Tuesday, June 10, 2008

A Question I struggled on---2005

Here is a question I had some struggles with.. But thanks to a friend I got things a little bit more clear now.

“alirght.. to make my question clear to you.. this is what I asked k... "Real Faith Without Works is DEATH" James 2. 14--26
so when some christians say "believe.. and you are saved" --- wouldn't this saying be wrong?”

“You are a deep thinker and that’’s awesome! I love it and like to think that I am too…… I challenge you not to look to the bible as and answer book though, and start to see it as God’’s story to us, for us, and about us and now you find yourself in the midst of that story. Why? Because it we truly believe that the God is alive and his Spirit at work within us then answers aren’’t these things hidden somewhere in an archaic language that of the past. They are waiting before us to be discovered in the working our of our faith. As a believer in the way of Jesus I think we are to be contributing to an understanding of scripture by interacting with it.
Here is a bit of the history, and probably too much of my opinion on the answer to your question, and it’’s one of the hardest part of our faith to explain in a simple quick way. We are spending much time, and a whole book reviewing this topic with the servant leader team:
There are a lot of statement in the bible saying that belief and faith are ““all”” that it takes to be ““saved.”” What that of course that does, as I’’m sure this is what stirred up the question, is causes people to say they ““believe”” without ever living like it. Now of course we have to be careful not to judge others hearts, or their actions too quickly after coming to some kind of faith. I think it helps here to see ““conversion”” to Christianity as more of a dance. People have to learn to move in rhythm with God. For some it comes easier, but for many of us it takes years of practice, and there are always more styles to learn, more steps to remember, and more beats to count……just to say once you learn to waltz, God might want to salsa also! So back to the main point……if you have no works (i.e. your faith is ““dead””) are you still saved. Again I must reiterate that I think we are asking the wrong question. I think Jesus makes it fairly clear that he wants us to put our confidence in Him and not what we DO or anything else in this life.
Ok I’’ve been distracted so many times now I have to just sum up by saying this. If you have faith in me will you trust me by doing what I say? If you believe in me will you follow my way of doing things? Does simply thinking some thing make it a belief? Does having all the ““right answers”” and arguing all the ““right things”” equal faith?
That’’s a start.”

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Woman Preaching?

Alright! New Discussion!!!

Just to make things clear... Pure Honesty is required in

this response. And yes... you do and must back up your
response with scripture and not just an opinion.

Tell Me..... Is it right in God's eyes for Women to Preach
in the Church? Back up your response... and pay no
attention to the three girls in this group (Shelby, Renea,
and I.... will stay silent for this one.... only response we
can give is scripture---- NO OPINION FROM THE LADIES...
b/c I know what we will all say.

Here is One E-mail I've already got a clear response from......
I will leave it anonymous.... and remember--- All views are
accepted and no we will not be attacking each other... just
voicing ourselves.
(WELCOME NEW COMBERS!) (If this group gets any larger...
I may have to turn it into two separate groups.)

"I wish not to argue with you about women leaders or pastore
but here is a scripture for you to read:

First Corinthians 14: 33-35
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says.
35If they want to inquire about something,
they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a
woman to speak in the church.

I pray that you seek the lords guidance on this. I can tell that you really
dont understand the Bible when it comes to the role of woman in the

Just so you know, I agree that it is ok for a woman to teach such as in a
sunday school class, in discussions, etc. But in regards to teaching the
church during sunday service,
the bible teachings against this.,

If you understand the way the Apostle Paul spoke when he wrote the
13 books of the bible that he inspired through the spirit of god. One of
the things Paul was consisten in was the fact that he was always
correcting the Churches. The reason why Paul taught that women
should remain silent in the church is because back in the days of the
Corint church, women
were not properly following the lead of their husbands and the

You are very young so I understand why you dont understand
this teaching and possibly others. I pray that you seek the truth
of the scriptures.

Once again, I am not against women helping out with the church,
I am against woman
pastors or leaders. Remember, A man is the head of a woman,
and there is a reason for this. It is called the sin of Eve how led
her husband into sin. It was eve who sinned first.
Men are called to lead the church, women are called to follow
and be submissive.
It is the same way in a marriage.

It is not me who says women should not teach, it is the bible
that teaches this.
God will use you, just dont teach in the church. DO YOU

Take care

Tuesday, October 30, 2007



I do not have an all perfect answer and probably never will. Which is part of the reason why it is the first topic I'd like to discuss. But in order for this to be a discussion and not just me talking your ear off I'm going to need your participation to get involved. If you'll notice it doesn't seem like many people were interested in the discussion group, but rather I broke everyone up in groups so that you guys can talk to people you may not normally talk to. People that may or may not agree with your opinion. All opinions are accepted in this discussion, but you must say it is your "opinion" when you state it. Feel free to e-mail each other... don't just limit the discussion to talking to me-- I will post your responses so everyone in your group can see them.

Now back to the Topic.

Is God Omniscient? (Meaning Is God All knowing?)

"Christianity holds that God is omniscient. While this term has proven a bit troublesome to define [1], it is generally taken to mean exhaustive knowledge of the universe, i.e., of all existence. This means, any being said to be omniscient must possess all possible knowledge of all things, past, present and future. No knowledge, even knowledge of fictions, could lie outside the purview of the omniscient mind."

Commentary by Anton Thorn


"Many verses in the Bible seem to support the notion of God's "omniscience", his knowing of all things, including all future thoughts and actions. But, does the Bible definitely teach that God is omniscient?"

Joseph Francis Alward
August 31, 2000


Here is what the dictionary has to say about God

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

5. A very handsome man.

6. A powerful ruler or despot.



MoreQuestions to Reflect On:
What does it mean to be All Knowing???
If God knows every Decision we make... what is our Purpose in Life? (Robots?)
If God is not Omniscient... then are destructive events such as 9-11 a part of God's plan?

Things to keep in Mind:
God is the Alpha and Omega
The bible never said God was Omniscient
God knew you before you were born

This is a Discussion, not one of my sermons or cool info sheets that tell you all the things I found out about through researching scripture. I expect to see involvement on your part. If the word "Discussion" didn't sink in the first time and this isn't what you were expecting... well then let me know and I will take you out of the group if you no longer are interested in taking part

Ephesians 1:16-19
"Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,"



Evaew Discussions Everyones Views Accepted Enhancing Worth "WEAVE"
October 22, 2007
Sorry about the Absence on my behalf.

Today I've really been looking at the core of what we go to in order to draw our relationship close to God. HIS WORD

Do Bible Translations Matter???
Down Bellow I have pasted a small portion of a very large website. But in these couple of weeks I'd like to hear why your version is accurate or if you have taken the time to look at what your reading..... is it God's word??? Does it carry the true message.... or does it loose it's message along translation? Surfing The Web
(all info gathered from "Which Bible Translation?")
Which Bible Translation? Introduction The Bible for any true Christian records the inspired and infallible revelation of God. Jesus and his immediate followers saw the Old Testament in this way, and we would hardly put the New Testament writings on a lower level. One problem faces us, however, as we come to this book. It was not written in English, but in Hebrew and in Greek. Unless we are unusually proficient in both those languages, we must depend on a translation for our study of Scripture. We are not troubled here by shortage of choice. Over 100 new English translations of the Bible have appeared in the last 100 years. What then are the principles that should guide us in choosing the right one, or the best one, or perhaps several for our use? Some aspects of this subject are very technical and I am far from being an expert on it. However I write because I feel that most people are ignorant of the issues involved and many people are using translations which they shouldn't. I trust some may benefit from at least an introduction to the subject. There are, as I see it, three separate main questions we may ask about any translation of the Bible. What original text was translated? What were the principles of translation? What sort of English does it use? What Text ? This question is probably not as important as the second, but logically comes first. The Old Testament, as most people know, was written mainly in Hebrew but with passages mostly in Daniel in Aramaic, which is a very similar language. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, though parts may have been previously written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated. Obviously today we do not have the original manuscript, but copies of copies of copies ... These copies, alas, are not identical. The differences are not very significant in the Old Testament, but they are in the new. About 3 per cent of its text varies across all the manuscripts. Today, I understand we have about 1500 complete or partial manuscripts of the new Testament, but which of these, if any, is the correct one? There are two main approaches to this question. The more common one is called the eclectic approach. Scholars put together a text from all the available manuscripts using various rules to sort out differences. For example: what do the oldest manuscripts say? What do the majority say? What do the best say? Which reading is more likely? This approach is rejected by some as giving too much scope to human reason. Man can easily inject his own thoughts. These people who form a very sincere minority hold to the view that the text underlying the Authorised or King James version of the Bible (KJV) is essentially the correct one. This text is known as th Received Text and is based on the manuscripts of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church that were available at the time the KJV was translated. The Eastern text is stronger on the doctrine of the Trinity. Its supporters tend to regard other texts and their translations as attacks on the truth. This view rejects the older manuscripts of the Western Church which have been discovered since.A few versions.... but not all.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) This is the version I mainly use myself. It is generally acknowledged to be the most accurate translation available. Its attempt to keep as closely as possible to the original results in rather unnatural English. It suffers also from retaining outdated English where often there is current terminology that is just as accurate. The New International Version This is essentially an accurate translation, though not as literal as the NASB. Its English however is more natural and contemporary. It is perhaps better than the NASB for new believers children or those for whom English is a second language. It is good also as a second version to consult. The King James Version The Authorised or King James Version has some points in its favour. It follows the Greek and Hebrew more closely than many modern translations. This has the advantage of not adding to or changing the meaning; but the disadvantage of at times producing unnatural or obscure English. Many of its translators were accomplished linguistic scholars and godly men and without doubt they made a vast contribution to later translations. They were a mixed group of Anglican clergymen, who at times showed denominational bias. Inevitably they lacked knowledge of large amounts of archaeological and linguistic discoveries made since their time. Unlike nearly all modern translations the KJV is based on the less accurate Eastern text. Its English, needless to say, is now archaic even if it was current at the time of writing. Like most other translations they followed the tradition of translating aiwnioV (aionios) as eternal rather than age-lasting and eiV aiwnaV aiwnwn (eis aionas aioonoon), and similar phrases, as 'for ever and ever' rather than 'for ages of ages.' The Living Bible This translation also needs mentioning because of its popularity. It has no right to call itself a Bible. It is full of the translator's own thoughts and interpretations. You have only to compare it with a literal translation to find significant differences of meaning on every page. One small example out of hundreds is Hebrews 10:25. 'Let us not leave off the assembling of ourselves together' becomes 'Let us not neglect our church meetings'. Many people these days, with complete scriptural backing, assemble to worship God in their own homes. According to this paraphrase they are wrong. "God speaks to me through the TEV and the Living Bible", people say. "Can they really be that wrong?" Of course God can and does speak through these versions. They contain a lot of Scripture! In the communist days in Russia the believers happily accepted anti-Christian literature, so that they could read all the Bible verses in it! The troubles come when you start to ask controversial questions. Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit for today? Is Roman Catholic teaching compatible with Scripture? How should we run our fellowship? Does God heal everybody? You will not get accurate answers to these questions if you use an inaccurate Bible. In addition, if you want to move on into further realms with God and deeper truth you will frequently find that paraphrase translations of this kind have destroyed the deeper meanings of Scripture and replaced them with ideas more acceptable and comprehensible to the carnal man.

Another Question to look at
Is there a such thing as a Bible Code???????Here is a bit of talk on the bible code from the same site:

The Bible Code Most of my readers will have heard of a book called The Bible Code by Michael Drosnin, published in March of this year (1998). It has been on display in every major book shop in this country, and doubtless in many other countries too. This book describes the discovery of hidden information in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. This information is encoded into the Bible simply by having words spelt out with their letters at equal intervals in the normal Bible text. All the major events of this century have been found encoded, with the names of the people associated with them. A few events were discovered before they happened, particularly the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was even warned about it, but he ignored the warning. Other events are predicted for the future. Two mathematicians published a scientific paper calculating the probability of all this information being there just by chance. The odds are so enormous that they go far beyond what is normally regarded as scientific proof. Someone (to us God) deliberately encoded all this information.


New Discussion Topic
Discussion idea:

What are the different thought directions of the book of Revelation?
-Prophetic Letter, Apocolyptic Letter, etc.?
(topic credited to Derrick Engoy)

Monday, October 29, 2007

Everyone's Views Accepted Enhancing Worth (EVAEW)

Hey Everyone!
Just getting the site ready for upcoming posts!