You're in for a treat! The following project is absolutely stupendous.
What does BEGOTTEN mean?
(it doesn't mean what you think it means... please watch my interesting video talk!)
Isaiah 11 . 1
Isaiah 7 . 14
Isaiah 9. 1, 2, 7
Isaiah 6 . 9, 10
Isaiah 61 . 1-2
St. Luke 3 . 23-38
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Romans 8 . 29 KJV
Hebrews 2 .10 KJV
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be firstborn among many brethren (brothers)."
"For it became him, for whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
St. Luke 1 .26 - 1 .35
Luke 1:26-35
King James Version
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Genesis 9 . 24
“And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
HIS younger son HAD DONE UNTO HIM.
Double meaning: he could be referring to ADAM ('HIS') (not only his youngest, Japheth). Adam's younger “replacement” son, Seth, who was born in order to replace the bloodline of Abel, since Cain was ineligible for the bloodline after the murder of Abel.
Had Abel lived, if Noah was born under him, Canaan would not have been cursed and neither i believe, would he have to have built an Ark or turn to drink.
Why did Noah say cursed be Canaan to Japheth, when Canaan was born to Ham? Was this abstract behaviour? Absolutely not! This is why we can be sure Noah saying to Japheth “Cursed be Canaan” referring to Ham’s son was not abstract, but was referring to Cain who killed Adam’s younger son Abel who Adam wrongly saw fit to replace with Seth, in order to restore the bloodline. It was obvious this could not happen through Murderer Cain (people would talk and be superstitious about this) so Adam “replaced” Cain. This was also a Sin since Abel could not be attributed with the bloodline that he was deserving of and Adam gave it to Seth who he used as a replacement.
“Cursed be Canaan” said to Japheth, not Ham, his Father was not abstract behaviour, neither was picking on Canaan randomly. The Word Of God is showing Noah meant Cane because he bore his Sin, and Adam’s through replacing Abel. Getting drunk and naked was a consequence of this for Noah who was righteous but bore a terrible consequence. That is why he couldn’t condone Shem and Japheth throwing a blanket over him to cover their Father’s sin (which was a lovely and noble thing to do) but Noah knew he needed Cain’s Sin exposed and turned to the younger Seth replacement Son Japheth. As he had a responsibility to show why the new human race was still contaminated, despite Noah’s righteousness. Noah wished he was descended from Abel, how it should have been.
You see, criticising Canaan Ham’s Son to the Japheth son was not abstract behaviour of Noah, and showed his personal character and regret.
However it is possible for people to think that Noah was just randomly picking on Canaan.
When people pick out people and put them in roles like they have with me, shows they think God just pick’s on people randomly and abstractly.
You can see how dangerous mis-use of the Bible can be! My situation, still needs to be fixed. I hope Alex can see the urgency of this and be able to help me, so that it can prevent the world going away from God. The Bible could become compromised, or people will become unjust and unfair. They probably thought (wrongly) Noah was unfair, but having read this you can see why Noah was so righteous, but also bore the consequences of 2 terrible Sins: Cain and Adams.
Sins are passed on CONSEQUENTIALLY, not genetically.
I used to be unclear about this. Some people think Sins are passed on down the bloodline. People are, but not sins. Adam and Jesus are connected via a particular pre-ordained bloodline. ***
Sins proliferate through being passed on as a consequence. This leads to general proliferation of Sin down the generations, but “righteous” people can “pop up” at any time proving that sins are not passed on in the blood like a disease is.
Likewise, goodness is not passed on or achievements through the blood but are passed on consequentially and this can affect people tied to the bloodline more directly, like leaving an inheritance, but it might also affect everyone, like inventing the lightbulb. People who are born to particularly virtuous people who happen to be virtuous themselves can appreciate the virtue and give honour and respect to the virtue higher up their family. A good person would be proud of having a good parent for example. If people are mistreated and this becomes popular the consequences of the sin will be passed on to the next generation, and the Bible says THEY SHOULD BE. People are judged in future generations resulting from how previous generations have acted or responded or rebelled about their responsibilities to act according to how the Bible dictates. If people get this wrong, the Bible says the consequence of this to the next generation ought to be punitive. Sins do not just affect us, they also affect what we are trying to achieve in the future. Genesis teaches this very clearly.
A lot of people are still very unclear about this and have a wrong understanding. Does it matter? Yes it does, because sin and disease results from previous Sin but not from people passing it on. So why is the bloodline important? Because sins committed along the bloodline have consequences that are tied to a bloodline. If your grandparent had an illness, it might be passed on to you. If your parent is bad they might not bring you up by the Bible, even if you and your Grandparent both wanted the Bible. If you come from a rich family, you are more likely to be rich too, however your genetic makeup has none of this and if you are born with qualities they make you an independent person to your ancestors along your bloodline. This can be frustrating! Can you see that? So a cook could have a child who becomes a doctor. An evil person could have a good person born to them. Who would be disrespected because the parent was evil affecting the son’s reputation by everyone connected to them. Bloodline’s affect next generations in this way. Sin is not passed on through the blood or genetically. Many people who read the Bible are in error about this fact. Sin is not hereditary, it is consequential, because that is how peoples minds work based on human nature and it’s associated behaviour. Human beings are brainwashed to act consequentially even if genetically there is no requirement to. The funny thing is though, people think sin is passed on genetically but the real sins are how things that happen affect people consequentially. This can mean a person can think someone is bad genetically because of the consequences affecting people brainwashed to think in this way. People think people are good or bad based on heredity or genetics but they think this because of consequences which have nothing to do with the person being affected by them. Sins are passed on consequentially yet people are brainwashed into thinking it is genetic. So a bad person genetically can give rise to consequences that affect their son who is good genetically but affected by bad consequences: the result : people believe the son is bad genetically because although sin is consequential people believe it is genetic.
Abel was very able and liked looking after sheep, he would make an ideal parent leading to the bloodline that resulted in Jesus. When he was killed, Noah was saved for being righteous (even though he got drunk and naked he was saved in the Ark, only Noah and his family and his concern for the animals) (ask yourself why) (Genesis 5 . 29 refers to Adam, Cain, and Abel's blood in introducing us to Noah (directing the reader to resolve a common connection between them that needs appreciating)) and regretted deeply what had happened to his grandparent who was murdered and robbed of being his legitimate bloodlines forefather. Noah was so healthy that he minded about this. Cain had not been executed for killing Abel and Noah replaced Abel with having Seth, Adam’s original sin had now so habitually lead to a second one, and Noah wanted consequences for the justice of Abel losing his families inheritance. Do you really think they all lived to 100 before having children, and lived to 900? or is that the Bible being deliberately facetious? and Abel would have possibly been Noah's rightful Father or a Grandparent or Great Grandparent? He felt losing Abel from his family needed some consequence to his entire bloodline. It was not because of genetics of the sin being passed on in the blood, but was relevant to the entire future of the bloodline. Noah enforced this as he was righteous and accepted Abel’s loss as a detriment to himself. God saved Noah, because Noah cared and regretted what happened to his rightful would-be ancestor, Abel. It is like thanking Jesus for what his life and death meant, to us today.
Genesis 9 . 27 “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall live in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.”
Why?
Because Japheth represented Abel, fate-reversed, proving Sin does not proliferate and is not dealt with by heredity but by-consequence(s).
We see an-eye-for-an-eye here, with Cain and Abel: Japheth and Canaan,;- except it is revealing CONSEQUENTIALITY which means it self-fulfils the justice-cycle ACROSS GENERATIONS (but only if coaxed to do so.) This lesson shows how an-eye-for-an-eye is passed down the bloodline if it is not dealt with at the time. (Cain was not executed but should have been.) (this eye for an eye shows justice when consequentiality is allowed to flourish for the sin, even over generations -a bad thing to let happen- it is unavoidable. ) Possibly the Bible had not Cain put to death for murdering Abel to show this. However rather than the Sin’s consequences getting out of control, it showed a fulfilment in such a way as to help the reader understand that the sin-debt is not passed on genetically to everyone down the bloodline, but rather OUGHT TO BE a “righteous” judgement, rather than a condition that needed to be dealt with. Had the 10 Commandments already have been given at the time of Cain, we would all be none-the-wiser! And we needed to be, O how we needed to be! God’s judgements all have to be just, and this whole shaboogle-story right through to Japheth, Ham and Canaan, shows this to be the case. God’s justice is far more than cause-and -effect, otherwise why have this story from Cain to Canaan? Why not have the 10 commandments straight after Adam’s first Sin? If the more subtle sins people do as consequences, are swept away by sinply quoting one of the 10. (Cain deserved that but if he got it we wouldn’t have realised why! And in some people’s cases, “why not?”)
Japheth acted redemptively towards his Father for drinking and being unclothed, like Abel caring for sheep, and was nothing like Cain. He was not chosen to be the Father of Canaan; which happened to be Ham. Ham was punished for not having Japheth’s nature- which was to cover the Sin of His Father as he saw it, Japheth being uncontaminated like Abel. Ham should have beaten Canaan when Noah cursed him, shouldn’t he? but his name was Ham, not Canaan. No wonder Canaan was cursed. It was indifference to Cain’s Sin in Ham that was why Noah cursed Canaan. A wake-up call for Ham to punish Canaan. If it was proper Ham would have been called Canaan and Canaan Ham and Noah would have said “Cursed be Ham”. Ham was showing what righteous Noah saw as deserving to his bloodline for what Cain’s actions caused to those who were indifferent (unlike Japheth) (and it seems everybody was) by bearing Canaan. Noah was not indifferent either, that’s why he drank! And cursed Ham’s indifference. All i can say about Shem, is that his name means “The Name” (God’s signature to the authenticity of this whole teaching)
Can you see how Sin and goodness is not passed on genetically down the bloodline but consequentially?!
Can you see that this means it requires a response? Human intervention. Human beings who will do God’s Will because of the consequences- like Noah cursing Canaan to Japheth and Japheth covering Noah’s Sin with a blanket. It is only by human intervention that the consequences of Sin may be dealt with. But who was right? Noah speaking to Japheth, or Japheth covering Noah? Both were right in their own way, but Noah was right. With God, nevertheless Japheth was honoured for acting like Abel. One was short-sighted and the other, took everything into account. It was what Noah did which was the most correct - telling off Japheth for covering him. Japheth wasn’t bad, he did a good thing, but it was not with the understanding as to why Noah was drunk.
Just because the 10 commandments come in a later period, does not mean they superced the lessons that need to be learned here, and in this case, a preceding giving of them and Cain would have been put to death and Canaan not needing to be cursed. Yet that would have been right.
The fact that this lesson in Genesis exists, shows that just because the 10 cone later, does not mean they always need to be applied as a supercention.
You have to always apply the correct lesson from the Bible to the appropriate situation. The lessons in Genesis need to be learned and appreciated before receiving the 10 commandments to show what happens if the 10 commandments are applied or not applied and whether that’s right or not.
Cain should have been summirarily executed henceforth. But noone knew that at the time.
The woman caught in Adultery Jesus said who was without Sin to cast the first stone.
We do not do the Bible in chronological order, we do what is right for each situation based on all it’s lessons.
Stephen was executed for insulting the Sanhedrin and equating Jesus of Nazareth as being at the right hand of God! And rightly so! (They didn’t know Jesus) Stephen was acting inappropriately.
I said, your nature does not come from your parents, but many things do. This is why it was so important for the Saviour and Redeemer Jesus neede to be God's Begotten Son, have exemplarary parents and come down an excellent bloodline, verified as such by Biblical Prophesy confirming that. Had Abel potentially have been able to be God's Only Begotten Son, there was no Bible and therefore nobody would be able to find out what that meant. God has Sons, but only one Only Begotten One - that was Jesus - who fulfilled Psalm 119 due to his line and His Parent's righteousness and faithfulness.
Jesus wouldn't go to all that trouble of dying early if it was only to give peace and reconciliation to a few misfits on their way out who could find Jesus to turn to because he was making himself just for them when they needed that. Do you really believe God the Father went to all that trouble losing Jesus His Only Begotten Son at 33 years of age, after descending from Abel, Noah, Judah and Israel and His Parents Joseph and Mary, if all it meant was to help a few rejected disabled people or criminals or misfits of society, wanting to find God before they die?