URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Love God Only
  HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Biblical Discussions
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 15451--------------------------------------------------
       Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: Kerry Date: July 7, 2017, 12:38 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ever notice the difference in how Goliath and David spoke?
       Goliath says -- "beasts of the field" or "cattle."
       1 Samuel 17:44 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and
       I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the
       beasts of the field.
       David says  -- "wild beasts of the earth".
       46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I
       will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give
       the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the
       fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all
       the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
       I believe Goliath revealed how he wanted to corrupt all nature.
       It's not natural for cows or sheep to eat the flesh of humans;
       but that's what he said he would do.  David was content to say
       he'd let the wild animals do that kind of eating.  Not only was
       Goliath  corrupt himself, he wanted to corrupt all nature.
       #Post#: 15459--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: paralambano Date: July 8, 2017, 11:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]I believe Goliath revealed how he wanted to corrupt all
       nature.  It's not natural for cows or sheep to eat the flesh of
       humans; but that's what he said he would do.  David was content
       to say he'd let the wild animals do that kind of eating.  Not
       only was Goliath  corrupt himself, he wanted to corrupt all
       nature. [/quote]
       Ya, that's what Goliath imagined -  - a world where docile
       animals turn wild instead of the other way around (millennium).
       para .  .  .  .
       #Post#: 15465--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: Kerry Date: July 9, 2017, 7:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=paralambano link=topic=1239.msg15459#msg15459
       date=1499531746]
       Ya, that's what Goliath imagined -  - a world where docile
       animals turn wild instead of the other way around (millennium).
       para .  .  .  .
       [/quote]Yes, creating more chaos and disorder instead of wanting
       peace and tranquility.  I see it as a wish to pervert the
       principles set forth in Genesis for days five and six.  I also
       see Goliath as a type of "beast" himself, as a type of 666.
       There are hints this may be so.  Perhaps the most notable is
       where David aims his shot -- right in the middle of Goliath's
       forehead -- indicating the corrupt imagination of darkened inner
       eye.  His height contains a six being  "six cubits and a span."
       His spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron.  He also had six
       fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.
       That then makes me ask why David chose only five stones.   These
       were "stones" from a brook, rather like "dry land" from the
       water.  One was enough, so why five?  Better safe than sorry, of
       course; but I think the five also show the desire to establish
       harmony by the first five days of Genesis so man could work on
       the principle set forth in day six,  where men need to work on
       themselves.
       
       #Post#: 15476--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: paralambano Date: July 11, 2017, 9:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kerry -
       [quote]Yes, creating more chaos and disorder instead of wanting
       peace and tranquility.  I see it as a wish to pervert the
       principles set forth in Genesis for days five and six.  I also
       see Goliath as a type of "beast" himself, as a type of 666.
       There are hints this may be so.  Perhaps the most notable is
       where David aims his shot -- right in the middle of Goliath's
       forehead -- indicating the corrupt imagination of darkened inner
       eye.  His height contains a six being  "six cubits and a span."
       His spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron.  He also had six
       fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. [/quote]
       A couple of things here. I don't doubt that Goliath was a type
       of anti-Christ. Some "fundamentalist" evangelicals might
       disagree with my use of the word "anti-Christ" here since
       perhaps they figure Christ Jesus had yet to appear or maybe
       there can only be the one "real" anti-Christ some might be
       waiting for, but I'm using the term in the sense of anything
       that is opposed to Truth Divine by which David operated.
       Goliath is compared to bear and lion, is seen as one who is
       invincible and boastful, asks David if he (Goliath) is a dog and
       he's wounded in the head and then has his head severed. John, in
       his Book employs these terms to write of an anti-Christ in his
       own time.
       Yes to the suggestion that the forehead represents the darkened
       eye of Goliath. I would add that it was Goliath's thinking that
       was darkened.
       [quote]That then makes me ask why David chose only five stones.
       These  were "stones" from a brook, rather like "dry land" from
       the water.  One was enough, so why five?  Better safe than
       sorry, of course; but I think the five also show the desire to
       establish harmony by the first five days of Genesis so man could
       work on the principle set forth in day six,  where men need to
       work on themselves. [/quote]
       On the surface of it, some say Goliath was one of five brothers
       so David was arming himself against the vendetta. That may very
       well be so. I tend to see the kind of stones chosen and where
       they were taken from as symbolizing the purification (smoothing)
       of the five senses by Living Waters. It's the appearance of
       Goliath which terrified the Israelites so it's one stone that
       will change it slung by God's true man seeing/understanding what
       God can do. So, I agree with what you've written above. God's
       true man establishes order where chaos threatens.
       para .  .  .  .
       #Post#: 15485--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: Kerry Date: July 13, 2017, 5:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=paralambano link=topic=1239.msg15476#msg15476
       date=1499783862]
       Kerry -
       A couple of things here. I don't doubt that Goliath was a type
       of anti-Christ. Some "fundamentalist" evangelicals might
       disagree with my use of the word "anti-Christ" here since
       perhaps they figure Christ Jesus had yet to appear or maybe
       there can only be the one "real" anti-Christ some might be
       waiting for, but I'm using the term in the sense of anything
       that is opposed to Truth Divine by which David
       operated.[/quote]I use the word the way you do.  Those with the
       anointing of the Spirit can be called Christlike, and anything
       in opposition is anti-Christ.   I believe that's how John used
       the word in his Epistle; and that's the only place it's used.
       [quote]Goliath is compared to bear and lion, is seen as one who
       is invincible and boastful, asks David if he (Goliath) is a dog
       and he's wounded in the head and then has his head severed.
       John, in his Book employs these terms to write of an anti-Christ
       in his own time.
       Yes to the suggestion that the forehead represents the darkened
       eye of Goliath. I would add that it was Goliath's thinking that
       was darkened.[/quote]Yes, we agree.
       [quote]On the surface of it, some say Goliath was one of five
       brothers so David was arming himself against the vendetta. That
       may very well be so. I tend to see the kind of stones chosen and
       where they were taken from as symbolizing the purification
       (smoothing) of the five senses by Living Waters. It's the
       appearance of Goliath which terrified the Israelites so it's one
       stone that will change it slung by God's true man
       seeing/understanding what God can do. So, I agree with what
       you've written above. God's true man establishes order where
       chaos threatens.[/quote]
       The different places Goliath is mentioned are still not
       completely clear in my mind.
       One Jewish interpretation says that "Elhanan the son of
       Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite" was another way of saying "David."
       They say David killed the brother of Goliath later.   Perhaps it
       wasn't Goliath himself who had the six fingers and six toes?
       Not that changes my opinion of Goliath as being an anti-Christ
       type of fellow.
       I think I like the explanation about the brothers better than my
       former explanation.   There was a family of these giants as 2
       Samuel 21 indicates.
       I also see the spirit of anti-Christ at work in Jezebel.  Talk
       about having a wicked imagination.  Ahab might have been a much
       better king if he hadn't fallen under her spell.   I think
       that's shown too by the description of how the dogs wouldn't eat
       her hands, feet  and face.
       It may surprise some too that I see the Passover as somehow
       connected with the removal of the wicked imagination from
       Israel.   It was certainly not considered a sacrifice  for sin
       since one of the prophets said Israel was not commanded to have
       sacrifices for sin while they were in Egypt.   The removal of
       wicked imagination is shown, I think, by where the blood was
       put:  Over the  doors and on the sideposts.   If you visualize a
       man standing in the door,  those would correspond to the head
       and hands.   The "Blood of the Lamb" is meant to transform the
       mind and spirit -- so that humans attain the spirit of the lamb.
       Past sins seem rather trivial and can be forgotten as if they
       never existed if a man's  mind is transformed so that he will
       not sin again.     In a way, I suppose sin in a certain way
       never did really exist anyway although its spell seems powerful
       when men are believing in it.
       #Post#: 15488--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Why the Difference -- Cattle and Beasts
       By: paralambano Date: July 13, 2017, 9:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kerry -
       [quote]The different places Goliath is mentioned are still not
       completely clear in my mind.
       One Jewish interpretation says that "Elhanan the son of
       Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite" was another way of saying "David."
       They say David killed the brother of Goliath later.   Perhaps it
       wasn't Goliath himself who had the six fingers and six toes?
       Not that changes my opinion of Goliath as being an anti-Christ
       type of fellow.
       I think I like the explanation about the brothers better than my
       former explanation.   There was a family of these giants as 2
       Samuel 21 indicates.[/quote]
       One does not have to have six fingers and six toes to be
       anti-Christ as we no doubt understand. Apparently, I'm unable as
       of yet to travel back in time to ascertain the precise
       appearance of any of these characters and their families. I
       prefer your reading put forward of the Days of the Book of
       Genesis in this regard to that of the brothers since it strongly
       suggests that God is Good. It's a spiritual rendering rather
       than a fleshly one. Here it is:
       Quote from Kerry (italics mine):
       [quote]Better safe than sorry, of course; but I think the five
       also show the desire to establish harmony by the first five days
       of Genesis so man could work on the principle set forth in day
       six,  where men need to work on themselves. [/quote]
       This tells me more about what God is to you in part than who the
       giants were and how they appeared.
       [quote]I also see the spirit of anti-Christ at work in Jezebel.
       Talk about having a wicked imagination.  Ahab might have been a
       much better king if he hadn't fallen under her spell.   I think
       that's shown too by the description of how the dogs wouldn't eat
       her hands, feet  and face.  [/quote]
       It's all imagining and thinking, Kerry. It's what we do all the
       day long.
       [quote]It may surprise some too that I see the Passover as
       somehow connected with the removal of the wicked imagination
       from Israel.   It was certainly not considered a sacrifice  for
       sin since one of the prophets said Israel was not commanded to
       have sacrifices for sin while they were in Egypt.   The removal
       of wicked imagination is shown, I think, by where the blood was
       put:  Over the  doors and on the sideposts.   If you visualize a
       man standing in the door,  those would correspond to the head
       and hands.   The "Blood of the Lamb" is meant to transform the
       mind and spirit -- so that humans attain the spirit of the lamb.
       Past sins seem rather trivial and can be forgotten as if they
       never existed if a man's  mind is transformed so that he will
       not sin again.     In a way, I suppose sin in a certain way
       never did really exist anyway although its spell seems powerful
       when men are believing in it.   [/quote]
       Ya, the mind and spirit (body usefulness). Ya too to sin never
       having actually existed. How could it really when everything
       actual came from Good? A good and perfect tree never produces
       bad fruit. A good and perfect spring does not produce sweet and
       bitter waters. We live in a world of our thinking (good and
       evil).
       para .  .  .  .
       *****************************************************