly) to assent: - consent.

all these are the depth of the word "created" and all of them have to be considered together in order to completely understand the one word translated as "created". I am not going to try and explain the conclusion I was shown here because it might take away too much from what I believe God is trying to tell us through these words. The main reason I won't is because the word "created" still fits with what I have come to understand about the two terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm".

so with that being said, I would like to move on into what I was shown about these two terms.



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

4 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:53 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
You may have already asked the question, "Why does he call them "terms" rather than use the word that was translated?"

The reason I do this is because of what I have come to understand about how God works in our lives, in how He gets us to understand things. What I mean by this is: He first gives us a definition "and then" gives us the word that sums up the definition.

The proof in this is that throughout the Old Testament, it is a testament of who was to come. God defined who Christ is and what He would do, God defined the life of Christ through the prophets "AND THEN" He gave us "the Word" that summed up the words of the prophets, that word being Christ, the Living Word that He sent, the "Word that became flesh".

Man on the other hand will take a word and then redefine it according to what he understands, he can twist it into something it is not, it is the exact opposite of the way God does things, He keeps it straight. It is why God's own people did not recognize Christ when He walked this earth. They defined Christ according to what they wanted Him to be; a conquering ruler that would destroy evil men rather than who He really is; a conquering ruler that would destroy the evil "in" men.

This still happens today, men will still define Christ according to who they think He is or they will define Christ according to who they want Him to be, therefore being blind to who He truly is. We are not to define Christ (the Word) or believe who He is according to how men define Him, only the Word can define itself and just like the Living Word (Christ) is the only one who defines Himself, so is the written word the only thing that can define itself.

All this leads me to these two terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm", these are definitions in which man jumped to a conclusion as to their meaning "the heaven" and "the earth". Heaven and earth are only one example of how the definition of "to be lofty" and "to be firm" can become the words "heaven" and "earth".

With the term; the definition of .... "to be lofty", how many words can you think of that would fit into this definition? And with the term, the definition of ..... "to be firm", how many words can you think of that would fit into this definition? There are many words that fit these definitions and to choose only one word will limit our understanding of what is trying to be conveyed. Because reading on in Genesis we see that the words "above" and "below" can fit into these definitions, but that is getting ahead of ourselves.

The main reason I believe that men did not translate the first words in the Bible as "The first God" how many would jump to the conclusion that there is more than one God. If it was understood as "the first God" it is no wonder mankind throughout the ages have seen, in nature, many Gods; for examples; a Sun God, a Moon God, a Wind God, etc. and with Greek mythology, how many Gods did they have?

Punctuation was not used in the original language of the Old Testament, but because of punctuation we can better understand what is being said. The use of the simplest thing like a comma can completely change our understanding of something. The use of a comma was used in between the words "In the beginning" and the word "God", but with the comma and the translation of the meaning "the first" into the words "in the beginning" we can get two totally different things "the beginning of something" and "God" rather than understanding that both the definition "the first" and the word "God" are describing the same thing.

In keeping with the straight path, these two terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm" are more definitions that describe who God is, they all become one, these two terms will become the basis of all the names of God in what He does for us. But again, that is getting ahead of ourselves in understanding.

The term "to be lofty" is the last term in verse one, but it is the beginning of the second verse. So moving on let's look at the second verse in the Scriptures:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

There is a wealth of understanding in this verse, if we continue on the straight path of what God wants us to understand.



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

5 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:43 am

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin

But again, I would like to stop for a moment and talk about what happened since the last time I wrote.

Like Abraham going into a foreign country not knowing what is to come, I too, in my writings, do not know what is to come a lot of the time, but I continue on.

I was brought into a place of darkness yesterday and in it, I got to the point that I was going to give it all up, no more writing, I was going to just live out my days in peace. But of course, He had other plans.

I got to thinking about not writing and not studying the written word anymore, but the more I thought about it, I had to admit to myself, if I didn't have His Word to study and my writing, I felt like I would be lost, that life would just get boring, it became a darkness to me, I would even go as far to say, it was like being in a tomb dead. Was I put in the grave? Is this what the writers in the Old Testament felt and then they wrote it down? I had lost all sense of purpose but did not realize, that is what is was.

The main reason I wanted to write this first is because we were about to go into verse two, and I had no idea what I was going to write next in regards to connecting the terms "to be firm" with "to lie waste" which was translated as the term "without form". The more I would think about it, I could not find a connection to link the two with no interruption of the flow from verse one into verse two.

It wasn't until after I had gone to work today that the Lord showed me exactly what was meant. Again, I would like to stress the point of letting Scripture define itself, because that is exactly how the flow continues.

Getting back to verse two, we see that it is speaking of "to be firm" was "without form" and "void". Stop and think about something for a minute. Take this term "to be firm" and again view it as "firmness", now try to imagine that this word is a person, that it is a name given to a person, which seems a little strange because as I was writing this, it popped into my head that it relates to the phrase in the New Testament by the disciple John when he wrote the words "the word became flesh".

So, I have to ask the question; is the word "personification" how God teaches us to understand His written word and bring it to life by believing "the word" is a person? Is not one of the titles of Jesus Christ "The Word"and are we not to believe that He is "The Word", the "Living" Word as well as the "written" word sent by the Father to be among us, to walk among us as a person?

Understanding that Christ was never created, that He has always existed, is to also understand that what was created by the Father was language, with language being: the means by which He communicates to another  person in order for them to understand who and what He is. "The what" He is, is the word, the written word and it, the written word, becomes "a Who" by giving it life, by breathing the breath of life into it.

This also makes sense in understanding that Christ is "the Mediator" between man and God, He is the means (the language of God) by which the thoughts and desires of God are communicated to man.

I am getting way ahead of myself here, so let's get back to verse two. With verse one we had "a beginning of the verse" and "an end of the verse"; the beginning being "the first" and the end becoming a person named "firmness". Now starts the next verse, which is another thought process of understanding.

Understanding that this person named "firmness" was "without form" and "void". We can also understand that this word "was" can be understood as the word "became", they are both in the definition of the original word used. And even this is seeing that something "was" and it "became" something else; not that it became something totally different, but that it "was" something without life that "became" living. It is a word that can describe both tenses of what "was" and what "is" to become making it a present tense; a transition "from" something, "to" something better, which can be totally related to the word "resurrection", bringing something back to life that previously died.

This term translated as "without form" has the meaning of; from an unused root meaning "to lie waste", and the word "void" has the meaning of; from an unused root meaning "to be empty".



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

6 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:16 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin

But if this is true, how can something that God created as "to be firm" or even the word "firm" with an attribute of "firmness" be something that is "to lie waste" or "to be empty"?

Let me ask a question here, can you think of anything that is "firm" but also has the aspect of "to lie waste" or "to be empty"? How many things in this physical world can this abstract idea be a reference to?

As I myself was thinking about all this, it hit me like a lightening bolt out of nowhere, it was the word "purpose". And then I started to work backwards in understanding, in that something that is "firm" and also "empty" is like an empty pot or an empty vessel, it is "firm" in the aspect of being "solid" and it also carries with it the aspect of being "empty". Understanding this is to see that this pot or vessel has no purpose if it remains as is, in other words, if it remains empty. But to understand that something is created in a way so that it becomes something that has purpose is to understand that this "emptiness" is formed in the vessel for the purpose of "being filled".

To understand this in the spiritual sense is to understand that if we have a feeling of emptiness, it is "a signal" that we are lacking something. Is this not part of the definition of the word "created"? .....  as we tried to understand the depth of the word "created" with the second Strong's number H853 which is first defined as: apparently contracted from H226 with the definition of: Probably from H225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.: - mark, miracle, (en-) sign, token.

Scripture "has to" define itself through God's Spirit of understanding so that there is no confusion in what He is trying to teach us through His written word. When He first started teaching me things in how to understand something, He always had me break things down to a general or abstract term, whether it was a single word or a phrase and it was from there that we come to understand what is being conveyed by these terms.

It is like taking a physical example and then creating an abstract term to describe it and from there He gives us the Spiritual meaning of it. What I mean by this is through the term "that which", if we take the physical example of "a gas pump", break this down to an abstract term that describes itself and also defines its purpose, we can get the abstract phrase; "that which transfers a substance from one thing (or place) to another thing (or place)", it is by this that God can reveal to us "who" and "what" He is AND does, and what I mean by that is: God's Spirit is: the means by which He transfers something that is His into something else that He created to be filled.

It is also understanding that by breaking words or phrases down to abstract terms; first with the term "that which", this term "that which" is a term that cannot be understood on its own other than it is describing something. It can only be better understood by the adding of the object in which it is describing "and" what it does so that its purpose can be revealed.

When I was back in junior high school, the subject of "English" was my weakest subject, math is the subject that I loved and it came easy for me. "English" became secondary in importance, but now it has become a passion of mine, not because of anything I did, but because of what God is doing IN me.

God has become my English teacher, but more so, that He has become my "Language Teacher". Language is the most "taken for granted" thing that exists, and because it is taken for granted, people have no idea the power of words they speak and by this lack of understanding, they have no idea what the effects of their words have on another person when they speak, whether those effects are immediate or have an impact later in someone's life.

Side note: without trying to get too far off track:
(Men who are placed in positions of authority, whether political, business or religion, know the power of words, they don't take this power for granted because they know that words, when used to their advantage, can control the thoughts and actions of others, especially when words are used and mixed with the aspect of fear.)

Language has become just as important to me now as math was then, and what I find amazing in what God has shown me is; with math, it is a subject that is "firm" in its understanding and usage; and what I mean by that is: there is no way, no matter how hard we try, that 1 + 1 cannot equal anything other than 2.

But understanding the firmness of language is to understand that with God, 1 + 1 will always equal 1, but what I mean by that is: when God combines one thing with another it always equals 1 new thing. What makes understanding so hard for mankind in God trying to explain something is; that every time something is added to something else it always changes our understanding of what was previously revealed.

This can be seen again, in verse one with the two abstract meanings of "to be lofty" and "to be firm", they are not describing anything specific, but when specifics (or details) are introduced it will create a new understanding of something.

What I mean by that is: we can take the two words "lofty" and "firm" and put them together in a term that is "lofty firm", this term makes no sense in and of itself, but change one of the words to an attribute of the word while keeping the other word the same we can get the term "lofty firmness" which by this, we can get at least two different perspectives of what this term represents.

One of the new words we can get from the term "lofty firmness" is the word "authority", but we can also see it as the word "pride", which can bring up the question, "Which is of God and which is of man?"

But also if one is understood as one thing and the other is understood as something else, with the term "to be lofty" as "authority" and the term "to be firm" as "the word", we can be brought into a new transition that "God" who is "authority" and "the word" being "firmness" we can get the term "God is the authority of His word" or "God is the strength of His word" and even "God is the power of His Word", which by this, we can see in Scripture what is meant by the words of Christ (who is "the Word"), "I can do nothing of myself", they have to work together as one.

With what I have come to understand through all that I have been taught up to this point in my life, God is the authority of His written word, not man ..... but yet men claim to be the authority of the written word of God.

I no longer trust men to understand His written word, I now rely on the source to understand and I have also come to understand that no matter how far fetched something may sound to me, I have to follow through with it until He brings me to the end result of what He was trying to teach me.

The reason I have to agree with what I have been shown is because even these two abstract terms can refer to "the head" and "the body" in that God is the head of the body of Christ and it can also be understood as; Christ is the head of the church, also understood as, Christ is the head of the body that is His church.

Verse one is, by what I have been shown, the framework of everything that we are to understand and what I mean by that is: these two abstract terms are the basis upon which all understandings come out of, which by understanding them in this way, we can come to understand that out of the darkness (an abstract word or term) all light (understanding) is revealed.

Getting back to our continued understanding of verse two, these two terms "to lie waste" and "to be empty" are abstract terms of what "to be firm" became or was (again, both words are used in it's definition). But what I saw (or rather, what I was shown) is that the word "darkness" is the word used as the result of the combination of the two terms "to lie waste" and "to be empty".

Today I will leave it at this point to reflect upon it.




Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

7 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:13 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
What I have come to understand in Day One of Genesis so far in everything I have written so far is the aspect of what was hidden from mankind (the general population) but slowly revealed through the prophets and was fully revealed through Christ in His teachings.

But, this aspect of what I am about to talk about was not revealed to me until this morning, despite the fact that I knew the concept all along but never really realized the importance of it. The reason I believe the connection was never made by me, is because of the importance of understanding, that it comes directly from Him through His Spirit; revealed to our spirit so that He gets the glory for the work, the credit for what was done, not us.

What I am about to write about is the concept of the conditions of what is "on the outside" and what is "on the inside". This is why I believe that I was brought into "a form of darkness" in that I can just give up on writing and concede to the fact that His written word can become so complicated that it becomes so overwhelming that I think, "what's the use".

It is through this statement of "What's the use" and giving up that God reveals it from a different perspective in that He changes the "statement" into a "question". It is by the changing of "a statement" into "a question" that He is taking what was spoken out of the darkness of our mind or heart and changing it into something "to be sought", "to seek for an answer". For me, it is understanding the concept of "a seed must first die and fall to the ground, and in the fertile soil it grows into something wonderful".

For it to remain a dead seed is for that "statement" to remain a "statement" in our mind and by it remaining as "it is" it can become even darker, which we can understand as becoming depressed, or even the concept of dying or death. Because if it never becomes "a question" that can lead us to an answer, we can continue to ask more and more questions with no answers and that is what I believe God means by dying.

To take questions and more questions and even more questions that go unanswered and then by piling them all on top of each other, we are putting ourselves into a grave, the place of the dead. All these questions become the dirt that is thrown on top of us, burying us alive and we are in constant turmoil or torment trying to dig ourselves out, back out of the grave.

Now, because of this new understanding I have be shown, am I to disregard everything that I have written up to this point? No, I do not believe so, and the reason I don't believe so is because everything we learn up to any given point in our walk of understanding is just as important as everything we will come to understand.

Understanding the concept of "all things are seed" but if it remains only as a seed, it never grows into that which it is meant to be. It is understanding that even the terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm" are seeds and when they are turned into questions "to be lofty?" and "to be firm?" these two terms, in the form of questions, become terms of a hidden action, in that we are seeking to understand what the questions "to be lofty?" and "to be firm?" mean.

How much more do we bury ourselves with? .... meaning: How much more do we bury ourselves by all our questions? Who or what is God? Who or what is Christ? Who or what is the Holy Spirit? What does this mean? What does that mean? and the ultimate question: Who or what am I?

Impatience is the quickest way to the grave, the quickest way to the place of the dead. Impatience is the means by which we continue to ask more and more questions before we even get an answer to the first one we asked. We know that the nature of man is to want it "now" rather than waiting and the problem with waiting is; we become even more impatient and this in itself brings about the concept of fear when we tell ourselves "I have to do something before it is too late." and with the mindset of thinking there is a point of "it's to late" that gives birth to the concept of fear in us.

And just like anything else, "fear" is also a seed that can grow and grow in us to the point of; fear becomes a beast that is constantly tormenting us and we have no ability or no understanding by which we can kill it. His Word says, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18), if this is true, and we believe that it is not just true, but it is truth, there should not be any kind of fear in us, or any kind of torment, including the "fear of death" constantly tormenting us or in other words; what men can instill in a person, "the fear of being sent to hell for all eternity", that has become a constant torment in our minds and hearts.

To be continued ......



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

8 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:52 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
I bought into the concept of "hell" because I was young in my walk with God and didn't know any better.  Isn't that what every one of us do? And if we grow up in religion, because children trust their parents and look up to them for wisdom, there is no way a child would believe that their parents can be wrong or worse yet, believe that they can be deceived.

To take things for granted is to believe something is true without finding out for yourself, which is how I understand being "a true witness", see for yourself. For me, taking it for granted is the easy way, the hard way is to find out for yourself. This is why I study His written word for myself, but I do not study it because "I" have a hunger for the truth, a passion for the truth, it is because God "put" that passion into me. It is because "He desired for me to come to the knowledge of the truth", it was my turn. Even this can be understood by the terms "to be lofty" and "to be firm", with "a passion" being that which I am firm in, and "the truth" is that which is lofty, in which the combination of the two terms working together as one is the term "a passion for the truth".

To take for granted that this first verse in His written word only has one meaning (heaven and earth) is to limit ourselves to God's infinite understanding of His Word and by this limitation, it becomes "to lie waste", "to be empty", it becomes a darkness that is upon our face. As I was writing this, the precept of "corporate" and "individual" came to mind, and the reason I believe it did is because of those terms. They are "corporate terms" and what I mean by that is; they are terms that describe many individual words.

Is this understanding His written word in "a spiritual sense" rather than "a physical sense"? What I mean by that is, this precept is not to apply to our physical life which has an effect on how we study His word (corporately "in" a church {physical}), but that it is to be applied to how we study His word which has an effect on our spiritual life in this physical body (individually "as" a church {spiritual}).

And if that is true, which I fully believe it is, would that not relate to the Tabernacle, the place in which God dwells, and that we ourselves are built in the pattern of that Tabernacle?

How much more does He have to show us before we understand the concept of, His precept of "conditions"?

The condition of "to be lofty"
The condition of "to be firm"
The condition of "to lie waste"
The condition of "to be empty"

up to the point of where I had gotten to in our study;

The word translated as "darkness" which means "the dark" which was taken from the condition of "to be dark".

Again, to be continued .....



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

9 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:52 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
This morning I wrote on another Christian chat board these thoughts:

"to be firm" and "to be lofty", the two measures (sons) created (made known) by God ... the First

Two corporate terms in which all individual words are made known by the First

which is Genesis 1:1 ..... understood in reverse


Another person wrote: Son is a thought communicated

In which I fully believe that is truth.

Is anyone's "thought communicated (son)" any less or more important than another's? No, I do not believe so, but what I also believe is that "one thought communicated (son)" can be better than another, with the word "better" understood as "a higher authority". This can be understood in the difference between "the first Adam" and "the last Adam" and what I mean by that is:

"the first Adam" is not any less or more important than "the last Adam" when it comes to understanding, but one "son (thought communicated)" is a higher authority than the other.

If the first Adam is a representation of "the flesh" and the last Adam is a representation of "the Spirit", is not the Spirit a higher authority than the flesh but at the same time not being less or more important than the other? and is not our own spirit (small "s") a higher authority in this physical body, but also understanding that God's Spirit is a higher authority than our own spirit?



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

10 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:29 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
If we are to understand that Scripture always defines itself, so that there is no confusion .... again, because God is not a God of confusion, we always have to understand that things in Scripture are defined right away.

What I mean by this is; seeing that the second part of verse two is an explanation in other terms of what is meant in the first part of the verse. It is seeing it in this way: That .....

"darkness was upon the face of the deep" is an explanation of "the earth was without form and void", but it is also an understanding of how each example relates to other examples. And what I mean by that is this:

the word "darkness" relates to the word "void"
the words "the face" relates to the words "without form"
the word "deep" relates to the word "earth" (or phrase "to be firm")

The reason for this is to get a better understanding of what is taking place and what I mean by that is the understanding of "a change has taken place" and that another change is about to take place by God when we read the words "the Spirit of God moved".

This term "to be firm" has depth, and what I mean by that is what I had mentioned earlier, that it is a corporate term that can be understood in many different ways through individual words. and that any other term that contains the words "to be" is a description of something that has depth, which I believe is to understand that the word "depth" or the word "deep" are words used to see into ourselves. In an expanded understanding of this, it is to see that when we look into ourselves, we can understand that we ourselves have depth and that this word "deep" is a word used to describe ourselves WITH an understanding that we also have "depth".

It is going back again to verse one and understanding it in the way I described earlier:

The two corporate terms "to be firm" and "to be lofty" are made known by God, the First,
now understood as
"the depth of the word firm" and "the depth of the word lofty" are made known by God, the First.

The words "to be" become a new understanding in the term of "the depth of", because to take this even farther in understanding, is seeing that the words "the word" is a representation of Christ Himself because He is "The Word " and by it we can come into a new understanding that:

"The depth of Christ is firm" and "the depth of Christ is lofty", it is by this we come to know the truth of: the first term is one of, that Christ is unchanging, He always remains the same and in the second term we come to know the truth of: that God (the Father) is the authority of Christ which I believe Paul completely understood when he wrote the words "the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). I also believe that this is what John was shown when he wrote down the words "the Word was with God" which relates to the word "firm" and "the Word was God" which relates to the word "lofty".

And I also believe that both of these also relate to "identity" in which the words "the Word was with God" is His identity as "the Son" and the words "the Word was God" is His identity as "the Father".

I don't know about you, but for me, to come to an understanding that someone else understood two thousand years ago is to see that God works the same in people now as He did then. Paul only had what men gathered together as the Old Testament for us, but we also have what men gathered together as the New Testament for us which is a new understanding of what is revealed to them of the Old Testament through God's Spirit given to them, and if we don't think God continues to work in our lives the same way He did back then, we do nothing but limit ourselves to our own understanding or the understandings of other men.



Last edited by J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D. on Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

11 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:24 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
Moving on to the word "face", it is defined as: the face, as the part that turns. We can think of this as "the head" in that the head can turn to look in another direction while at the same time the body can remain in the same position, but is this the way it is to be understood? I myself see a deeper understanding of this in that it is specifically speaking of "the face" in the context of "expression". And what I mean by that is: facial expressions change according to what we can feel inside and also they can change according to outside influences.

Is this what is to be understood when we read the words "darkness was upon the face of the deep"? I myself believe so, because to understand it in this way, how many different words can be seen to describe "darkness was upon the face"? Grief, sadness, sorrow, disappointment, confusion and even the word "death" are all words that can describe facial expressions and again, that our face "turns" into an expression according to what we feel inside or according to outside influences, such as what is seen by our eyes or what is heard by our ears.

Outside influences are the greatest enemies or they can be the greatest allies, and if we are not firm in what we believe what God tells us about "who we are", we can easily be influenced by other men in what they say about "who we are". The depth of understanding this single word "face" is so important and most just skim right over it with no thought about the depth of it.

When we see the faces of people, the face is their identity, it is what we can recognize, to whether we know that person or not. If every one looked exactly the same, could we know who are friends or family are and who are strangers to us?

Understanding this is to see that the phrase "darkness was upon the face of the deep" is seeing that "darkness was upon the identity of the deep", which again through the concept of personification, if "the deep" is a person, and "the face" has to do with their identity and "darkness" was upon it, is "darkness" the identity of "the deep"?

Before the question "Is darkness the identity of the deep?" is answered, we need to move on to the moving of the Spirit of God which is the last part of this second verse.



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

12 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:57 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
This word translated as the word "moved" has the meaning of: A primitive root; to brood; by implication to be relaxed:

Since it has a meaning of "to brood" and by it being translated as the word "moved" we know this to be a verb which signifies an action, which by we can also see this in; by implication "to be relaxed".

In this term "to be relaxed", like all other things there is something hidden that can easily be overlooked when we don't stop to think about it. What I mean by this is; If we are to relax, what was our condition before, that now requires us "to relax"? Would it not be, being tense, like muscles that are tense or muscles that are stiffened?

Understanding this word "moved" in its original meaning of "to brood" is an action (verb) of:

verb (used with object)
1. to sit upon (eggs) to hatch, as a bird; incubate.
2. (of a bird) to warm, protect, or cover (young) with the wings or body.
3. to think or worry persistently or moodily about; ponder: i.e. He brooded the problem.

and also:
verb (used without object)
1. to sit upon eggs to be hatched, as a bird.
2. to dwell on a subject or to meditate with morbid persistence (usually followed by over or on).

Now with this verse, we see that the word "upon" followed the word "moved", in which this word "upon" can also be understood as the word "on", so should we not understand this in the context of the second definition of a verb, used without object, to dwell on a subject or to meditate with morbid persistence? I myself believe so.

With the concept of also understanding this within the context of a bird sitting upon eggs to be hatched, we also come to understand that something has already taken place, the laying of an egg and that now the bird is waiting for it to hatch, in which, the egg is a new life waiting to be born.

So understanding it in this context, I believe we are to see that God Himself was meditating with morbid persistence. And again, going back to the word "face" and that being understood as "identity" and also the word "deep", understood in the concept of personification that "the deep" is a person ..... we can come to a conclusion of: that God was meditating with morbid persistence on "the identity of the deep", and because we know that God does not associate Himself with an identity of "darkness", He was waiting on the perfect word that would describe everything that He is and everything He was thinking. In other words, He was waiting on the perfect word to be hatched, which can also be understood as: He was waiting on the perfect word to be born. And I ask, "Who is the Perfect Word?"

And then it happened, it is like understanding that God Himself had a revelation ... and a word came to His mind that would describe that revelation ... and that the perfect word that was born inside of Himself, that would not only describe who He is, but it would also describe what He is and that word, was the word "LIGHT" and because of that He says "Let there be light".

Understanding this is to understand the concept of, God gave birth to Himself outside of Himself and because it was a birth outside of Himself, He called what was born outside of Himself "light" in which we also come to understand as "a Son".

There are so many things that cannot be comprehended by a mind that is unable to look into the depths of itself that in the inaction of not searching the depths of oneself, the self keeps itself blind to who self is. And this concept is nothing but confusion to another if it has not been revealed to them by Himself.



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

13 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:59 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
It has been quite awhile since I have added anything to this, but I believe it was for a purpose, and that purpose is, to better explain what was to come next in the comparison of the words "deep" and "waters".

Again, because His word should always define itself immediately so there is no confusion, what I see before and after the word "moved" that each phrase "the face of the deep" and "the face of the waters" is each defining themselves as an expansion of an understanding. What I mean by this is: with the word "deep", it is in a singular sense, and with the word "waters", it is in a plural sense.

By this understanding we see a singular sense word (deep) is expanded to a plural sense word (waters) for a deeper understanding of "the one becomes more than one" and an expansion of that can be understood as "the one becomes many", and in the reverse order that "the many become one", which is the concept that Christ teaches in that "the first becomes last and the last becomes first."

I have probably said it before, but I feel it needs repeating, and that is: when we read the written word of God, it cannot and should not be taken within the context of just the surrounding words or verses, it needs to be taken within the context of the whole written word, not just a part and that is because I believe that when it is only taken within the context of just a part, we limit ourselves to an expansion; a deeper understanding of His written word and by that we can limit ourselves to a deeper understanding of the "Living Word" ... Christ Himself.

Because what comes to mind in all of this is a bigger picture of, and a deeper understanding of: is mankind (many) as a whole a physical manifestation of "a crucified word", understood in a corporate/plural sense in that it is divided and that Christ Himself became the physical manifestation of all of mankind (many) in the one; a singular sense? Would this not put the words "deep" and "waters" into a new perspective of Christ and mankind? Because is not the work of Christ in us to create us into His image and that includes "all" of mankind?

And would this not bring us to a deeper understanding that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world and that mankind has become the physical manifestation of it (in a plural sense) poured out into the ground (earth)?



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

14 Re: Genesis (Day One) on Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:22 pm

J.U.G.G.H.E.A.D.

avatar
Admin
To go even further into the depths of understanding, could not "the word divided" (crucified) be the examples of "the tree of Life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" with Christ we know for a fact as "the Tree of Life", but what we may be ignorant of, is that mankind is "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" because do we not eat of the knowledge of mankind? Because does not mankind contain the knowledge of good and evil? But do we or even can we, fully understand the depths of good or evil without God? If we believe we can or do, is that not to rely on our own understanding?

God is all about identity ... and the word "face" is a representation of identity and that in the face, the face manifests everything that is inside us. It is an understanding that what was hidden inside can be manifested by the face for others to see. But also that what is inside can remain hidden and a different expression can be manifested, and what I mean by that is, despite the fact that a person can be depressed on the inside, the face can give the impression of happiness just by smiling and then speaking words like "I'm just tired". And those words can be believed simply because the facial expressions of depression and being tired are very similar.

And what came to mind with this is, "Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light", because this whole picture is one of, one person thought another was depressed and the person that saw this depression recognized it and ask the other about it, and rather than admit to this depression, they have to remain strong in the eyes of another so as to not appear weak.

The nature of mankind is one of "never show weakness", and the apostle Paul understood this when he said that he will boast in his weaknesses. The nature of man is to always hide his weaknesses and that is because he does not want to appear weak in the eyes of another. Do we not see this in the example of "ignorance", the nature of man will not admit he is ignorant of things, and by not admitting he is or might be ignorant, he becomes "the accuser", he becomes Satan, accusing another of what they believe is a lie and that is because only the truth can be revealed by God, it can be revealed "through" men but not unless it has been revealed by God inside of them first.

And of course if it has not been revealed to the one it is being spoken to, it becomes a lie to them. Therefore, when what is spoken by one has not been revealed to the one being spoken to, the one speaking becomes in their eyes "the father of lies", because even this example shows that in our own eyes, God can become Satan in our own eyes if the truth He is speaking to us is not the same as what we already believe.

Coming into the knowledge of the truth is an ongoing process, it is never ending ... simply because Christ is "Truth" and He is never ending, He is infinite .... He is "Eternal". The word "eternal" is an attribute of God/Christ, it does not pertain to just time as we understand it. If we believe we "know the truth" or believe "we know enough" that in itself keeps us from moving on, it keeps us from moving, and to stop moving is to remain where we are and if "all truth" has not yet been revealed, despite the fact that we believe it has been, we become like stagnant water in which it is no longer being cleansed by the flow of fresh water (new understandings) into it, and if it is not constantly being cleansed (regenerated) it will die.

For me, the understanding of God's Spirit (breath) "moving in us" is Life itself, and if His Spirit stops moving in us, is that not like "death". Have we not all felt like we die if God's Spirit stops moving in us, if we feel like He is not there with us? Did not Christ Himself feel this and speak the words "My Father, My Father, why has thou forsaken me?" Were those words not the last words He spoke upon the cross and then his physical death became the physical manifestation of those words?

Do we understand these words of Christ upon the cross as "an entering into darkness", an entering into death ..... a darkness of not knowing why His Father had forsaken Him, is this line Christ spoke from the cross "truth" since He said He was "the Truth" or were these words spoken because He only believed "in that moment" His Father had forsaken Him?

We know for a fact that God did not forsake Him because of His resurrection, that the believing of the lie "He had been forsaken" was only temporary. Do we consider the state of death as permanent or only temporary? Did Eve consider this in the garden or is that something that was neglected to be said, by either God or the serpent? Is this the mystery that was to be revealed through Christ? That which was hidden since the foundation of the world?

Have we become an identity of death; of darkness ... or do we by understanding that it is only a temporary state now have an identity of Life; of Light? Are we "double minded" in an understanding of: death is permanent for some while temporary for others and that it only becomes temporary if "we" do something about it; just believe it is?

Just because something is not believed as truth, does not change the fact that it is truth. And just because something is not believed as truth does not automatically make it a lie.



Wisdom is not measured by time, it is measured by understanding

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum