Abortion in Australia

I rarely post anything about politics, preferring instead to leave the subject of politics up to the individuals.

It is not my right to tell people which way they should vote.

At the outside, I encourage people to vote according to Biblical values, but with many politicians in Australia it is almost impossible to find their views on ethical and Biblical matters.

However, in Australia recently the Labor Party has come out and said if they win the next election they will bring in fully publicly funded abortions.

In one news article about this political line there was a photo of a woman holding a placard that said "Legal abortions save lives".

LEGAL ABORTIONS DO NOT SAVE LIVES. Any abortion OF NECESSITY takes the life of the child - that is what an abortion is.

What the placard was suggesting is that illegal abortions are dangerous, and that is true, but many illegal things are dangerous, and those who do those illegal things take their chances.

EVERY ABORTION takes a life, but an illegal abortion only endangers the woman's life if she chooses to go down that path. No one is forcing her to get an illegal abortion - it is her choice.

Think about that placard in these terms: say that abortion for any reason is legal and as a result we have 100000 abortions each year. That is 100000 children whose lives are ended.

But if abortion is illegal, the number of abortions drops to 50000 (most likely it would be a far greater difference), and of those 50000 illegal abortions, half of them ended with the mother dying because of poor practices (the ratio would no doubt be far lower). This means that a total of 75000 lives are lost because of illegal abortion.

This is a net gain or 25000 - legal abortion DOES NOT save lives in any way shape or form. I don't know what the actual numbers are, and it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are - the net difference is in favour of making abortion illegal.

In fact, the numbers that I have used here would most likely be extremely heavily swayed towards even greater lives saved by making abortion illegal.

If the total was 100000 abortions, and the practice was made illegal, the number would most likely be way less than half who would still seek abortion. A great number of women would not seek it as an illegal option.

And of those illegal abortions performed, the rate at which the mother would also be lost would be way less than 50% - how could even an illegal operator continue with anything approaching that kind of failure rate? In fact the number would most likely be a single figure percentage of failure, even as an illegal act.

So the claim that legal abortions save lives is absolutely false, and it is an emotive claim rather than a scientifically factual argument.

The murder of unborn children is a tragedy of mammoth proportions in today's world.

ANY POLITICAL PARTY that runs on a platform of financing abortions from the public purse is actually promoting government sanctioned and financed infanticide.

No one with any sort of conscience can vote for a party that not only condones, but in fact promotes the murder of unborn children.

And when people say that using terms such as  "murder of unborn children" is emotive, so also is the use of terms such as "termination of pregnancy", and referring to an unborn child as "a foetus"- they are designed to take the attention away from the truth that it is the killing of a person - it is ending the life of a person. The fact that person is at that point in its mothers womb in no way detracts from that fact - that unborn child is a person.

I still think one of the greatest comparisons ever pointed out is that if they found a single celled organism on Mars, they would proclaim that they had found life, but a small cluster of cells that has every single piece of DNA information required to continue dividing and form into a complete person by today's standards "is not life".

What a joke - double standard to the extreme.

Abortion is murder, and no government should sanction, let alone fund murder of the most innocent of people.

Israel Folau, what did he really post?

Trying to find the original post that has started all of this fuss with Israel Folau has been difficult. I wanted to see FOR MYSELF what he actually posted that has now been deemed to be a “High level breach” by Rugby Australia.

Well, here it is:


“

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
_______________

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV
_______________”



Note that I am no Techno-head, so putting the actual post itself into this was beyond my skill level.

What I have done is find the image that he posted and pasted it into this, and then I have copied the text that he wrote, and the verse quotes that he included. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what he posted, correct image and word for word.



I think it would be worthwhile examining exactly what Mr Folau DID say, rather than everyone getting up in arms about what he didn’t actually say.

So, I am sorry Mr Folau, but I am going to examine your post, and more particularly your words in greater detail than anyone really deserves, but I think it is necessary to find out the truth.

• ·       First of all the image posted.

Keep in mind that I don’t think Mr Folau made this image. I assume (and I am sorry but it is an assumption) that Mr Folau saw this image on line and reposted it, but he obviously agreed with the basics of it.

The Image states that for a variety of people listed – 8 different groups are listed overall – that Hell awaits them. The image then calls for those people included in the list to repent, and notes that only Jesus saves.

A few things to note about this image itself.

It does not single out any particular group listed over any other group.

The image is not specifically attacking homosexuals, as is the focus of the claims against My Folau. In fact, if one were to take a step back you would find that not many people are left out of that list. I don’t think I have ever met a person who has not lied at some time, and most of us have stolen something somewhere along the way – not a car, but maybe a pen or something like that.

Where is there any indication in the image itself that Mr Folau is attacking any particular group? There is no such indication. In fact the image has a list that actually includes every person ever – including Mr Folau himself (Which I am sure he would openly acknowledge).

Now then, is the image attacking anyone?

No, it is not. There is no attack. There is a statement of what Mr Folau and many others believe is a fact: that any sinner is bound for Hell.

This is not an attack. It is a statement. If I was to state “You are going to die”, it doesn’t mean that I want it to be so, or that I intend to cause it to be so. It doesn’t necessitate any feeling toward you of any sort – either hatred or love. It is information that I believe to be true.

And it is in fact true – every person will die one day. You might be offended at my pointing that out, but it will not stop you from dying. And it makes no difference whether I like you, hate you, or am ambivalent to you, the fact is that one day you will die. There is no attack, just a statement of information.

If however, I knew you were going to die of some particular disease, and I recognised it, and knew the cure, then told you about that cure, that is not attacking, nor is it hateful. In fact it is loving.

This image does nothing more than that.

The originator of the image believes that all the people listed are destined for Hell, but he (or she) does not want the people listed to end up in Hell, and so they state the cure, salvation through Jesus.

There is nothing hateful nor accusatory in the image.

• ·         What about the statement that Mr Folau makes after the image?

“Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

So, Mr Folau doesn’t single out any particular group in this statement either. He says “Those that are living in sin”. There is only one conclusion to take from the reaction to this part of the statement – those who are offended know that they are living in sin. If they didn’t know that, they would have simply considered that Mr Folau was referring to others. Their outrage actually shows that they consider themselves among “those that are living in sin”. Mr Folau didn’t designate them as such. He simply gave a warning that “those who are living in sin will end up in hell unless you repent. Again, Mr Folau is not attacking anyone. He is simply stating what he believes is the destiny of those “who are living in sin”.

And again, his purpose is to show that they have a way to avoid Hell.

It is not an accusation, but a warning. He is not accusing people of living in sin, but pointing out that those WHO ARE living in sin have a destiny that ends in Hell. Those who are fussing about this are the ones who are designating themselves as “living in sin”.

The simple conclusion to come to about this statement is that if you are not living in sin then Mr Folau doesn’t believe that you will end up in Hell. (Note that the Bible has a lot to say about this beyond this simplistic conclusion)

Far from accusing, Mr Folau points out what he believes of “Those that are living in sin”. He doesn’t designate any groups at all in his own words.

He also points out the solution for “Those that are living in sin”.

His statement only and clearly applies to “those who are living in sin”.

Apparently, the drunkards, the adulterers, the liars etc don’t consider themselves to be living in sin, because they haven’t kicked up a fuss. It is only the Homosexuals that have designated themselves to be included in the statement “those that are living in sin”, not Mr  Folau.

And even so, all Mr Folau has done is show that there is a solution to the sin and Hell problem that he points out: Salvation through Jesus Christ.

·         After this, Mr Folau quoted three Bible passages. Mr Folau cannot be held responsible for the words of the Bible, for he didn’t write it. He did of course choose which passages to quote, but as far as I can tell, it is still legal to quote the Bible in Australia. (It apparently is not allowed if you are employed by the ARU. That would seem to be discriminatory against religious persons, but the ARU is supposed to be non-discriminatory…)

o   Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

In examining this passage, we note a few things: this passage does not even mention homosexuality specifically. It would of course be encompassed under adultery, fornication, and possibly uncleanness, but it is not specifically noted. In fact what we have here is a wide ranging list of people who the Bible says will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Homosexuals are not even specified here.

______________

o  
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

Again, there is no mention of any specific group in this list apart from “every one of you”. It speaks only of remission of sins through Jesus Christ. This verse doesn’t even talk about the consequences if someone doesn’t repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ.

_______________

o  
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

And again, there is no mention of any consequences for anyone, just that God calls all men everywhere to repent.

So then, having looked at the post that has caused all the fuss and trouble, I am astounded at the way that this has been handled by the LBGT etc and also by the Media.

To the LBGT etc (I am sorry but I can’t keep up with the current letters included in this group as it seems to change every couple of weeks), I have to ask why you are so offended at this post? Where did Mr Folau specify your group in particular?

In his own words he doesn’t even mention “Homosexuals” or any other designation of your group. The name is one of 8 in the original image list, and it is not even the first on the list.

Nowhere else in the entire post of Mr Folau is the LBGT etc group even referred to.


Secondly, Mr Folau nowhere states that he is sending them to Hell, nor does he state that he wants them to go to Hell, nor does he state that he is rejoicing at the thought of them going to Hell. In fact, it is implicit in his statements that Mr Folau doesn’t want them to go to Hell, because he includes statements and Bible references that show how they can avoid that destiny.


There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from the resultant media coverage: The LBGT etc have launched a totally unjustified attack, misrepresenting what Mr Folau posted for the purpose of destroying this man and attacking the current religious freedoms in Australia, and secondly, the Australian Media are either allowing themselves to be deceived by the LBGT etc or are inherently involved the attack against Mr Folau and against Australian religious freedom. If they were not involved (deliberately or naively) they would show the post in its entirety and show clearly that the Homosexual groups are not in fact targeted.


As to Rugby Australia and their panel that have now found Mr Folau guilty of a High level breach, we must ask “Where in the post that Mr Folau made is there any breach of any code of conduct? How is it in any way hateful to warn someone of what you believe to be impending danger? Indeed, Mr Folau has not even designated any particular group as sinners, but included all men – ALL MEN as sinners.



The only conclusion we can come to with regard to Rugby Australia is that they are allowing themselves to be influenced by their major sponsor, who apparently doesn’t think Australia should have free speech. At least not free speech that disagrees with the thoughts of their current boss.

I for one am disgusted at the treatment of Mr Folau by the Australian press, by Rugby Australia, and by many commentators who apparently feel that looking at the actual statements of Mr Folau are not necessary. The ARU have sold Mr Folau out for sponsorship money.


I am not in the least surprised by the LGBT etc groups who are attacking Mr Folau without mercy, not for what he has said, but for the fact that he is a Christian who is willing to quote the Bible.

Mr Folau has said nothing offensive to homosexuals in particular – in fact, nothing AT ALL to homosexuals in particular. Mr Folau addressed “Those who are living in sin” without further definition. Who is it that has designated homosexuals as sinners? Not Mr Folau. It is actually those who are accusing him who have designated themselves as sinners.



The actual roots of this whole affair are based in those who wish to silence the Bible and remove any reference to God and the Word of God from our society.

Alan Jones has said that the Australian people won’t stand for it. I hope he is right, but I fear he is wrong.

My fear is that not enough regular Australians care enough to stand with Mr Folau in his battle for the right to express his own opinion.

Today it is the right of one man to express an opinion that is being restricted. Tomorrow it may be the right of others to express their opinion that is taken away. When and where will it stop?


They call men like Mr Folau intolerant, but he is not the one who stopping others from having an opinion.

I will fight for the right of every man to be free to express his opinion, whether I agree with him or not. The way our nation is going, I am falling into a minority.

My opinion will soon be illegal if things continue the way they appear to be going.

Only opinions that “fit with the acceptable” will be allowed to be expressed. Who then decides what is acceptable? And what stops your opinion – whatever that may be – from becoming unacceptable?


No one should be able to call others to physical violence. No one should be able to promote attacks on other people. No one should be able to take away another person’s rights without just cause and due process.

But every man should be able to express an opinion.

I will fight for your right to oppose me and present an opposing opinion.

Because stopping talk doesn’t solve problems. Just because I can silence you, doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Just because you can silence me, doesn’t mean that your problems are now solved.

In context of Mr Folau’s post, you can stop it from being posted around, you can take away his career, you can silence him by deleting or covering his opinion wherever you can, but it will not change for one moment that fact that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that the Wages of sin is death, and that Hell is final destiny of everyone who has not trusted in Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Whether it is stated, read, proclaimed, or even tweeted OR NOT – it is still true.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but the question has to be asked: If you don't believe what Mr Folau has posted is true, why does it concern you? He hasn't named any particular person or even a particular group. He has not called for any group of people to be persecuted or banned. He has not in any way promoted violence against any particular group (or even general violence for that matter).
He has spoken of a destiny that he believes is as stated in the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is true, why do you care what this man says about what you believe is fanciful?


It is not hateful to warn about that problem.

It is loving to warn someone of impending danger and then tell them of the way of avoiding that danger.


Mr Folau, I know it is easy for me to say this because it is not my wage, not my reputation, not my future that is on trial and at stake, but good on you for making your original post, and for standing your ground. On my examination (which counts for nothing) you have done nothing wrong, nothing hateful, nothing for which you need to apologise.
Rest in the Lord and trust in Him.

1Pe 4:
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

James White vs Sam Gipp Videos.

Let me state that I would probably sit at the shallow end of the KJVO mob, and I have a few issues with Sam Gipp's videos, but they are minor.

However, I have just come across James White's "Criticism videos" of Sam Gipp's Big Deal about the KJV videos.

I have to say though, that James White's attempt to discredit the videos is amazing in it's rambling, misleading, and rabbit trail following nature.

In the first instance, in videos one he spends a fair bit of time basically just saying that anyone who is KJVO is wrong because they are wrong. The first five minutes he says nothing about the video, but simply attacks the position with unsubstantiated broad statements.

At one point he makes the point that the "other" line of texts has the "oldest manuscripts", but gives no support for that. Having done a little research on this particular subject, I know that there is actually no evidence of the age of either codex Vaticanus, nor of Codex Siniaticus. They were "old" when found, but one was found in the 1500's (Vaticanus) and the other was not heard of or referenced in any way before 1761.
So these apparently "oldest and best" manuscripts can not be positively identified as any other than "old" when discovered in the 1500's or the 1800's (Tischendorf found it in 1844, it was possibly referred to in some writing in 1761. These facts came from the official websites of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The point of this is that his own claim to "oldest manuscripts" is based heavily on assumption and guesses.

Secondly, James White criticises Dr. Gipp for talking about "Two Bibles", which Dr. Gipp goes on to explain in his video, and which is a simplistic representation, but Later in video one of James White he actually agrees that the KJV and NKJV are from one stream and all the others are from the other stream - so he then uses that two stream argument against the KJV while he critises the use of it FOR the KJV.
He makes big about Gipp using the name "Critical text" as though it is a bad thing, but Dr. Gipp is using it as an identifier - I don't think Dr. Gipp was using the word "Critical" in the way that James White suggests - maybe I have missed something there....... (He mentions once that the "Name" "should tell you something", and then moves straight on - this is a minor line given, not a major point as White presents it.

White makes a huge point about the "Textus Receptus" which he says didn't even exist in that form until 1633 (I think that was the date he said), and he makes big about the point that the TR that he was holding was translated into Greek from English that had been translated From Greek. So what? What has anything written after the translation process was long completed got to do with the translation into English of the KJV? This is a huge Rabbit Trail - or is that red herring - that White includes for the sake of presenting a FALSE disparagement of the Textus Receptus. This is in my opinion, simply DISHONEST. When Sam Gipp talks of the TR, he is talking of the Manuscript Group that the translators used in the work of the KJV, not the Greek complied text done after that work was finished. And James White KNOWS THIS - this is why it is dishonest.

Further to that James White also compares the production of the KJV to the production of the Quran, again presenting the information in a way that is clearly dishonest. He makes the point that there was a single version of the Quran that was imposed upon Muslims, and likens that to the KJVO matter.
This is dishonest for the fact that James White mentioned that it was pressed upon people by a single man, and there is no way to know which version was actually the true one. This ignores the facts that the KJV was not forced onto anyone, and it was translated by the greatest and most skillful group of
translators ever assembled. So yes, there may be one version of the Quran which was forced upon people and compiled by one man, but that has nothing to do with a Bible that was translated by more than 50 of the greatest translators ever assembled, and provided - not proscribed - for use by anyone who wanted to use it. That Bible - the KJV - became the most popular Bible version by far, not by force, but by love of the Word of God, and by recognition of the caliber of the work.
For James White to correlate the KJV with Quran in this way is dishonest in it's representation, and demeaning to the Word of God.

What James White's video does do is it shows his great intellect - in quoting so many (often irrelevant) facts, psuedo facts, and people of the past, he shows a great knowledge of quotations and displays his probably amazing memory. It also shows that he is not above twisting and misrepresenting facts and people in his quest to attack something which is not as far out of field as he desperately wants it to be.

There is a simple point of logic that shows that the existence of a true Bible must be found in a single edition or nowhere: When two things claim to be the perfect Word of God but they say different things, then at least one of them must be wrong. They could BOTH be wrong.
But they cannot BOTH BE RIGHT.
If you believe that the Bible is the true, preserved, inerrant Word of God then it must exist in one, and ONLY IN ONE version today. Which one is actually irrelevant to this point. But if we have God's Perfect Word today, then it must be in One version, not many, because every version says things different - some of them very differently.
If however you think that we don't have God's Perfect Word today, then go ahead, hold hands with James White and YOU try to figure out which parts of God's Word are actually God's Word.

As for me, I will believe God when He says that He Inspired the Word of God and will preserve it.
Mat 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Let me just ask this question: Why would God give His Word in such a special way and for such a  special purpose, and then let it disappear into the haze of history?

God has not replaced Israel.

Gotta add some to my last post about God not having cast aside Israel.

I come up against people who are replacement theologists from time to time, and it is almost ridiculous when they say they are not, but then talk about the church being Israel.

In the first place, it shows that they have a faulty understanding of what a church is in the Bible, because the obvious question to ask is "Which church is Israel now?"

But it is not funny when these people say they are not one thing, but then teach what they say they are not.

For when someone actually says something like "Israel AKA the church", there can be no doubt what they are teaching, and it is simply not biblical.

It is like the Calvinist who comes and says they are not a Calvinist but then start arguing about Calvin's five points.
If someone is trying to deceive then OF COURSE they are going to deny it when someone calls them on it.

I have a few questions for the replacement theologist though:
Which time that Israel left off following God and turned to idols was the last straw?
For there is time after time recorded in God's Word where the Children of Israel left off from following the Lord - the book of Judges alone is littered with such times.
And yet in all of that, the Lord did not forsake them.

So what was the straw that broke the camels back and caused God to utterly reject the nation that He called to be His own people?

As well as that, why is it that Paul speaks of the gentiles, the Jews, and the church, all in the same breath if the Israel is now the church?
No Israel is not the church and never will be.
Where Paul says there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek it is in the matter of salvation, not the matter of existence.

And also, in the book of Relvelation where it names the tribes from which the 144000 come - how can this be anything other than a reference to a literal Israel in the future time?

And here we come up to a critical point of thought - Replacement theologists are almost universally post or a-millenial. They reject the future context for the book of Revelation, and they MUST DO or else they have to acknowledge that God will still use Israel in the future.

Funny how all of these things fit together.
They want to take the promises that God gave to Israel for themselves, so they have to twist their theology into a pretzel to find ways to make it fit.
But like a child with a lie, they quickly realise that their decision has consequences and so the child has to lie more and more to cover their first lie - so also these men have to change more and more of Scripture to make it fit their first wish to get God's blessings for themselves.

I shake my head at the arguments that they make up - yes make up - in order to "prove" their points.

I would laugh, but they deceive some and cause some to doubt, and lead many to destruction.

Has God cast aside Israel?

Has God cast aside Israel?

There is a whole raft of people out that that have been taught that Christians replace Israel as God’s chosen people. Those who teach this do so primarily so that they can apply the rules and laws pressed upon Israel onto Christians, and so that their teachers can take the authority and position of priests. Pastors are not priests (well at least not any more than any other saved person is a priest), but that is for another time.

This teaching, which takes several different forms and names, but which is called usually “replacement theology” or sometimes “covenant theology” seeks to divorce Israel from the Lord and have the Lord remarry another bride, Christianity. They usually talk about “the church” replacing Israel, but that is an erroneous understanding of the church.

The easiest way to see whether or not this idea is true is to see if the promises given to Israel are transferable to another. With that in mind, let’s look at the first of the promises made to the nation of Israel, before they wre

Let’s set a precedent:

Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The “law of first mention” (which is not actually a law by the way) indicates that the first mention of something sets the primary meaning, and unless the context indicates otherwise, this primary meaning is the standard.

In Genesis 9:16 we have the first mention of an “everlasting covenant”.

I think we all understand that this particular everlasting covenant is not dependent upon this sinful and sin affected world in any way.

If it were, then we would have had at least one judgement flood since that time.

So, with the understanding that an everlasting covenant is indeed everlasting – otherwise it is not an everlasting covenant (Is that too simple a concept?), let’s look at another everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for aneverlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

OK then, here we have an everlasting covenant that is given to Abram and to his children (thy seed after thee).

The sign of this covenant on the side of the people was circumcision.

Note however that as this is an everlasting covenant to Abram and to his seed after him, that the covenant is made to this group of people – IF AN INDIVIDUAL person refuses to be circumcised, then he has no part of the covenant.

That does not break the covenant for all those people but for the individual only.

Note also that there is NO OTHER CONDITION placed upon the people subject to this covenant.

Note also that this everlasting covenant is to a specific people and for a specific LAND.

This can not be an everlasting covenant if the Lord then takes it away from this particular group of people and transfers it to any other group of people, and in any case the removal of this covenant can only be upon individuals and only if they refuse to be circumcised.

This brings up two points:

1. Do the Jews still circumcise?

If the answer to that is “Yes”, then the covenant has not been taken from them, and still applies. It will always apply to the nation in any case, as the removal was only possible for individuals – hence it can be removed from an individual and still remain an EVERLASTING covenant.

 Even with circumcision, can this covenant be transferred to another people?

2. The Bible does not talk about this covenant being transferable. The possibility is never even mentioned. And if it was, there is still no provision in the making of the covenant that it can be taken away from the original subjects of the covenant.

The claim that this promise was taken from them because of disobedience is CLEARLY UNBIBLICAL. Only one form of disobedience was relevant to this covenant, and that only applied on an individual level, not a national level.

The land is the physical land that they were standing on, and it was promised under an EVERLASTING COVENANT to the actual physical seed of Abram.

To somehow make it apply in a spiritual sense to Christians today is an outrageous abuse of Scripture and an attempt to deceive by false teaching.

 This should put to rest any idea that God has fully and finally forsaken His chosen nation. The concept of an Everlasting Covenant is certain an irrefutable, and it applies clearly to the Nation of Israel. To remove it from them is to break God’s Promise.

There is of course more to it that just this one covenant, but God has not, can not, and will not remove this covenant from the nation of Israel.

I may discuss the concept further in another post at a later time.