Tuesday, February 17, 2015

UNFORGIVEN?

UNFORGIVEN?
Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Yesterday [Sunday], Judas (betrayer of Christ) came up in our text book and it said God forgave him.  (I will get you the exact quote I'd you would like.).  Several students totally disagreed.  So we had a small discussion about him and his character.  Everyone had different opinions.  I told the group leader that Scripture says Satan entered Judas.  The leader said no....Judas was not possessed.  So I let it go.  However, my take away from this discussion is that most people (leaders in today's churches) do not like to think that a disciple could have been influenced by Satan.  What's up with that?
Love In Christ, Diane (NE)

Dear fellows, What do you think? Was Judas forgiven?  EBB4

Luke 22:3 - Parallel Verses
New International Version Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.
New Living Translation Then Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve disciples,
English Standard Version Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve.
New American Standard Bible And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
King James Bible Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Holman Christian Standard Bible Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, who was numbered among the Twelve. 
International Standard Version But Satan went into Judas called Iscariot, who belonged to the circle of the Twelve. 
NET Bible Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English But Satan had entered Yehuda, who is called Skariota, he who had been of the number of the twelve.
GOD'S WORD® Translation Then Satan entered Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve apostles.
Jubilee Bible 2000 Then Satan entered into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
King James 2000 Bible Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
American King James Version Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
American Standard Version And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Douay-Rheims Bible And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. 
Darby Bible Translation And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariote, being of the number of the twelve.
English Revised Version And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Webster's Bible Translation Then Satan entered into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Weymouth New Testament Satan, however, entered into Judas (the man called Iscariot)
World English Bible Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered with the twelve.
Young's Literal Translation And the Adversary entered into Judas, who is surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve,


Monday, February 16, 2015

LIVING A PAR-CHEESY LIFE

LIVING A PAR-CHEESY LIFE
Monday, February 16, 2015

Romans [GW] 12:1-3 Brothers and sisters, in view of all we have just shared about God's compassion, I encourage you to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, dedicated to God and pleasing to him. This kind of worship is appropriate for you. Don't become like the people of this world. Instead, change the way you think. Then you will always be able to determine what God really wants-what is good, pleasing, and perfect. Because of the kindness that God has shown me, I ask you not to think of yourselves more highly than you should. Instead, your thoughts should lead you to use good judgment based on what God has given each of you as believers.
1Corinthians [MKJV] 2 … as it is written, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard," nor has it entered into the heart of man, "the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." But God has revealed them to us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of man within him? So also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. …

  My 6 year old grandson likes table games. He beats me at most of them including Monopoly, which is horrific considering I was King of Monopoly in family and neighborhood growing up.
  I introduced him to Parcheesi last week, and regained itty bit of status beating him . . . albeit by the skin of my teeth. Had he understood Parcheesi strategy he would have easily skunked his PopPop; something to look forward to.   
  This set me to thinking about individuals, though mature in decades and some successful by this world’s philosophies, live a spiritually par-cheesy life.
  Life certainly isn’t a table game to be won or lost, but as with games outcome of eternal value very much depends on decisions, especially those made early on . . . and then continually stood upon. Mary Fear, Overcomers In Christ cofounder and director, points out “The past makes a valuable guidepost but a dangerous hitching post.” This is true whether resting upon past successes or past shortcomings and failures.
  Again quoting from the Overcomers workbook:

                To live a new life, we change our habits;
                To change our habits, we change our choices;
                To change our choices, we change our thinking;
                To change our thinking, we believe God’s Truth.

  This absolutely actual factual whether playing Parcheesi or living a par-cheesy life!
EBB4


PS. For more on helpful life-guidance through Overcomers In Christ: http://overcomersinchrist.org/ 

Sunday, February 15, 2015

A WORLD OF DISTRACTING ADDITIONS

A WORLD OF DISTRACTING ADDITIONS
Sunday, February 15, 2015

John [MKJV] 6:67-68; 14:6-7  Then Jesus said to the Twelve, Do you also wish to go away? Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the Words of eternal life. . . . Thomas said to Him, Lord, we do not know where You go, and how can we know the way? Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.
Acts 5:19-20 But the angel of the Lord opened the prison doors by night and brought them out, and said, Go! Stand and speak all the words of this Life to the people in the temple.

  In guilt and shame, people ask: Why did I do ________? Why do I do what I do? These being questions pleading for understanding of motivation; thinking the answer(s) will bring relief and rescue. “If I only knew why I . . . I think/know I would stop doing it.”
  Is it helpful to understand back story undergirding of our sin that so easily bests us?
  To recognize can be helpful, but it definitely is not the key to deliverance. Per se, such understanding will not result in victory’s freedom. Knowing who or what the enemy is does not conquer the problem. It can however help in equipping us for the battle.
  During His earthly ministry, how much time did Jesus invest in helping individuals grasp meticulous background of WHY? (Consider the woman at the well and other encounters.)
  How much space does The Answer Book give to such?  Does Scripture encourage delving into and focusing on historical detail for answers as to WHY?
  We live in a world of additions to The Truth.
  Said additions are useful as revelation of our need for The Deliverer, Lord Jesus Christ proffering His lighter yoke. (Mt.11:27-30)
  The problem that has developed in some Christian counsel is that too many think that to understand background story is comprehensive unto ceasing ________, when really to it is not key, but mere historical sketch in comparison. And when dwelled upon, will obstruct.
  The truth is that we sinfully try to fill our neediness with other than God’s provision, His Truth; The Counselor (Isa.9:6) holding The Word of Life.
  Let us beware distracting focus on past reasons.
  Deliverance unto peace, freedom, and godly activeness lies not in understanding our old way, but in being on The Way!
  “When Christ died, he died for sin once and for all. But now he is alive, and he lives only for God. In the same way, you must think of yourselves as dead to the power of sin. But Christ Jesus has given life to you, and you live for God. Don't let sin rule your body. After all, your body is bound to die, so don't obey its desires or let any part of it become a slave of evil. Give yourselves to God, as people who have been raised from death to life. Make every part of your body a slave that pleases God. Don't let sin keep ruling your lives. You are ruled by God's kindness and not by the Law.”
  This includes the rule of our dead history. (CEV Rom.6:10-14)  EBB4

  

Friday, February 13, 2015

THIS DAY

THIS DAY
Friday, February 13, 2015

This day the kindest thing you may do is bite your tongue other than another’s member spewing spleen.

Or still be stuck in thinking High school was the best days of your life.

Or having loads of friends to do things with but not a single one to do nothing with.

Or . . . believing this is the day the Lord has made and we are to rejoice in it! (Ps.118:24)

EBB4

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

BITS & PIECES

BITS & PIECES
Thursday, February 12, 2015

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

·         New York City will be spending about $200,000,000 to install a network of 10,000 hi-speed wireless internet kiosks that can be linked to within 150 foot radius. Fear not dear taxpayer, the politicians say it will generate 500 million dollars income over 12 year period for products advertised.
·         Heard about the new safer football helmet? It’s lined with opposing magnets. Wait, haven’t some health gurus said magnetic fields are bad for the brain? Or was it poles the other way around?
·         Did you know Susan Boyle, age 53, has her first boyfriend? A doctor in Connecticut.
·         India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pushing his Hindu nationalist agenda, has proposed a “Good Governance Day” on December 25ths to replace traditional Christmas celebrations. Will it eventually be done?
·         About 600,000 frozen human eggs sit in storage. Most will die young of old age.
·         In the last year the number of homeschool students in North Carolina has gone from 60,950 to 98,172. They now outnumber private school population. Will NC will cutting taxes taken for these past public school students?
·         Janie B. Cheaney asks “How did child-bearing and raising get so complicated?” and answers “Partly for the same reason marriage is so complicated: We’ve made it all about us.”
·         Marvin Olasky wrote “… evolution is a dogma utterly opposed to Christianity. All of us who hope in Christ are unworthy, but while we were yet sinners He saved us by grace. The story of evolution, though, is graceless: It is prosperity-gospel survival of the fittest, with the strong winning out.” (WORLD 11/24/15)

·         How is it that some professing Christians fervently believe that after death God will resurrect them from the dust of the earth, and yet do not believe that He did it the first time as recorded in Genesis?
EBB4
Fifty Shades of Grey
A Review from a Biblical Perspective

By September Grace

  Stories have the power to change the world, and Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James threatens a cultural revision as to how we treat each other as people, especially within the context of an intimate relationship. But is Fifty Shades of Grey's influence damaging? Beneficial? Morally neutral? There are very few popular books that are one-hundred percent edifying, so why has Fifty Shades of Grey been singled out as a subject of such intense controversy?
  When I started the book this summer I came into it with the goal to find at least one redeemable aspect that would explain to me why this book of all things had become such an incredibly huge phenomenon. Perhaps the writing was as poor as I had heard, but the storytelling would be good. Perhaps the characters would prove to be strong and complex. Perhaps there would be solid research, a fun side character, an interesting quirk...something.
  But even with that frame of mind, the best I could come up with was, "Well, I liked the chauffeur for about a sentence."
  While the easiest element to pick on is the explicit sexual content, well, it's an erotic romance. Explicit sex scenes are part of the deal when it comes to erotic romance; they create an integral part of the story's structure. These scenes do not make Fifty Shades of Grey any more "heinously evil" than the other books on its genre shelf. This isn't to say that its sexually explicit content isn't a problem; I would definitely advise steering clear of the book for this reason alone — just that it doesn't make the book special.
  It's important to note from the start that Fifty Shades of Grey is a secular novel. It does not claim to present a Biblical view of love, and none of the characters are portrayed as remotely religious, let alone Christian. However, while I acknowledge it as secular fiction, I cannot acknowledge it as just fiction. James' bestselling book is not merely reveling in its five minutes of fame; it has made a clear impact on the lives of readers everywhere, as is evident in some of the following ways.
  Back in 2012, Fifty Shades of Grey broke the record as the fastest selling paperback book ever [1], and following in its wake was a boom in the sex toy industry [2] and in rope sales [3]. In the meantime, even the pro-BDSM (an acronym for bondage and discipline; dominance and submission; sadism and masochism) crowd was (and is) frantically waving their hands, saying that the relationship between Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey is a dangerous and inaccurate portrayal of the BDSM lifestyle [4]. E.L. James' erotic romance trilogy has brought things that used to be discussed and practiced in secret into the mainstream, labeling them as desirable and exotic. Which leads me to ask some questions...
  How does Fifty Shades of Grey treat people?
  People are special. People have been made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). God formed man with an artist's love and affection (Genesis 2:7). Even after the Fall "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "We love, because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19)
  Human beings are supposed to love each other, and we all have an innate desire to be cared for. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus places a heavy emphasis on showing love, compassion, care and respect for our fellow man (Matthew 22:37-39; John 21:15-17) and woman (John 4:1-26; John 8:1-11; Romans 16:1-2). (Also see: Matthew 5:42, Luke 10:30-37, Matthew 25:40) But none of these virtues are shown in Fifty Shades of Grey.
  A sit down with Christian Grey
  Given how swarms of women have sung the praises of Christian Grey (the "hero") as the "ideal man," I was expecting him to be more alluring. Stronger, or maybe even softer. Someone who was, in some way, charming and attractive. What I got instead was a character who was rich and allegedly good-looking who flaunted his power and needed to validate his own existence by manipulating and using someone weaker than him. While E.L. James refers to Grey as "in charge," he's more than that; he's controlling and possessive.
  Throughout the book, Anastasia Steele (the "heroine") makes internal comments that she views Grey as "some kind of monster," laments about how she's intimidated by him, and expresses general annoyance at his super control-freak tendencies. The times she does stand up for herself and say, "No," Grey gets angry. Even when she tells him that he's scaring her, he doesn't respond except to command her to turn around so he can undress her. (A command to which she complies.)
  And that's the pattern. He gets angry; he takes sex. He doesn't ask for it, he doesn't even demand it, he just leads in, orders Ana around, then begins to do what he wants to her. And she doesn't protest. As one reviewer put it, whenever conflict comes up between them, "they don't talk, they have sex." Grey takes what he wants because it pleases him, and, according to him, the desire to please him should be enough in and of itself to sustain Anastasia.
  Biblically speaking, sex is intended to be the ultimate expression of intimate love and trust between a husband and wife. First Corinthians 7:3-5 says, "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (See also Ephesians 5:22-33) In the proper context, sex should be the husband's selfless giving of himself to his wife, and the wife's selfless giving of herself to her husband. It goes both ways in terms of mutual consent. Seeking sexual gratification through control of your partner is sex without love.
"So you'll get your kicks by exerting your will over me."
"It's about gaining your trust and your respect, so you'll let me exert my will over you. I will gain a great deal of pleasure, joy even, in your submission. The more you submit, the greater my joy — it's a very simple equation."
"Okay, and what do I get out of this?"
He shrugs and looks almost apologetic.
"Me," he says simply.
    -Fifty Shades of Grey, E.L. James
  It seems the only character in the book who sees Grey as less than noble is Ana's roommate, who is framed as being unnecessarily overprotective. Even Ana's parents like Grey. When Ana flies across the country to visit her mother and discuss her reservations about the man, her mother merely tells her, "Follow your heart, darling, and please, please — try not to overthink things." When Grey meets Ana's father, Grey turns up the charisma and wins the man's approval within one small talk session. They don't even take Ana's concerns into account.
...and a talk about Anastasia Steele.
  Grey isn't the only problematic character. While Grey shouldn't be seen as desirable, neither should Anastasia be emulated. Despite her long list of cons regarding Grey, and how scared she is of him even before they're in a "relationship," she still chooses to stay. She still tries to change Grey to fit her ideal man. She pushes his one boundary of "don't touch me," and does an inner victory dance every time he doesn't get mad at her for breaking that solitary rule. Ana has almost as little respect for Grey as he does for her.
  But she is also a reflection of the self-devalued view many women have of themselves. Ana has absolutely no sense of self-worth before meeting Christian Grey. She's portrayed as fidgety, dowdy, and almost cripplingly insecure. This is not, in and of itself, automatically a bad thing as literary devices go — if she grows, that is. But instead of growing to find herself worth something because of her innate value (something that even non-Christian characters often discover), Ana finds the entirety of her worth in Grey's lustful "need" for her. She recognizes that he needs her, and, regardless of what he needs her for, his attentions (no matter how harsh) are all she requires to feel important as a human being.
  Ana and Grey's relationship set a low standard not just for women, but for people, and additionally reinforces this "sacrificial lamb" mindset that so many women have when it comes to trying to change a man. He says he needs her, and maybe if she just gives him what he needs, even if she doesn't like it, even if it's degrading and sub-human, he will eventually turn over a new leaf and come to care for her and cherish her. Fifty Shades of Grey tells a woman that this is all she's worth, but maybe if she works hard enough she'll earn the right to be loved by someone.
  What is love?
  But real love isn't earned, nor should it be withheld as a bargaining chip.
  First Corinthians 13:4-7 paints a clear image of what love actually is: "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
  Love is sacrificial. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)
  Love is not conditional. "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men." (Luke 6:35)
  Grey does not love Ana. He wants to possess, control and use her, but he does not love her. While love is patient, Grey is mercurial. While love is kind and not jealous, Grey doesn't understand why Ana is crying after he hit her, and he desires to keep Ana as close to him as possible so no one else can reach her. While love is not arrogant, Grey flaunts his power. While love is selfless, Grey seeks Ana not for Ana's benefit, but to fulfill his own unchecked desires. Grey merely uses Ana as a sex toy that he has to handle just right so that he can get what he wants from it without it turning tail and running off.
  Similarly, Ana sticks around because she believes Grey is the sole path to giving herself some measure of value. Without him, she sees herself as nothing. She's just as scared to let him go as he is to lose her. This isn't romantic, it's tragic.
“I want his love. I need Christian Grey to love me. This is why I am so reticent about our relationship — because on some basic, fundamental level, I recognize within me a deep-seated compulsion to be loved and cherished.”
    -Fifty Shades of Grey, E.L. James
  Disney's Tangled and Frozen have more solid images of real love than Fifty Shades of Grey. Grey and Ana's version of love is a deflating lifeboat in a stormy ocean of doubt and panic. There is no sacrifice in their relationship. Some may argue that Ana makes grand sacrifices for Grey, but I would argue, in turn, that even then her tolerance is borne from her selfish desire to not lose his approval. It's not for him, it's for her.
  If not love, what is Fifty Shades of Grey about?
  The relationship between Ana and Grey seems to have a lot more in common with abuse than love. He manipulates her, scares her, and physically hurts her, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it.
"Part of my role is to look after your needs. You said you wanted me to stay, so here I am. And yet I find you [crying]." He blinks at me, truly bewildered. "I'm sure I'm responsible, but I have no idea why. Is it because I hit you?"
    -Fifty Shades of Grey, E.L. James
  I'm not the first person to play the "abuse" card against Ana and Grey's relationship, but the most common defense I've heard for this couple is, "But it's consensual! So what's the problem?"
  But arguing "mutual consent!" to defend an abusive environment isn't even valid. In an abusive environment, the victim is required to consent therefore voiding it as true consent at all. For most of Fifty Shades of Grey, Ana isn't allowed to say "no" to things because, after all, she's just a submissive and her job is to say "yes" — even though she never officially signed the contract with Grey. (Yes, there was an actual sex contract involved. And it was lengthy.)
  But let's say this book is actually consensual throughout. They don't claim to hold to Christian values, so yes they can do what they want. If she says, "Sure, you can treat me like dirt!" and she's fine with it, then what? Does that make Grey's treatment of her as sub-human acceptable? No! God shows us how to treat each other, and God's instructions should always come before people's preferences. Even if we don't claim to follow God or Christian morals, most people will rally to defend a person identified as "abused" because we all have an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 1:18-21).
  Maybe we need to go back to a more basic question: "Why is abuse wrong in the first place?"
  Because it is degrading. It is dehumanizing. It is a mistreatment of a person who has been created in the image of God with God's power because of that very God's love and affection. Love does not always mean giving people what they want, but instead seeking to best encourage them toward being more Christ-like.
  Why is Fifty Shades of Grey so popular?
  There are many women who love Fifty Shades of Grey for the exciting element they say it adds to their sex lives. Other women call it porn, like it as porn, and make no other defense as to why they read and enjoy the books. E.L. James herself said she doesn't know why her books are selling so insanely fast, that it was just her own personal "mid-life crisis" fantasy [5]. But when asked if she thought women secretly desired to be submissive, she answered with, "Possibly, yes. You're in charge of your job, your house, your children, getting food on the table and doing all of this all of the time, it'd be nice for someone else to be in charge for a bit." [5]
  But Grey's in-chargeness should not be viewed as a positive or desired image of leadership. Whereas Biblical leadership lies in the husband's sacrifice to give himself to his wife and to seek her best interests, Grey's dominance is just greedy possession of Ana as a means to an end. Similarly, Ana isn't submissive because of the love and trust built between her and Grey, she's merely silenced into a pattern of passivity and docile acceptance.
  Fifty Shades of Grey paints an image for women that being devalued and used is desirable. It perpetuates the idea that true masculinity means being uncontrollably violent. (Both of these concepts perpetuate the problem of downplaying the seriousness of rape.) Fifty Shades speaks of an exclusively selfish and manipulative definition of "love."
  If women want a strong man, they would not want Christian Grey, because it takes more strength to love than to harm. If women want a man that showcases true masculinity, they do not want Christian Grey, because true masculinity lies in self-control, taking responsibility, and caring for the weak and timid — not exploiting them.

On a Personal Note...
  I'll be honest. I haven't read many romance novels. They're not really my thing. However, I have discussed — at length and in-depth — the romance novel industry with a close Christian friend who is directly involved with it. Personally, I don't like the treatment of sex as a mandatory plot point, and I don't like the general pitying attitude toward virginity.
  But I have no issue with those who enjoy reading romance novels. I believe that it is up to each individual Christian to thoughtfully consider and decide what they will and will not read (Romans 14). Because of this, I would have brushed off Fifty Shades of Grey as just another book that wasn't my cup of tea. And that's what I did for the last few years, figuring it would just fade away like everything else.
  But instead of fading into the background, Fifty Shades of Grey has thrown open doors that used to be collectively ignored as taboo. While this isn't always a bad thing, it is a bad thing when those doors are not treated with discernment. While it's rash to throw the baby out with the bath water, it's just as reckless to automatically accept something as harmless or prudent merely because it's slipped into general conversation or acceptance.
  As I was reading Fifty Shades of Grey there were multiple points where I felt so filthy that I wound up taking an extra shower. For me, this was not an enjoyable read. Instead of being able to laugh it off, or being able to see it as a harmless fantasy, I just felt incredibly depressed by the time I closed the book. While Fifty Shades of Grey did help me appreciate the real men in my life all the more in contrast to Christian Grey, it also placed a seed of discouragement in my heart that men might be getting the idea that Grey is the type of man women want. He certainly isn't the type of man I'd want. But a poor view of men and women wasn't the only damaging misinformation this book propagated.
  Instead of carefully and delicately handling the highly sensitive topics of sex and BDSM, Fifty Shades of Grey flaunts the topics like it has just unearthed the juiciest town gossip ever. Because of this book, millions of people have been given an immature, ill-advised and harmful introduction to the BDSM subculture, and they are anxious to try it out. Because of this book, erotic romance and erotica (which many call literary porn) have become mainstream and acceptable. It's not the book itself that really matters, but rather the shift in culture it has encouraged, and the subliminal messages its popularity could be planting in our moral compasses.
  Many people see nothing wrong with this book. Many people see nothing wrong with Christian Grey or Anastasia Steele or how their relationship works. And, in all fairness, whether or not someone chooses to read Fifty Shades of Grey is not a salvation issue. Nor should it be treated as such.
  However, the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey does open up a unique opportunity to discuss the true biblical definition of love that centers around sacrifice, not selfishness. If we have friends who adore the book, we can talk about it with them. Why do they like it? What draws them in? Would they want Christian Grey as a significant other or to be in Anastasia Steele's shoes? If so, why? We cannot change anyone's mind, but we can be open to respectful and kind discussion. Perhaps God will even use some of our questions and inquiries to grow people or draw people to Him. We really can never know.
  Right now Fifty Shades of Grey is just fun, dirty reading for many people, but it's possible that for many others, Fifty Shades of Grey is, or will become, a frightening reality. We need to be ready to respond to the potential repercussions of this culture shift — not just in a reactionary way, but in a biblically sound and compassionate manner.




A personal note from EBB4: I’ll not be reading Fifty Shades of Grey. Several reasons, but the first one that came to mind is the same personal reason I instinctively don’t partake of alcohol.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

A BAT IS A BIRD?

A BAT IS A BIRD?
Tuesday, February 10, 2015

  There are biblio-skeptics (A new word for us.) that delight in Bible passages like this one from Leviticus, “And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. … And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.” (Lev.11:1-2, 13-19)
  A bat is a bird? If God is creator of all life, all-knowing, and is the author of the book telling about animals . . . would this mistake be in his book? Doesn’t this prove that man wrote the Bible?
  It does not prove any such thing.
  I find it interesting that biblio-skeptic pseudo or actual intellectuals take time to critically scrutinize Scripture, but don’t invest in studying Scripture beyond English.
  We could attempt using the tomato conundrum to refute biblio-skeptics, but as the longtime veggie <=> fruit discussion continues, it would just be a debate. Or we could say ornithology was not yet then a wing of science with classifications.
  The actual answer in in the original language. The Hebrew word used in Leviticus 11:13 is “oph”, meaning fowl/winged creature, to fly, or has wings.

  So the answer is a bat is not a bird! God never said it is.  EBB4