₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
Classic!

good day my good friend.

johnydon22:
Wooow am impressed . . . really really impressed

I see, you are not bias this time, keep it up.

Pr0ton:
So you don't know that Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2



You post contains flaws. The author of Matthew was never an eye witness. They (Matthew and Paul) also don't agree on so many things. For example, Matt 5:17 says Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, while Eph 2:15 says He came to abolish the law.



Peter sees himself as the head, Paul sees him as nothing Gal. 2:6

if you want to talk about peter dispute with Paul you can create a thread and demand for answer;
Galatians 2:12-13
For prior to the coming of certain men
from James, he used to eat with the
Gentiles; but when they came, he began
to withdraw and hold himself aloof,
fearing the party of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews joined him in
hypocrisy, with the result that even
Barnabas was carried away by their
hypocrisy.

Even peter know what he was doing is wrong that why he withdraw himself.

"but should write to them to
abstain from the things polluted
by idols, and from sexual
immorality, and from what has
been strangled, and from blood."
Acts 15:20, ESV

"But when I saw that their conduct
was not in step with the truth of
the gospel, I said to Cephas
before them all, 'If you, though a
Jew, live like a Gentile and not
like a Jew, how can you force the
Gentiles to live like Jews?'” Gal.
2:14, ESV
(regarding abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols) "He requireth nothing at their hands but that which they were bound to do by brotherly concord." -Calvin's Commentary on Acts
"his conduct was greatly
aggravated by compelling the
Gentiles to observe Jewish
ceremonies, while he, being a
Jew, left himself at liberty. The
law was given to Jews, not to
Gentiles; so that he argues from
the less to the greater...he
compelled the Gentiles, by
withdrawing from their
communion, unless they chose to
submit to the yoke of the law"
Calvin's Commentary on Galatians
It seems that James was requiring
the Gentiles to live like Jews in
order to keep "brotherly concord."
Though nothing wrong in itself
with the meat, the Jews see it as
wrong so let's abstain to keep the
Gentile & Jewish church united. (a
lesson in our day regarding
alcohol consumption among
brothers?)

The context in eph2:15 is ONE IN CHRIST. The context does not indicating abandoned the law, it about one UNION.infacte Paul himself said this;

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither
slave nor free, nor is there male and
female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus.
Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
means anything; what counts is the new
creation.

The law cannot saved us but it is the instruments which God will used to saved us, the law is to revealed our sinful nature,without the law I will not known "adultery" so when Paul mention we are One in christ, it indicating that we should look up to christ as a perfect example in keeping the law, infacte the context does not say we should abolished anything, read from verse one too the end.

Many christians cult are misinterpreting the bible, if you want to understand the bible, first understand the context.

Pr0ton:
The same Greek word is used in the two verses and their meanings should be the same. If the writer had wanted it different he would have used a different word to clear up confusion, especially when he said to be divinely inspired.



There is. It's just irreconcileable.

what do you mean by "their"? We are not talking about two different word but ONE and it's the word "hear" and the word (hear) has two different meaning but if you pay close attention to the meaning,they are indicating the same thing. hearing the voice and do not see who is talking is the same thing as I do not hear.

udatso:
Chai........ See twisting. Malvisguy212. Please save yourself the trouble and tell him verses such as these can be best understood in the spirit. He needs the holy spirit to reconcile those verses. Tell him to pray to God and fast for holy spirit to reveal the knowledge within.

you don't know what you are talking about, I will not go into the quran to attack you as they say "two wrong cannot make a right" but know this the quran is the only religious book that abrogate it teaching and the same replace revelation are still in the quran, so pleased just stay out of this.

Pr0ton:
Now I'm clear on what we are arguing about here.



And that is not a contradiction to you? We are focusing on the word "hear" and not whether they understood what they heard or not.



First, and again, since we are focusing on the word "hear" why should you say that they didn't hear the voice even when the verse says they did?

Second, what is it that they did not understand? How could they not understand something they had not heard? "They heard a voice, but they didn't understand" has more meaning than "They did not hear the voice, but didn't understand". If you are going for the former sentence, remember we are focusing on the word "hear" i.e whether they heard or not, and not whether they understood or not.



Are you trying to say they heard the voice even when the verse apparently says they didn't?



It's rather: they heard the voice but didn't understand.



and, according to they verse, they didn't hear the voice. Maybe you should reread the verses.



Yeah.

very good, you agree, the two verse is talking about "hear" and not" understand" now this is my points, the word hear has two Greek meaning are;
" The genitive case is the
sense of "being aware but not
understanding", whereas the
other is in the sense of "you
heard it."

This two meaning are pointing to the same thing the word "hear" YOU HERED IT AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND IS AS GOOD AS YOU DID NOT HEARD IT.

The encounter made Paul to be blind, he couldn't have seen there reaction or faces,but after the encounter, he could've known the people what happened,honestly I don't know how to put it, but trust me, there is no contradiction in there, the misunderstanding come from the Greek and English meaning of the word.

I am busy I may not be able tp reply you the way you preferred.peace.

FrancisTony:
I'm a believer, christian but I don't concur with everything written in the bible especially some Paul's teaching and I believe old things(testatement) have passed away.

which of the Paul teaching you don't believe? If you reject some Paul teaching then you must reject peter.

As to this salvation, the prophets who
prophesied of the grace that would
come to you made careful search and
inquiry, ( 1 Peter 1:10)
Therefore, gird your minds for action,
keep sober in spirit, fix your hope
completely on the grace to be brought
to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
( 1 Peter 1:13)

Here peter one of Jesus disciple and an eye witnesses quote Paul teaching of grace, if Paul were teaching lies, peter would've rebuke him, even Paul say if an angel or apostle preach different gospel,let him be accused.

Matthew (another eyewitness) even
quoted Jesus, " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18) if you reject Paul then you must reject peter and matthew.

I can go on and on, Luke quote Paul and peter was among the disciples of Jesus.if Paul was contradicting Jesus, Luke will accused him and even peter, infacte peter was the head of the church there is no way the head will seat and watch the least of the apostle teach different messages.

Pr0ton:
But their effect are different, right? If yes, then the Greek words must be different too. If they aren't, then you are only typing fallacy, because I see no reason why akouo which appeared 373 times in the NT and translated as hear,hearing and heard in wherever it appeared should be taken as understand in one exceptional verse if not for the purpose of deceit. The word "understand" appeared 52 times in the NT and it is only from Act 22:9 did it have its root word as akouo. You yourself should see the deceit if you are open-minded. Akouo never means "being aware but not understanding" It is always explictly "to hear". Quit the twisting or I won't reply if you insist on distorting the true meaning of the Greek word. Everyone will justify my action. The truth is crystal clear here.

But then you've only attempted one contradiction

you are the one who do not understand the meaning here. we are talking about the word "hear" and NOT" understand" you inserted understand on each verse just to proved your points which is wrong,nobody is talking about understand here.

On one verse they HEAR the voice but do not see who is talking and the other verse they did not HEAR the voice.

" stood speechless, hearing a
voice, but seeing no man"

This does not mean they hear the voice meaning they understand.they did not understand that why they are speechless.

" and were afraid;
but they heard not the voice of him
that spake to me. "

Why are they afraid?they are aware of what is happening,if you do not hear a voice no need to be afraid.like I said earlier, this the meaning of the two verse;
"being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

I want you to know this also;the first verse is the actual event that happened,and the second one is Paul narrate what happened.

Pr0ton:
The other verses are in the OP. You know what you'll do? You'll translate the greek word akouo which literarily means "to hear" to "understand". You'll change it to understand in the two verses and let's see if it won't lead us to the same thing - contradiction.

I can even help you to make the task less boring. Here we go:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing understood a voice, but seeing no man. ACT 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard understood not the voice of him that spake to me. ACT 22:9

You say?

what do you understand here;
" The two verse you quote are related
with the same meaning. the case is
the sense of "being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

vedaxcool:
With all due respect Paul told a lie, he claimed he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, yet his witness was only him, Paul hated christ in life and lied against him in death.

Paul elevated his opinion above Jesus's and made himself the founder of Christianity;

Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:
(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) . [size=18pt] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV) [/size]
Paul's View on the Law. Paul says the opposite.
Paul is blunt in Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. [b]The Law is "abolished," "done away with," "nailed to a tree," "has faded away,' and was "only ordained by angels...who are no gods." [/b]If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 ("setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations"; Col. 2:14 ("having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;" 2 Cor. 3:14 ("old covenant"; Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of bondage"; Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is the end of the law"; 2 Cor. 3:7 ("law of death"; Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"; Col. 2:14-17 ("a shadow"; Rom. 3:27 ("law of works"; Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"; 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 ("cannot justify"; Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements".


Sorry we Muslims cannot take the words of a conman anymore serious than the words of Paul! Who is the master Jesus or Paul? We leave this question to the pseudo followers of Christ!

https://www.nairaland.com/2173054/what-jesus-meant-fullfiled-law

https://www.nairaland.com/1981918/did-paul-invent-christianity

And for Paul encounter with Jesus, I will paste the answer I gave an atheist just now;
The Greek word for "hear" (#191 akouo)
is used in two Greek cases in these two
verses.
The two verse you quote are related with
the same meaning. the case is the sense
of "being aware but not understanding",
whereas the other is in the sense of "you
heard it."

Pr0ton:
Ok. Since you insist on "understand" to be the right translation, what stops it from being applicable to the other verses?

bring the other verse.
https://www.nairaland.com/2239640/why-fear-death

EzioAuditore:
Are you denying it? Whatever accusation you want to make, you must back it up with proof! Muhammad (Pbuh) never stole, he never partook in any immoral sexual act, never killed without justification, and he never lied. If you have evidence of the contrary, proof is all I ask for.

did you back your proof with scriptural reference? Joseph 90 years?can a 90years old man walk for far distance while his wife is on a oxen because she is pregnant? You want to derailed this thread as you did with the other one with your long copy and paste?

Pr0ton:
The same greek word is used in both verses and are all translated as "hear". There is no distinction in the original greek words and they are the same. Changing their meaning would only raise an eyebrow.

Moreover, the same greek appeared many times in the NT and is being translated as "hear". There is another greek word for "understand" which is also used many times in the NT where the need arose, but not in any of the verses we are considering here. So that route you are trying to take only leads to failure, not reconcilation.

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts ( akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration. I do not explained this verse for you, but for thoes who you want to deceive.thank you for your time, it is either you find peace with God or you die with this trouble soul, ARE YOU READY?

Pr0ton:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, [size=20]I[/size] heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Act 26:14

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Act 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Act 22:9

One verse says that the men fell to the earth, another verse says they stood speechless.

One verse says the men heard a voice, another says they didn't.

How do you reconcile this?

The Greek word for "hear" (#191 akouo) is used in two Greek cases in these two
verses.
The two verse you quote are related with the same meaning. the case is the sense of "being aware but not understanding", whereas the other is in the sense of "you heard it."

sukkot:
bros which reading you need to do na ? we supply bible verse. there is no other reading to be done na

there is some chapter in the bible when God mention a name, He was reffering to a nation, but the context in Genesis one does not seems that way. Is Cain too a nation? Or abel? If abel is a nation, does that mean the death of Abel mean a nation is wipe out?

Rilwayne001:
No be so oo, I'm still waiting for you to open that thread.

ok,just they wait infacte no sleep.

FOLYKAZE:
Read this

Isaiah 45:7 KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

As par water, I dont know abeg

God did not create darkness,

I form the light, and create darkness: I
make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these things. ( Isaiah 45:7,
KJV)
evil is not really a created thing. You can't see, touch, feel, smell or hear evil. It is not one of the fundamental forces of physics, nor does it consist of matter, energy, or the spatial dimensions of the universe. The king James put it as if God created evil,the king James was translated 400 years ago during the England medieval period,Use of this translation is problematic these days,the KJV was produced using a limited number of medieval manuscripts that did not represent the earliest Alexandrian set of manuscripts.

Read the modern translations;
The One forming light and creating
darkness, Causing well-being and
creating calamity; I am the LORD who
does all these. ( Isaiah 45:7, NASB)

I form the light and create darkness, I
bring prosperity and create disaster; I,
the LORD, do all these things. ( Isaiah
45:7, NIV)

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm, which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh, the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b
(the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously,
"calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."
God is not the author of evil. However,
God does reward and punish on the
basis of good and bad behavior.
Therefore, God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through
human authorities) on those who rebel.
God will ultimately judge all people,
since rebels will not be allowed in the
new, perfect creation.

Op.when God created the heaven and earth, I think that include the water because the water and land have not been separated until God created the universe.genesis was like a summery to the creation story, as you continue to read the bible details will be given to you by the help of the holy spirit,
Infacte genesis say darkness cover the earth but did not give reason Why was the earth dark? Genesis one does not say, but other creation accounts in the Bible do say. In fact, in the book of Job, God Himself tells us the
answer:

"Where were you when I laid the
foundation of the earth? ...When I
made a cloud its garment, And thick
darkness its swaddling band" ( Job
38:4-9)

Rilwayne001:
when are you going to do your reading?

you want to join me and read?

MrPresident1:

Isaiah 49:6
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Acts 13:47
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Look at these two verses critically, and make your own deductions, whether Jesus Christ is one person, or a number of people.

acts13:47 ... I have seth thee(who is the "thee"? I think is Jesus) to be the light of the gentiles(other's nation) I understand your points very well.

MrPresident1:
Look at that verse very well, I want to use it to prove to you completely that Jesus Christ is not one person

Isaiah 49:6
And he said, It is a light thing that thou
shouldest be MY SERVANT to raise up
the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the
preserved of Israel: I will also give
thee for a light to the Gentiles, that
thou mayest be my salvation unto the
end of the earth.

If you are indicating "tribes of Jacob" mean more than one Jesus christ OR gentiles, but the verse say ,"MY SERVANT" the servant indicate ONE person, I think the one person is Jesus the Lord.

Rilwayne001:
Do you agree with sukkot that adam is not a man but group of people?

I will not conclude until I do my own reading.

sukkot:
well you know if a man anoints another man, it is not the man who really did it. the man was just a tool used to baptize ( which baptize means to teach the esoteric hidden meaning of scriptures to someone ) the other person. the person who really opens up your mind to either receive or reject the esoteric knowledge is God. we are all tools. so man cannot technically anoint another man. however he can be used as a tool by God to do it

alright, my battery is low, I will quote this post when I charge it. Thank you.

MrPresident1:
Who is the Bible talking about here?
Isaiah 49:6
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

enlightened me.

MrPresident1:
Just be a good boy Rili. God Himself will enlighten you.

Stop yabbing people unnecessarily, like I see you do all over the place

the guy is full of insults, he know how to yabb very well.

sukkot:
adam spirit was created in heaven. remember we have two components to our being. we are body and spirit. we are spiritual beings having a physical existence but our essence and who we truly are is our spirit. our spirit contains all our energy force and consciousness and intelligence. the flesh is just a piece of meat. so back to your question, the spirit of 'adam' was created in heaven but the flesh was created on earth. and when ' adam ' vacates his flesh and leaves his flesh to become dust to dust on earth, his spirit will return to the heavens and wait for the next body on earth that he will come through again. its called reincarnation. we return back to earth periodically

alright, rilwayn001 do you accepts adam spirit was created in heaven? This is the explanation I may accepts.

MrPresident1:
Jesus Christ is MEN endowed with different kinds of celestial powers that enable them to function as Orators, Scientists, Mighty men, Men of war etc.

THEY ARE THE KINGS OF ISREAL, her prudent men, her crème de la crème.

Isaiah 3:2-3
2 The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,
3 The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator

this is the explanation I can accepts,the big letters in your post, that my points, but to called the prophet Jesus christ, I will not accepts it.

sukkot:
well bros, it was God who anointed them all. the spirit of God is like a raging hurricane, it anoints those who the LORD has chosen to anoint. man cannot anoint another man. however the anointed men can teach the gentiles the ways of God

God spirit was upon Him, Jesus, Samuel anoint David and even saul David and saul were kings but Samuel was a prophet, it was God himself that told Samuel to anoint them.

sukkot:
ok lets see

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

the great multitude is the second fruit of harvest into the kingdom of heaven from all the heathen nations. however the first fruit is Jesus christ. in fact i think this verse will kill all arguments

HAAAAAAAAAA I FOUND THE VERSE. THE VERSE TO END ALL THIS ARGUMENT HAHAHAHA

1 CORINTHIANS 15 VERSE 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. <<<< CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS ? TELLING YOU WHAT ? THERE ARE MANY CHRISTS

CASE CLOSED. JURORS DISMISSED

I wanted to create a thread about this but I decided not to, let me ask you a question, I want to know your opinion on this.

My friend rilwayn001 say adam was created in heaven, how is this possible? Doesent this mean human when we die, we can go to heaven with our physical body? I have a strong feeling there is no gravity in heaven and the law that surround this universe is different from heaven.

sukkot:
[b]i never said the prophets of old did not exist. however these prophets of old are all called Jesus Christ. . i still dont think you are understanding where i am coming from. if i call every yoruba man JESUS CHRIST. if 30 of them wrote the bible. even though JESUS CHRIST did not exist as a person, the 30 men under the blanket name jesus christ wrote the bible. I AM NOT TELLING YOU THAT THESE MEN DID NOT EXIST. WHAT I AM TELLING YOU IS THAT THE NAMES IN THE BIBLE ARE NAMES OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE AND NOT SINGLE HUMAN BEINGS. there is no human being named jesus christ. however there was a group of people called jesus christ. the jesus christ is a title. THERE IS NO HUMAN BEING CALLED CEO. HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY MEN UNDER THE UMBRELLA CEO. CEO IS NOT THEIR NAME. CEO IS THEIR TITLE. THEY EXIST. THEY ARE ALIVE. BUT THERE INDIVIDUAL NAMES IS NOT CEO. MAYBE ONE IS CALLED TAOFIK. MAYBE THE OTHER IS KAYODE MAYBE ONE IS EMEKA. THEY EXIST. BUT THEY ARE NOT CALLED CEO. CEO IS THEIR TITLE. SAME WITH JESUS CHRIST OR ABRAHAM OR NOAH ETC ETC. THESE ARE TITLES. NOT SINGLE MEN. IF YOU UNDERSTAND HEBREW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT THE TITLES ARE IN ENGLISH[/b]

alright sukkot and Mrpresedent1 I understand now,but still there are some loop holes in your explanation, for example you say the prophet are all called Jesus christ, christ mean anointing,prophet don't anoint prophet, or did you ever read a prophet anoint a prophet? If you say the kings are Jesus christ, I may agree with you, but the prophet? I don't think so.

The man Jesus is the kings of kings and it is God himself that anoint Him, isaiah 61:1 say:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on
me, because the LORD has ANOINTED me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for
the captives and release from darkness
for the prisoners,

And in Luke4:18 it say;
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because
he has ANOINTED me to proclaim good
news to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim freedom for the prisoners and
recovery of sight for the blind, to set the
oppressed free,

So it was God himself that anoint Jesus as the kings of kings and any other kings were anointed by prophet whom God chose.

sukkot:
all lies. no human being was, is, or ever will be called jesus-christ. its a title not a name. and who do you mean when you say jews ?

I know your argument here about the real Jews, forget about that.

Isn't it great that God himself wanted to have a personal relationship with his creatures? And to do that , he will dwell in the flesh,for you to say Jesus do not exist meaning this relationship dints happened,let me tell you something, the bible were written by men who are shepherd and kings and most of this people are the once you said do not exist, how is it possible for a none existing being to write a book? Or is God himself that wrote the bible with his hand?

sukkot:
I dont read hebrew myself but if you add all the names together, there is a coded message in it. its a message and not actual peoples names. some guy who reads hebrew was able to decode some of it. here is it. it is a bit long but try to read it





[b]
A remarkable example of this can be glimpsed in Genesis Chapter 5, where we have the genealogy of Adam through Noah. This is one of those chapters which we often tend to skim over quickly as we pass through Genesis it's simply a genealogy from Adam to Noah.

But God always rewards the diligent student. Let's examine this chapter more closely.

In our Bible, we read the Hebrew names. What do these names mean in English?

A Study of Original Roots

The meaning of proper names can be a difficult pursuit since a direct translation is often not readily available. Even a conventional Hebrew lexicon can prove disappointing. A study of the original roots, however, can yield some fascinating insights.

(A caveat: many study aids, such as a conventional lexicon, can prove rather superficial when dealing with proper nouns. Furthermore, views concerning the meanings of original roots are not free of controversy and variant readings.)

Let's take an example.

The Flood Judgment

Methuselah comes from muth, a root that means "death";1 and from shalach, which means to bring, or to send forth. The name Methuselah means, "his death shall bring".2

Methuselah's father was given a prophecy of the coming Great Flood, and was apparently told that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld; but as soon as he died, the flood would be brought or sent forth.

(Can you imagine raising a kid like that? Every time the boy caught a cold, the entire neighborhood must have panicked!)

And, indeed, the year that Methuselah died, the flood came.3

It is interesting that Methuselah's life, in effect, was a symbol of God's mercy in forestalling the coming judgment of the flood.

Therefore, it is fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, speaking of the extensiveness of God's mercy.

The Other Names

If there is such significance in Methuselah's name, let's examine the other names to see what may lie behind them.

Adam's name means man. As the first man, that seems straight forward enough.

Seth

Adam's son was named Seth, which means appointed. Eve said, "For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."4

Enosh

Seth's son was called Enosh, which means mortal, frail, or miserable. It is from the root anash, to be incurable, used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness.

It was in the days of Enosh that men began to defile the name of the Living God.5

Kenan

Enosh's son was named Kenan, which can mean sorrow, dirge, or elegy. (The precise denotation is somewhat elusive; some study aids unfortunately presume that Kenan is synonymous with Cainan.)

Balaam, looking down from the heights of Moab, uses a pun upon the name of the Kenites when he prophesies their destruction.6

We have no real idea as to why these names were chosen for their children. Often they may have referred to circumstances at birth, and so on.

Mahalalel

Kenan's son was Mahalalel, from Mahalal which means blessed or praise; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means the Blessed God. Often Hebrew names include El, the name of God, as Dan-i-el, "God is my Judge", etc.

Jared

Mahalalel's son was named Jared, from the verb yaradh, meaning shall come down.7

Enoch

Jared's son was named Enoch, which means teaching, or commencement. He was the first of four generations of preachers. In fact, the earliest recorded prophecy was by Enoch, which amazingly enough deals with the Second Coming of Christ (although it is quoted in the Book of Jude in the New Testament):

Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against."
Jude 14, 15
Methuselah

Enoch was the father of Methuselah, who we have already mentioned. Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah.8 Apparently, Enoch received the prophecy of the Great Flood, and was told that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld. The year that Methuselah died, the flood came.

Enoch, of course, never died: he was translated 9 (or, if you'll excuse the expression, raptured ). That's how Methuselah can be the oldest man in the Bible, yet he died before his father!

Lamech

Methuselah's son was named Lamech, a root still evident today in our own English word, lament or lamentation. Lamech suggests despairing.

(This name is also linked to the Lamech in Cain's line who inadvertently killed his son Tubal-Cain in a hunting incident.10)

Noah

Lamech, of course, is the father of Noah, which is derived from nacham, to bring relief or comfort, as Lamech himself explains in Genesis 5:29.

The Composite List

Now let's put it all together:

Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.
That's rather remarkable:[/b]

[size=14pt]Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.[/size]

Here's the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis!

(You will never convince me that a group of Jewish rabbis conspired to hide the Christian Gospel right here in a genealogy within their venerated Torah!)

this is the first time I am learning about this, I have nothing to say here. Thank you.