From: Kent Hovind
Sent: August 26, 2007
To: God, Luther Bridgers
Subject: A Song Born in Tragedy
Time: 1910
GOD: Hey, son, we had good fellowship today, didn’t we?
kh: Yes, Lord! You are awesome! This book, Finding Favor with the King by Tommy Tenney is just what I needed. Thanks for letting me have it, Lord. I feel like I’ve been screaming outside the gates. I want to be right next to You. Please cover me with Your righteousness so we can stay close.
GOD: You keep your walk, hands, and mind clean, son (Psalm 24:4). Always stop at the altar first before you come close. I only accept clean people into My presence (Leviticus 16:1-4).
kh: Thanks for being willing to clean me over and over again, Lord.
GOD: I never tire of it, son. I’ve got a knee-mail I’d like you to write. You look a little down this evening.
kh: Sure, Lord, to whom?
GOD: Send it to Luther Bridgers in 1910. He’s crying pretty hard right now, but you will be encouraged just by talking with him.
kh: Ok, Lord.
KH: Excuse me, Mr. Bridgers, I can’t help but see you are deeply hurt over something. Can I help you?
LB: Oh, thanks for asking. Just pray for me. I’m filled with mixed emotions right now after this great tragedy.
KH: What happened?
LB: I’ve been preaching for nine years now. I was out of town preaching a revival meeting; so my wife and three sons went to her parents’ house in Kentucky for a visit. The house caught fire during the night. Her parents got out alive, but my wife and three boys all died in the fire.
KH: Wow, that is terrible! I’m so sorry to hear about it. Is there anything I can do?
LB: Just pray. God has come so close to me during this tragedy. He is even giving me a song I think. The funeral is tomorrow. All I could pray at first was just Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Just calling His name was a comfort. He understands my grief and fills my heart. He keeps me singing during the good and the bad of life.
KH: Can I hear what you have written so far?
LB: I’m not a great musician and it’s not done yet, but so far it goes,
“There’s within my heart a melody, Jesus whispers sweet and low; Fear not I am with thee, peace be still; In all of life’s ebb and flow. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Sweetest name I know. Fills my every longing; Keeps me singing as I go.”
KH: I love it! He can keep us singing even when tragedy strikes.
LB: I know. He has for me. Do you think the song will ever help anyone else?
KH: You wouldn’t believe me if I told you how God is going to use this tragedy for HIS glory.
LB: Really? I’m so glad. I just want to be used of God to bring people to Heaven.
KH: You will, Luther. You will. I’ll pray for you. Finish your song. I have a feeling God will use it. It sure blessed me!
LB: Thanks for your encouragement, Kent. I’ll see you in Heaven.
kh: God, I’m sorry for griping about my little trials down here. If Luther Bridgers can sing after losing his wife and three sons in a fire while he was preaching, I guess I can sing in prison, can’t I?
GOD: Yes, son, you can. I know all about your situation. I’m in control. I’m God. Go sing, son. I’ve got your back.
Dr. Kent E. Hovind is currently at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution, in South Carolina.
–Send postcards and letters to:
Kent E. Hovind #06452-017
FCI Edgefield
P.O. BOX 725
Edgefield, SC. 29824 USA
Send him a letter or a postcard! A postcard with colorful scenery would be a nice thing to send. I have sent him a few letters with a couple of tracts enclosed in the past. He would share them with others. He can receive new books only directly from bookstores, but not hardcover books. Only paperbacks! No DVDs, or CDs, or anything else hard or sharp, no staples, etc. (No tracts with staples in them.) Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately. They do not always return postal items that do not get delivered to inmates. (So you may want to save a copy before mailing, in case one week later you learn that he has just been moved again.) http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/visiting.jsp
Expect that anything and everything you write will be read by the guards. Please don’t write political stuff, or negative tax-related things, or angry things, etc.
He cannot write back, for the most part. So even though you may not get a reply, know that your words will strongly encourage him. One can always check for the current address, via the Bureau of Prisons – http://www.bop.gov/ Use their “inmate locator”.
PA,
Are Americans the most protected people on Earth?
Lets see:- they have the Coast Guard and the National Guard; they have the Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines; they have the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Sate Police; they have the local City Hall, State Goverment, Federal Government and the United Nations; they have Interpol, Norad, Nato, Anzus, they have WTO/GATT, NAFTA, APEC, OPEC and Deepak. They have the North American Union? They have the FDA, BATF, Department of Agriculture, U.S.Customs and Boarder Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security. They have individual freetrade agreements. [Did the guy who invented "freetrade agreement" ever manage to pick himself up off the floor?] And they have the ACLU to guarantee their liberties [top job lads]
Surely there could not be a more peaceful and contented group of people anywhere on earth. Who would ever have to lock their door?
but as in Noah’s day; then the rain came ………..
PG – I have never known alphabet soup to protect anyone
GOD: You keep your walk, hands, and mind clean, son (Psalm 24:4). Always stop at the altar first before you come close. I only accept clean people into My presence (Leviticus 16:1-4).
This niggles me.
I can not keep my walk, hands & mind clean. An impossible taks and one that I fear leads many into bondage and law.
My “task” is to let the new nature of Christ in me live and not to feed the old nature. I can not change my old nature it is of the flesh and can never ever please God.
God will never accept me because I will never be clean, only Christ in me the hope of glory will ever be accepted into Gods presence and because He is in me I am always accepted into the Fathers presence.
I may not feel like I am in His presence but that does not negate the Word of God that promises that He will never leave me or forsake me.
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are with me 24/7 no matter what my feelings are.
I have no need of any altar because the Cross stands as a lighthouse and beacon for all eternity and the Cross has paid the price for all my sins, past present and future and because of the Cross I am born again and now the nature of Christ is in me and there is no way that Christ will sin.
If I allow my old nature to rise up and live out naturally it is sin and I need to crucify the passions and lusts of that nature by confession and repentance. I do not need any altar which by implication suggests I can do something to gain forgiveness, and that is an impossible thing.
Then, is it practical to always refer to someone elses life and problems and in so doing, minimise your own?
It is always possible to find someone else who is worse off than you are but that is not the way I see God working.
Surely every persons problems are relative to them in severity and my God, who is a loving Father cares for my problems and situations, in my experience He never fobs me off with a “You think you got hassles boy, look at so and so! Now shut up and stop moaning!”
Definitely not my God!
Sorry, but I have seen too much of the harmful effects that this type of thinking causes in people and how it leads to legalistic rituals to try live up to “standards” that are impossible to maintain – having started with the Spirit are you now trying to be perfected by the flesh?
Hi, Istvan,
You wrote:
“Samphire,
I said: “I really do not understand what Samphire is trying to do here… Is he addicted to CSEBlogs? I hope not. Does he think he is some kind of evolutionary missionary? What can he offer from the perspective of Evolutionism? Random chance, mutation, chaos, death and finally nothing. Well, no thanks.”
I am sorry, Samphire, but I failed to detect the answer to my question in your reply. It seemed more like a complaint addressed to and/or about Paul. So the question remains:”
As your original post was not addressed to me I did not respond direct to you but, to answer your repeated question, no, I am not addicted to CSEBlogs although I am quite fascinated by it and some of its contributors.
What can I offer? I try to encourage creationists to question in an intelligent fashion some – no, all – of the dumb stuff that passes for “creation science”. I don’t offer anything from the e-perspective as we are forbidden even to mention the word. Furthermore, as for death, I don’t suppose you worry too much about where you were before you were born so why should you worry about where you will be when you die?
”I am sure you would happily forward me all your unposted messages, but I have only one life, and a rather busy one, so there is little chance I could read them and react to them. Please, do not take this personally, but just as you are not interested in Creation, I am not interested in Evolutionism.”
Actually, I am interested in Creationism.
”Evolutionism is all over the world.”
And so is e……n, In fact, it is all over the universe as the Hubble telescope has clearly shown. Shall we ignore $4.5 billion of evidence?
… [EDITED; 8-10 paragraphs removed. Sorry.] …
Tomorrow, I shall be off for a month’s holiday to wonderful, sunny South Africa followed by scuba-diving in the Maldives. Yes, yes, yes. But much as I would love to be on safari with the unicorns, sorry – rhinos, or swimming with the fishes the dull reality is that I will still be in dreary England, walking the dog in the rain and loving every minute of it while having my posts (including this one) consigned to Paul’s overflowing dustbin. What a waste of a literary heritage. How Harold Pinter must be gloating.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have a good trip. P.A. ]
Pops, what you said is great and truthful and Jesus is just that to me. I think you misunderstood. I go to the alter and I bow down, first to thank my God, then to ask forgiveness for recent sin. I go there to ask for things like healing, guidence for my children, my wife and our relationship, for Him to be in the midst of us all. I am a worship leader and I ask for the right songs that will touch people that weekend. Maybe I am wrong but I believe the church needs to come back to the alter daily, maybe even hourly. We are soo busy today that we need to stop so that we can really see what truely is going on. I believe that the alter is a good place to stop and do that. My Jesus is my Lord and He has forgiven me of all my trespasses and as Paul says to continue to work out our salvation. Thank you Jesus, kerith
Dear Samphire,
Someone sent me a message asking to be put into contact with you.
Please remind me of the Email account that you recently opened, where folks could write to you separate from the blog – if they are interested.
Thank you, Paul
Pops – thankyou for your thoughts – actually I am only just slowly working my way through how PERSONS owing or representing corporations relate to human beings. A self confessed lawyer on this site accused Br.Kent of stealing from the [or a] “public trust”
\I personally do not feel robbed by Br. Kent – perhaps robbed of him, but not by him.
thus, who are the “public trust”?
when was it established? what is its deed? who are the trustees? To whom do they delegate? What are the assets? Who are the beneficiaries?
church in the pub is a great idea – the words “publican/ public house” relates to a tax collection.
So are you public or private?
perhaps you are correct in this respect – perhaps I should let the heathen rage and the nations plot a vain thing and pay no attention to any of it.
The first church in acts just seems to have worshipped from home to home. but then who owns a home/ allodial titles etc./ are all homes now “public houses”.
I say again, who has an allodial title, over what they think they own?
the bible says if the home owner new at what hour he was going to be robbed he would have stayed up and waited and watched.
God bless you – all glory to Jesus Christ the Lord of All.
if Juridical darling could comment whether or where the “public trust” exists without calling anyone a liar perhaps the blog can move on to the real history of “transcripts”
Dear Pops,
Sorry, I just don’t see the legalism that you are talking about. He did quote SCRIPTURE that states we must be pure to stand before the Lord. Is that LEGALISM or instead REALISM of our sinful nature and the stature we are to take when we come before our Holy Lord God Almighty?
Romans 8:1 THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
I believe that all Kent is stating is that we need to seek the Spirit over the flesh when we come and present our supplications and worship to him. Thus, he is stating, that if you are going to approach this Holy God, you must first prepare your heart and your soul to stand before Him. If we are in the middle of the our carnal nature, will God hear us?
Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
Is there anywhere in the NT that condones staying within a sinful state? No. What did the Lord Himself always state to those that he forgave such as the woman in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Is that legalism as well? No, that is seeking the spirit over the flesh and seeking the pure and Holy and righteous in our lives. Yes, we are all sinners and the flesh loves to sin, but alas, there are those glorious times when we are able in “Spirit and in truth” come before our Holy God in the nature of the Spirit and not the nature of the flesh. Is it legalsim when Peter says to be SOBER?
I Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
I Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
Is this legalism or coming before the alter of God within our hearts and seeking the cleansing of our mind and our heart so that we can approach our Holy God? Is a “two drink limit” approaching our Holy God in the Spirit? Sorry to be blunt, but our God is a Holy God and we are to be holy as well.
Proverbs 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
Is this legalism as well? Or is it simply the commandments of a Holy God to sinful men everywhere to come to repentance throught the knowledge of sin as given by the law.
Romans 6:1 WHAT shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
In the love of Christ,
Peter
Continued from Knee-Mail Between Kent and God
Thank you to The Welders Wife for the etymology and to Istvan for the link to the unicorn at AiG. It seems that both sources indicate that the unicorn was a “wild ox”.
No dinosaur reference though.
Paul, I know Kent and AiG have their differences, but I don’t know about you. You have use them as references in other posts.
Istvan, when I suggested the narwhal as the KJV unicorn, I was being facetious. In my opinion, narwhals and dinosaurs are both absurd creatures to be considered the “unicorn”.
So, my question is still on the table:
For Paul, Kent or anyone that cares to answer;
What leads you to speculate/believe/promote the idea that KJV unicorn was a dinosaur?
What is the history of this idea, are there any resources you can offer?
JohnLake
? I am confused perhaps because I am new here and not too sure how this whole thing works.
Out of the blue there is a totally unrelated response to the topic from Samphire to Istvan, neither of whom had a previous post on this thread?
Then I get a response from kerith as though kerith had written the original knee-mail?
Can some one please tell me what is going on here?
In response to kerith:
I understand what you are saying, I think. The trouble with this type of correspondance is that the actual emotion etc ccan not beincluded in the typed word.
I do not go to any altar at any stage, I have a continuous conversation going with Jesus, my Father and His Spirit. Something I have taken the time to cultivate, and am still cultivating. He is with me all the time and like any good friend who is with me, we chat. If an altar is what He requires from you then so be it, for you.
I pray that He leads and guides you in every step you take and in that you put your hand to. I pray that you learn to hear His voice more and more every day and that you enjoy the immense love, joy and peace that He so freely gives because Jesus paid the price for it!
Lots of love kerith!
Pops.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a new posting from Dr. Hovind about twice per week. The conversations tend to "migrate" from the old posting comments ... to the new ones. And sometimes folks check things only once or twice per week - then comment (either in the original sequence, or under the new).
Istvan sent me (the moderator) a posted reply a few days back regarding a person who goes by "Samphire". Samphire wrote back, but I edited down his posting. He said that he is going on vacation (within the UK). Well, ... reluctantly I posted part of his message.
2 months ago we made a radical shift in this blog. Up until that time pretty much anyone could respectfully address the creation-evolution issue, Bible controversies, etc. But we finally decided that an orientation of "Since the Bible is true..." is more positive.
One can answer skeptics over and over and over, and still they will look for mental hiding places from God. Just as a thief just can't seem to find a police officer no matter how hard he tries, the unrepentant sinner just can't seem to find God no matter how hard he tries.
Dr. Hovind has done some 100 debates with leading evolutionary teachers. 20 of them are on DVDs; 2 to 3 hours long each. CSE has them available to watch; the skeptics do not. We encourage folks to get educated on the creation-evolution debate. We win.
Anyway, for the past two months I have been repetitively asking the skeptics to setup their own blog site somewhere. I/we will be glad to post its location. Any and all can go there. Instead they keep trying to post here. Samphire is one of them. He is smart, he is often witty, but he is not a creationist. The skeptics question the Bible at every turn. That is their right (but not here within this blog); they can deny the most important part of our lives - the spiritual; until ... until their hearts stop beating. P.A. ]
Thanks Ed now I understand where these ‘out of the blue’ posts come from – but who is kerith?
I have obtained a copy of a copy of a copy ad nauseum of the creation series of dvd’s and would like to get a copy of the College class ones if possible but getting the dvd’s is a mission of note here in South Africa due to postal theft, rand/dolar exchange rate etc.
Hi Peter! How are you
ET:
Sorry, I just don’t see the legalism that you are talking about. He did quote SCRIPTURE that states. Is that LEGALISM or instead REALISM of our sinful nature and
Quoting scripture does not make something right.
Pops: A lot of scripture is written for us but not to us and if we can not see the difference then we will end up in legalism.
ET: we must be pure to stand before the Lord
Pops: There is nothing we can ever do to make ourselves pure before the Lord. We can only stand before the Lord when we stand in Christ and Christ alone.
ET: the stature we are to take when we come before our Holy Lord God Almighty?
Pops: We have no stature before God except in Christ.
ET: Romans 8:1 THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Pops: Oh yes, IN CHRIST JESUS
ET: 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Pops: My point!
The reference to the word Spirit in Romans 8 is a reference to the new nature we receive when born again, it is not a reference to the Holy Spirit.
ET: I believe that all Kent is stating is that we need to seek the Spirit over the flesh when we come and present our supplications and worship to him.
Pops: You are making an assumption here about what you believe Kent is stating.
As our entire life should be before Him this separation of a time when we come before God can lead to a compartmentalization of our lives. From the little I know of you I do not think that you believe that you are only before God at certain times but rather that He is everywhere all the time?
ET: Thus, he is stating, that if you are going to approach this Holy God, you must first prepare your heart and your soul to stand before Him. If we are in the middle of the our carnal nature, will God hear us?
Pops: Again that word “you” as in me. There is nothing we can do at any time to make us acceptable to God.
As for “being in the middle of our carnal nature – my Dear Friend, I am a human being and I live in my carnal being 24/7 and until the day I die that will never change. I do however, ignore the lusts and passions thereof.
ET: Psalm 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
Pops: Yes, David had such a tough time under the Old Covenant – Thank God for Jesus!
ET: Is there anywhere in the NT that condones staying within a sinful state? No. What did the Lord Himself always state to those that he forgave such as the woman in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Is that legalism as well?
Pops: Actually yes, those at the time that Jesus walked the earth still lived under the Law.
ET: No, that is seeking the spirit over the flesh and seeking the pure and Holy and righteous in our lives. Yes, we are all sinners and the flesh loves to sin, but alas, there are those glorious times when we are able in “Spirit and in truth” come before our Holy God in the nature of the Spirit and not the nature of the flesh.
Pops: I am before my Holy God every minute of every day living out the new nature that was given birth when Gods Spirit gave birth to my spirit (new nature) but I still fight to put to death the desires of the flesh that strives to over come me.
I was a sinner before I met Christ and He saved me. Now I am a son of the most High God! If I am still a sinner then Christ wil have to die many times to save me but we know that He died once for all!
ET: Is it legalsim when Peter says to be SOBER?
I Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
Pops:
Former lusts? Oh, so they have passed then have they? Well yes they have and the new nature of Christ does not have those lusts. However, they still pop up as my old nature strives for domination, I must just choose which nature I prefer to bow down to!
ET: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Pops: How am I to be holy if I am a sinner? An impossible task outside of Christ but now I am Holy and beloved, accepted IN the Beloved – Jesus!
ET:
I Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
Pops:
I am totally reliant upon Him every day for in my own self, in my flesh, I would run back to the garlic and leeks in a flash. I cast myself upon Him all the time, not just at specific altar times because I know that it matters to Him concerning me.
The devil is the least of my problems, as evidenced by just one mere mention of him in Peters letter – I am the greatest problem in my life, that is my flesh and the tendency to act on impulse according to the desires and lusts of the flesh.
ET: Is this legalism or coming before the alter of God within our hearts and seeking the cleansing of our mind and our heart so that we can approach our Holy God?
Pops:
There is no more” altar” but a Throne of Grace that I come before and that I approach boldly to receive Grace in my time of need. Hence my being there all the time.
ET: Is a “two drink limit” approaching our Holy God in the Spirit? Sorry to be blunt, but our God is a Holy God and we are to be holy as well.
Pops: Please, no apology needed Brother. Two drinks is so that people do not become belligerent. Those we know well can indulge in more because even after 4 or 5 drinks their mannerisms, character etc do not change at all.
(So glad you checked out the website! )
ET: Proverbs 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
Is this legalism as well? Or is it simply the commandments of a Holy God to sinful men everywhere to come to repentance throught the knowledge of sin as given by the law.
Pops:
That is why we have the limit so that they do not “tarry” and become contentious!
While on the subject of wine: Psalm 104 : 14 , 15 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the garden and wine to gladden the heart of man…..
And I would rather that men who normally drink came in and have a drink or two whilst hearing Gods Word, rather than keeping them out because we will not permit them to have a drink because of a man made law.
ET:
Romans 6:1 WHAT shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
POPS:
Absolutely true! I am so glad you used this scripture for it proves my point exactly – it is no longer me but Christ in me, living out His life through me in my new nature.
I have been baptized into His death yes but still have to live with the realism of being in the body that houses my old nature and that tries (so hard sometimes) to get me to return to be it’s servant. But I do not have to serve it as the unsaved do, now I have a choice because of Jesus!
(PS. V2 is a contradiction if, as you stated earlier on “Yes, we are all sinners” but it is no contradiction for I no longer live but Christ lives in me! Is that not wonderful news, even Good News!)
ET: In the love of Christ,
Peter
Pops:
I love you too Peter!
Oooooooooops!
Slip of the “old” fingers there!
Should be:
ET:
Sorry, I just don’t see the legalism that you are talking about. He did quote SCRIPTURE that states. Is that LEGALISM or instead REALISM of our sinful nature and
Pops:
Quoting scripture does not make something right.
A lot of scripture is written for us but not to us and if we can not see the difference then we will end up in legalism.
(Psst, ED – How do you get things bold, Italics etc????)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: You add HTML code to the beginning and end of selected text. Here are a few examples: http://www.pageresource.com/html/textags.htm
Please make sure to always CLOSE any tag that you open, or else your "bold" or "italics" text just runs on and on. (And if you, for example, open a bold, then an italics - now both are in effect on the text - then first close the "inner" tag - which here would be: italics, then close the outer tag of bold. FILO principles.... P.A. ]
Hello pops. I thank you for praying for me and all your great comments. it is a priveledge to be on this christian blog with this great ministry teaching truth to all men. Merry Christmas pops, Merry Christmas pabramson, Merry Christmas to all. kerith PS I have a story to tell about how My wife and I first heard of Dr Dino and creation, maybe I should tell it sometime. Thanks again
Samphire,
You said: “I try to encourage creationists to question in an intelligent fashion some – no, all – of the dumb stuff that passes for “creation science”.”
There may be “dumb stuff” in creation science, but there are those who try to get rid of some – no, all – of that. But to do that, creationist need to do research. To do research, creationists need funds. But all the funds go to those who believe in Evolutionism, the carefully protected, useless and and literally baseless religion. Yes, baseless, because you remember how it all “started”? Nothing exploded. And nothing “really means nothing”. No time, no space, no matter, no natural laws. Yeah, right. When SOMETHING explodes that SOMETHING is destroyed, and its environment also gets damaged. But that is nothing compared to what happens, when ABSOLUTE NOTHING explodes! When NOTHING (NO TIME, NO SPACE, NO MATTER, NO NATURAL LAWS) explodes, an incredibly complex universe forms itself. Of course. Easy as pie. The greatest mystery of all time, the origin of the universe is now solved, and all is well with the world. And where is the evidence? Anyone got a sample of ABSOLUTE NOTHING? Can I put it under a microscope? Because I sure am interested in what is in NOTHING!
No, this is silly. There is no proof for the nothing exploded into something for no reason, and here we are now “masters of the universe”. You guys used to think the universe has always existed. No beginning, no end. The Bible has always said that there was a beginning. “In the beginning God…”. Then redshift came along and you changed your mind. So now you think the universe had a beginning. Big Bang. But you are still not better off, because stellar evolution just does not work. Chemical evolution does not work either. Shall I continue? Why should I? If you have no universe and no chemical building blocks to work with, you are not going to get anywhere. You have nothing.
This is what kids ought to learn about in school. Evolutionism may have funding, but it has no foundation. It is “good” business, I am sure. There is “good” money in it. The root of all evil…
“I don’t offer anything from the e-perspective as we are forbidden even to mention the word.”
No, Samphire, you do not offer anything, because you have nothing to offer… that is the NOTHING that exploded, mind you.
“Furthermore, as for death, I don’t suppose you worry too much about where you were before you were born so why should you worry about where you will be when you die?”
That is a great way to live, Samphire! (Sarcasm meant.) That is why Evolutionism is so dangerous. Carpe diem, right? Live today, for tomorrow you shall die! Take all you can! Do not worry about death! No risk, no fun! Wanna have a lot of fun, take a lot of risks! Or stay young as long as you can, for you only live once! Squeeze all the pleasure out of life, as long as you can!
Everybody should worry about where they will be, when they die. You, too. Why? Because there happens to be a message from the Creator. And He says that whatever you do and believe here and now will determine your future. Think about that, if you wish.
Evolutionists are playing hide and seek with God, but I have bad news for them. They cannot win.
Istvan
just wanted to apologize to all the guys at the DEA and the DIA for overlooking you. Merry Christmas everyone – [all seasonal salutations being subject to the approval of the ACLU]
(c) 2007 All Rights Reserved.
Samphire – you shocked me again, you have a dog that’s prepared to walk with you?
John Lake,
“Thank you to The Welders Wife for the etymology and to Istvan for the link to the unicorn at AiG. It seems that both sources indicate that the unicorn was a “wild ox”.”
And of course they could be both wrong. Right?
“Istvan, when I suggested the narwhal as the KJV unicorn, I was being facetious.”
I noticed.
“In my opinion, narwhals and dinosaurs are both absurd creatures to be considered the “unicorn”.”
OK, so that is your opinion, no problem with that.
“What leads you to speculate/believe/promote the idea that KJV unicorn was a dinosaur?”
Let me twist that question. What leads you to speculate that the KJV unicorn was not a dinosaur?
Why a “wild ox”? Why not just “I don’t know what it was.”? I mean:
“And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” Isaiah 34:7
A bull is a male ox, a bullock is a castrated bull (castrated male ox), right? So what do we have in Isaiah 34:7? “And the wild oxen shall come down with them, and the castrated male oxen with the male oxen…?” I mean, we have a lot of oxen here. It seems a bit odd to me, but that is only me. Also the root word of Reem meaning “to be high” has very little to do with a wild ox, I think. But, again, I know no Hebrew, so, I am really just guessing here.
Over to whoever is more knowledgeable.
Istvan
Paul wrote: ”Istvan sent me (the moderator) a posted reply a few days back regarding a person who goes by “Samphire”. Samphire wrote back, but I edited down his posting. He said that he is going on vacation (within the UK). Well, … reluctantly I posted part of his message.”
[...EDITED, 3 paragraphs removed...]
”…the unrepentant sinner just can’t seem to find God no matter how hard he tries.”
Finding God is one thing – educating children in “creation science” another. Repenting of one’s sins does not cause a change in the speed of light.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Recall that there is good evidence that the speed of light itself is SLOWING. Yet another area of research where creationists are ahead!! (Barry Setterfield is one of the primary researchers in this area; he is a creationist.)
Fellow believers, in several areas of study we have been many years ahead of evolutionists on multiple occasions! They are mentally hobbled by their backwards theory.
The speed of light is not a constant! That is nonsense. It used to be believed; but the weight of good scientific research shows otherwise. The evolutionists and their hiding-from-God beliefs are holding us back - AGAIN!
"Physics and the Bible: Faster Than The Speed of Light"
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/156/
NOTES FROM RECENT EVOLUTION CONVENTION: "Okay, so we can dispense with the minutes from our last meeting. We've evolved since then anyway. Let's all affirm that we reject the Creator's lordship over our lives and that creation theory just c-c-c-can't be true no matter what. We'll ignore 99% of the hominid fossils, since they show that humans have always been humans. Right. And next week the news magazines will give the general public a new inoculation that evolution just must be true. It's some little amphibian that will be forgotten in a year or two, but Simpson and Jameson over there got a good grant for pretending that it is an intermediary when the poor creature just had a badly mutated tooth sticking out. Good work gentlemen! And it is on to new business and new deceptions right after we affirm that everyone here agrees to maintain the secret that the radiometric dating methods are not testable-repeatable. Does everyone agree? If that secret leaks out then those creationists can again show people that they are the ones siding with real science, and we can't have that of course. Okay, all in affirmation. Good. Now let's move on...."
Samphire, what is the alternative blog site where your comments will be posted? P.A. ]
THIS ONE IS FOR JOE & ALL THE SUPPORT TEAM AT CSE:
This is to let you know that you are all loved & greatly appreciated!
God has a way of taking the most terrible things & turning them into something incredibly beautiful:
‘It was near the end of the first forty days. By now we had gotten into a routine. Despite all the things that could have happened, the Ark floated gently upon the waters. It rocked, but never radically. Some days it seemed to be moving faster as if some ocean current was carrying it along. When you consider all the things that could have happened to it, and the fact that they never did, you will realize that YAHWEH continually watched over us. He earnestly remembered us! His thoughts about us were countless. They were more numerous than the grains of the sand! We were never out of His thoughts! The Seed of the woman never quit thinking about us!
On day forty-one, when I woke up, everything was still. I sat up and wondered. Shem woke up at the same time. As he sat up he exclaimed, “YAHWEH must have shut down the flood gates of the heavens!” We both got up and went to look out the window. It was still dark. It seems that everybody all woke up at the same time. The guys stood at the window waiting for first light, as the women got the breakfast ready. When the clouds began to turn pink, we were all standing at the window to watch. We had never seen a sunrise like this one before. (Now you have to remember that before The Flood, it had never rained, so we had never seen rain clouds before the rain came, and in the forty days of rain, it never stopped long enough to see a sunset or a sunrise.) We were amazed! The beauty of that first sunrise after the rain stopped is almost beyond description. The clouds were highlighted and streaked with a beautiful pink color! We were awe struck! The very instruments that YAHWEH had used to destroy the old world, now became objects of incredible beauty! As the minutes passed, the clouds became brighter and less pink. Suddenly the pair of Kookaburras began to laugh. Then it seemed as if every bird in the Ark began to make noise! That woke up all the other critters, and they all began making a racket. The two puppies began to howl and sing as they sat at Noach’s feet. We all started laughing! Then as the sun began to appear at the edge of the horizon, it began to be reflected in the flood waters. It was so bright, we could barely look at it! As it climbed upwards into the sky, we began to focus on the distant horizon. There was a green ocean of water in all directions and no land anywhere! All the high mountains were completely covered. We could no longer see the tops of them. The water was full of green debris from all the vegetation that had been uprooted, and once in a while we could see a fish jumping. The water itself was very murky. It was full of mud!…………………
That evening we watched the sun set. At first the clouds were more orange than pink, and then they became rosy pink! It too was beautiful! After looking at the murky waters all day with dead things and debris floating all around, it was an encouragement from The LORD that somehow He was going to recreate this ugly mess into something beautiful. Beautiful sunsets and beautiful sunrises are YAHWEH’S reminders to keep our focus and trust on Him Who is in the heavens above our surroundings and circumstances!’
P-G said: ”Samphire – you shocked me again, you have a dog that’s prepared to walk with you?”
Yeah. He walks with me, he talks with me and he tells me I am his owner. What a dog!
Pops
Said this on December 13th, 2007 at 6:39pm:
Pops:
Quoting scripture does not make something right.
A lot of scripture is written for us but not to us and if we can not see the difference then we will end up in legalism.
Dear Pops,
It is quite likely that we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of Dr. Hovind’s comments being legalistic and also this specific issue mentioned above, but for sake of interest, lets look at your comment above more indepth. I believe that I understand where you are going with this statement, but for sake of clarity, would you be kind enough to explain in greater detail. You appear to be stating that there are some of the words of God that we do not have to pay attention to because they are not written for us specifically. I do not agree with that, but for the sake of others that may not understand what this issue is about, or perhaps I am assuming your answer incorrectly, please give a more detailed account of why you believe that is true. ( I suspect you are going to talk about “rightly dividing the word of truth.”) Please give a little backgroung to where this answer comes from as well.
In any case, Dr. Hovind is only stating that we need to prepare our hearts through confession of our sins at the “altar” to prepare the time of fellowship with God our Father. I see absolutely nothing to consider that as legalism in any form. In fact, look at what it states in I John 1: 5-10 which is definitely written to us “Gentiles” (sorry once you are saved there is no Jew or barbarian, we are simply all Christians in one family0>
How about this verse:
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’
Is this legalism as well?
In Christ’s name,
Peter
Istvan,
Characterizing the Big Bang as an explosion in not accurate. The term “Big Bang”, in fact, was originally used by opponents of the theory to belittle it and, unfortunately, the name stuck.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Inaccurate? Or negatively expository? Open a textbook sometime. They think and teach that all that is came from nothing for no reason, then it exploded (or "rapidly expanded in a rather dramatic fashion" if preferred), and poof, here we are today. "Don't give God any credit." Evolution, at its base level, is a mental hiding place from our Creator. The evolutionists may not like it termed in ways that expose how hollow the belief is, but the typification is accurate nonetheless. P.A. ]
Hey Samphire, we had 2 dogs like that once.
One was called Joan the other Baez and they used to sit and stare at my wife and I whilst singing:
“There but for creation go you and I, you and I”
Istvan,
While I’m waiting for someone to answer my question, I’ll see if I can answer yours.
Istvan
Said this on December 14th, 2007 at 2:32am:
Let me twist that question. What leads you to speculate that the KJV unicorn was not a dinosaur?
Because the description does not indicate it was a dinosaur. Large, strong & not domesticated; no scales or reptile like features, unlike the description of the Leviathan in the Job 41.
Why a “wild ox”?
Because the description fits and there are references that suggest it may have been a wild ox. References like the ones you and The Welders Wife provided.
Why not just “I don’t know what it was.”?
That would be an acceptable answer, but that is not what was said by Paul and Kent.
I’m not saying that we know or need to know exactly what the “unicorn” was; I’m asking why Paul and Kent promote the idea that it was a dinosaur. Where are the references that they used to support this idea?
I mean:
“And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” Isaiah 34:7
A bull is a male ox, a bullock is a castrated bull (castrated male ox), right?
Yes, well, sort of, but not quite, a male ox could be a bull, however oxen are usually castrated. You wouldn’t want a bull pulling your plow or cart if a pretty little heifer should wander by!
Bulls and bullocks (especially bullocks) are domesticated cattle i.e.: livestock. Oxen are draft animals (also domesticated), and not a particular breed or species. If the unicorn was a wild ox like the aurochs, it wouldn’t be a domesticated animal.
Also the root word of Reem meaning “to be high” has very little to do with a wild ox, I think. But, again, I know no Hebrew, so, I am really just guessing here.
I’m no expert either; however “the unicorns shall come down” would seem to indicate that at some point the unicorns were up somewhere, maybe high in the mountains?
JohnLake
Dear JohnLake,
I think the unicorn may have been some kind of dinosaur. But I do not know for certain. Does this answer the question?
Paul
Hi Peter!
Did you have a good day today? I hope so.
1. It is quite likely that we will need to agree to disagree on the issue of Dr. Hovind’s comments being legalistic and also this specific issue mentioned above,
Pops:
My mistake, sorry! I am not saying that Kent is legalistic. My concern is that someone can misinterpret this knee mail and be led down a path of legalism.
Again, it is this typing thing that leaves out emotions and timbre in one’s written conversations.
2. but for sake of interest, lets look at your comment above more indepth. I believe that I understand where you are going with this statement, but for sake of clarity, would you be kind enough to explain in greater detail. You appear to be stating that there are some of the words of God that we do not have to pay attention to because they are not written for us specifically. I do not agree with that, but for the sake of others that may not understand what this issue is about, or perhaps I am assuming your answer incorrectly, please give a more detailed account of why you believe that is true.
Pops:Will one example suffice?
“1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: 3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. 4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. 5 And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation…..
Written for us but not to us – or, as Paul put it 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
3. ( I suspect you are going to talk about “rightly dividing the word of truth.”) Please give a little backgroung to where this answer comes from as well.
Pops: What?
In any case, Dr. Hovind is only stating that we need to prepare our hearts through confession of our sins at the “altar” to prepare the time of fellowship with God our Father.
Pops:
I still do not see anywhere in Scripture that I can do anything about the condition of my heart. It is wicked and always will be and that is why I need Jesus so desperately.
I see absolutely nothing to consider that as legalism in any form. In fact, look at what it states in I John 1: 5-10 which is definitely written to us “Gentiles” (sorry once you are saved there is no Jew or barbarian, we are simply all Christians in one family0>
Pops:
In the context of the two natures of Christians I have no problem with these verses.
How about this verse:
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’
Pops:
The one who says this is coming from an incorrect position to start with and most probably never met Christ! That is my thought on that.
As for keeping His commandments, once I am in Christ then I have no issue with trying to keep His commandments because those commandments now become promises to me because of Jesus!
Lots of love Peter!
Pops
(Psst, Ed, I still can’t get those italiboldthingys right! and I still don’t know who Kerith is?)
if you do a word study on “caleb” – [the hebrew name] you’ll find the allegory has been done before with profound subtext;
written and authorized for use by God.
with your “interest” in Creationism you will soon know as much about it as you do about spotting icebergs from a crows nest on a night watch on an ocean liner in the north atlantic.
woof woof, wag wag
ISTVAN
Hi! Here’s what I’ve come up with so far:
In Deuteronomy 14:4-6 the words used for domestic sheep(‘tzon’) and domestic goats (Females are ‘ez’ & males are ‘sair’) are entirely different than the words used for wild goat(‘aggo’) & ‘wild’ mountain sheep(‘zemer’). Domestic animals have more descriptive words for different categories i.e. ram, ewe, lamb, male or female, & how many.
In Hebrew the actions or personalities of different critters are emphasized & compared to things that humans do. Sheep are a really good illustration of this principal. Years ago I bought a lamb so that I could understand what the Bible says, & then she grew up & had some lambs…. At this point I have a couple of her descendants & a llama, & a lot more understanding of sheep. Sheep are totally helpless when it comes to cleaning themselves. They can’t lick themselves clean like cats & dogs do. [They can’t chew their hoofs down either.] The only way they get clean is from the moisture that falls out of the sky. In the same way, we are totally helpless. Only the Blood of Christ can cleanse us from our sin. In Psalm 23 it talks about being cast down. What happens is that when a sheep’s wool is too long, or it is pregnant, it can get top heavy, & when it lays down sometimes it rolls over on it’s back, & can’t turn it’s self back upright, so it just lays on it’s back & frantically kicks it’s feet in the air. If it stays in that position too long, it will die. You have to roll it back over on it’s feet. That’s a picture of us when we are cast down. The Lord restores us. Another illustration would be that Jesus said that they will only listen to their shepherd’s voice. I started addressing my first sheep as ‘Fat Lady!’ because her wool made her look totally round. I’d call ‘Fat Lady’ & she’d come running [It was un-politically correct!]. Later, as the flock increased in numbers, they’d all come when I shouted ‘Fat Lady!’ They wanted to see if I had some pizza, or oatmeal cookies, or something else more interesting than green grass! Some times I’d send a friend or two out to the field to catch a young wither to put in their freezer. The sheep didn’t have a clue about what was going on, but, they wouldn’t come to them no matter how they tried to bribe them, because they weren’t familiar with their voices. The point is, most of the animals mentioned in the Bible are mentioned because they are illustrations of something that God want to get across to us. My guess is that this principal probably applies to the critter mentioned in Job 39:9 too.
Pops
Said this on December 14th, 2007 at 3:58pm:
How about this verse:
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’
Pops:
The one who says this is coming from an incorrect position to start with and most probably never met Christ! That is my thought on that.
Uhhhhhhhhhg, Pops, I was hoping for an interesting discussion and you have really blown it. You have accused John the Apostle of being incorrect and having never met Christ. Ooooops, this is a quotation from I John 2:4. I’m sorry Pops but this time you really have gone too far. I suspect that some of your views do not have the authority of the Scriptures or do you wish to recant what you have stated about the Apostle John, the one that Jesus loved.
In any case, I have already stated that we will agree to disagree on these issues.
In Christ’s name,
Peter
Dear Brother Warocuya,
Hi! I praise God for His great faithfulness through what He has done in your family & in the wisdom that He has given you.
My grandfather used to have a battle with the bottle too. He quit 2 years before he died. I have a notion, but I can’t prove it yet, that he got his heart right with the Lord. When he died I was 16, & I hadn’t seen him since I was 10, & he wasn’t good at writing letters.
It seems to me that the evil one seeks to wipe out anybody who has a good resource of the truth of the Creator in their culture. At the turn of the century he nearly wiped out the Armenians who were the keepers of the Ark, & he tried to wipe out the Jews, & the same with Native Americans who have a historical account of the early part of Genesis. I reckon it’s probably similar to what was going on just before the Flood happened when he tried to hide the name of the Lord & get people to worship the names of the Nephilim instead.
In your research of the Native American versions of the Ancient Stories, is there anything that you have come across that would shed some more light on pre-Flood history, or the Flood, or right after the Flood?
In Yeshua,
Stands-on the-ends-of the-earth-singing-glory-to-The-Righteous-One!
Hi Peter!
I looked at that Scripture about dividing the word of truth – 2 Tim 2: 15. I think it must be taken in context of the whole thing which seems to start at v 14 and leads off with arguing about words?
Why do you think I am arguing about words Peter?
V15 to me says that I must handle, divide (tried loking for a 1611 dictionary to see what this word meant back then but couldn’t get one!) the Word of God correctly or rightly. How does this apply to me Peter? Do you perceive me going off track somewhere in what I have said? Pleas let me know as I would not like that to happen!!
Is it perhaps that you misunderstood me, or that I did not communicate adequately about the word legalism?
As I said, I am not trying to imply that Kent is legalistic. If I have done so please accept my apologies.
Lots of love Peter!
Pops
Dear Samphire,
There is someone who would like to communicate with you off-line.
Please remind me/us of the “gmail” account that you recently made for such Emails.
Thanks, Paul
It is very encouraging, I say about Kent’s letter. I think his wife read it several times. I have read it twice already and twice i was going to weep as because of Kent’s sufferings so of Luther’s and Kent’s wife’s.
I’m myself a husband and can understand them. Encouragament, as i see now, is what we shall ask for from the Lord for He is perfect in it and can make us perfect also. I think what they’ve done for Kent is just opening of persecutions that come.
Encourage us, oh God!
Hi Peter
No, No, No! I am not saying John has never met Jesus!!!!!
See what I mean about misunderstanding written words!
I am saying that the person that John is talking about in that Scripture is the one who has not met Jesus, that is what I am saying there!
You have misunderstood me Peter!
Lots of love
Pops
Dear Pops,
Fair enough, it appeared that you had made that implication about the person that wrote it. Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Peter
Dear Pops,
Fair enough, it appeared that you had made that implication about the person that wrote it. Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Peter
Hiya Peter!
Now, here is a statement I made, in your mother tongue only a few hours ago and it is not a very in depth statement.
However, it was misunderstood.
Now, is it not possible that when we are interpreting certain texts from the Bible, in a language that we are not familiar with; that no one speaks any more; that no one has spoken for hundreds of years and so we can not even refer to them for help; that at best, the meaning of the words are merely well educated guesses, is it not possible that we are making mistakes and misinterpreting various scriptures?
and yet we insist that we are correct and that so many others are wrong and we get proud and judgemental and even start calling them names, albeit just to show our “Christian” side we call them names that are mentioned in the Bible!
The worst thing about legalism is that it makes one feel superior to another and that is wrong!
If I feel I am doing this thing correctly and others are not, am I not setting myself up as better than them?
Am I not putting myself in a position to judge them?
And by judging them am I not going against the whole Spirit of the Love of God who despite our faults, errors and sins, loved us enough to send His Son to die for us?
Having done that ultimate sacrifice do you really think that now God will let it all go down the toilet because we are using the “wrong” translation of Scripture!
I think that we get so caught up about the Word of God that we forget about the God of the Word who is not bound by the written word at all!
Whilst all that happens is the publishers rub their hands in glee)
Paul gave a very specific instruction that we should not be arguing about words! We need to open our ears and listen to this warning!
If a person is lead to the Lord then I do not care what Bible they use after that, because they could not come to Him unless the Father drew them. Now having come to the Lord, I am of the humble opinion that God is more than able to keep them falling and to present them unstained at His glorious throne and He most certainly does not my feeble help!
Lots of love to you Peter
Pops
The worst thing about legalism is that it makes one feel superior to another and that is wrong!
If I feel I am doing this thing correctly and others are not, am I not setting myself up as better than them?
Am I not putting myself in a position to judge them?
And by judging them am I not going against the whole Spirit of the Love of God who despite our faults, errors and sins, loved us enough to send His Son to die for us?
Pops
Said this on December 18th, 2007 at 1:18am:
Having done that ultimate sacrifice do you really think that now God will let it all go down the toilet because we are using the “wrong” translation of Scripture!
I think that we get so caught up about the Word of God that we forget about the God of the Word who is not bound by the written word at all!
Whilst all that happens is the publishers rub their hands in glee)
Paul gave a very specific instruction that we should not be arguing about words! We need to open our ears and listen to this warning!
If a person is lead to the Lord then I do not care what Bible they use after that, because they could not come to Him unless the Father drew them. Now having come to the Lord, I am of the humble opinion that God is more than able to keep them falling and to present them unstained at His glorious throne and He most certainly does not my feeble help!
Lots of love to you Peter
Pops
Dear Pops,
As I stated, It appeared that you were referring to the person that had written the statement, yet since you have stated that was not what you intended, I have withdrawn my objections and apologized. Yet, unfortunately, it appears that you have taken my acknowledgement of an error of perception and turned that into a diatribe on the original tongues and translations. That is quite a stretch, yet, I will respond to the new allegations that you now bring, even though it was my intention to gracefully bow out of contentious disputations. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of your comments that I do choose to respond to.
First, the Scriptures are what is part of God’s promise to preserve. It is also only through God that any man can understand that which has been written by God. (Job 32:8, James 1:5) Thus, because I or anyone else does or does not understand an issue of an interpretation does not in the least stand as an accusation against God’s Word itself.
Secondly, It is at the hands of faithful men of God to spread His Holy Word to the lost. Indeed, that Word is to be pure in whatever language that it is given. The history of the vernacular translations from the preserved original tongues is quite well documented for anyone that wishes to understand this issue. The Alexandrian vs Antioch line of documents should be understood well by all. Those translations from the Alexandrian line are filled with error, as is the illogical conclusions of textual criticism. Misunderstandings are easily cleared up between men when they come forth and acknowledge what is and was a misunderstanding when asked for clarification. Yet, where will men go if they do not even start with a faithful text.
Lastly the issue of legalism is often put forth when in reality the issue is really shall we stay IN sin, or remove ourselves from sin. Once again, coming before the Lord and asking Him through the reading of His word and through prayer to cleanse our hearts as Dr. Hovind started this original topic, is not legalism, it is simply a confession of our sins that God promises He will honour and forgive us of all of our sins and cleanse us. Confession of known sins and asking for the strength to overcome them is NOT legalism. (James 5:16, I John 1:8-10) This is all that Dr. Hovind was stating when he said we should come before the altar of God.
In the name of Christ,
Peter
I have already given you two examples of godly men who have led native peoples to translate faithfully into their own tongue yet you do not accept this. This is actually the history from the entire church age back to the apostles. It is also well documented that Satan’s attack against God’s word has been from this time as well through men of corrupt minds who did not faithfully keep His Word. I have further given you the example of my own wife who prefers the KJV over her own native tongue for reading the Scriptures. If it is through your misunderstanding of what I have given objective evidence for, then we will simply come to the point of agreeing to disagree and not enter into any further doubtful disputations. Nevertheless, I again urge all to read of the history of these texts from G. A. Riplingers In Awe of Thy Word from AV Publications.
Good day Peter!
My word but you get on your high horse so quickly!
A diatribe Peter? definitely not, just an example of how things can be misunderstood when one is not face to face with the person you are communicating with.
firstly, I accept your “apology” for the misunderstanding and I hold no resentment or anger or anything else; it was a simple misunderstanding is all. I put apology in ” ” because in my mind there was no need for an apology.
secondly I was using it as an example of how, without face to face interaction one can misunderstand a variety of things and to me it was a good current example of how it could be possible for Bible translators to have the same problem.
thirdly, G.A. Riplingers book is not an accepted work and has in fact been clearly shown to contain many errors, misquotes and even blatant lies. hardly a book I would recommend to any one Peter.
How does this statement by Mrs.Riplinger look to you Peter:
“EACH DISCOVERY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF EFFORT ON MY PART, BUT OF THE DIRECT HAND OF GOD–so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, GOD AND RIPLINGER–God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”
Do you not have a problem with this Peter, especially in view of the fact that the book contains lies, misquotes and deceptions?
I accept that the people who have done translations as you told me, have most probably done a wonderful work and need to be applauded. My apologies for not doing so earlier. We need more like them in today’s world.
As for your wife preferring to utilise the KJV over her own native tongue, if that is her personal preference then so be it – each to his own. I just hope that it is not out of respect or God forbid, fear because of her husbands stance or possibly life work to promote the KJV.
For hundreds of years no one had a new testament to work with, just the old, and yet God worked in the lives of men. Now that we do have all the scriptures we spend years and millions of dollars, argueing about who is right and who is wrong.
Again (and you did not respond to this in my previous posts Peter) even the KJV and many other strong supporters of the KJV, have offered possible different renderings, so even the KJV admits that it may not be perfect.
But men like you and I discuss it at length, seeing who can out quote the other from authors of books we have never even met and about whom we have no clue what their personal beliefs really are, and neither of us will ever seee the others point of view, for what ever reason; instead of encouraging, uplifting and praying for one another, for God to work through one another, for God to use us to touch the lives of others around us – if we get away from our computer screens!
Dear Peter, if I have in any way offended you by some of my posts, I humbly apologise, it has never been my intention.
Dear Peter, I pray that God uses you and works through you to touch the hearts and lives of the people you work with that you may see the fruit of your labours here in this world and the one to come.
Dear Peter, I pray that you and your wife may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light!
Lots of love
Pops
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Pops, are you being condescending? I sense meanness in your tone coupled with your willful ignorance.
You can keep your NIV. Fine. But you claim that Riplinger's book "is not an accepted work" and you contend that one who is honestly reproving your errors with Scripture, "My word but you get on your high horse so quickly!" Why?
You stand corrected. And multiple times, mind you. Is all of this to no avail?
Should others stop casting pearls in your direction? What kind of man are you? P.A. ]
Hi PA,
Condescending? Meanness? Wilful ignorance?
How on earth do you get those conclusions?
I have an Niv, I also have a number of other Bibles, incuding the King James version as well, all of which I enjoy for a full rounded picture of the Scriptures.
Thank you for agreeing that I can have an NIV (and you say I am condescending!)
What are my errors PA and where were they reproved? Where were they reproved “many times” as you put it?
Do you consider that if someone does not immediately take your viewpoint then you are working to no avail?
And now you subtly call me a swine?
I am a man of integrity, boldness and courage – I have no need to make insulting remarks from the safety of a computer screen especially when I know that the one I am insulting is thousands of kilometres away!
Peters resonse to me was: Yet, unfortunately, it appears that you have taken my acknowledgement of an error of perception and turned that into a diatribe on the original tongues and translations.
and to me that has a sense of getting upset, which is not what I had intended, I merey ustilised the occassion to high light how easiy things can be misinterpreted, which then happened once again.
Why have you deliberatly avoided addressing the issue of lies in Riplingers book PA, why pick on my statement about it not being an accepted book.
Pops
Considering my post to Peter and PA’s very inappropriate response I prefer to vacate this web site.
Dear Kent, I enjoy your work and will continue to pray for you, but unfortunately due to these circumstances I will no longer be returning here.
Good bye!
Pops