The Stones are Crying Out

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

It isn't just kids and "students" who do this ... some of us with lifelong trust issues -- who, if I might be frank here, are not exactly seeing a plethora of reasons or people queueing up to provide a "healing reversal" of all that -- use similar devices to "test the ground" with others and see whether the risk is truly worth the investment or whether, yet once again, we will be disappointed and go away kicking ourselves for being so stupid, naive, and "needy."

Just a public service announcement .... you know ..... in case there happen to be those out there WORTH knowing this for......

---

heard and understood.

*safe gentle hugs*

[Michelle]

Nico--I understand. I could easily have been in that position myself had I not come from a family that was open for discussions about "sensitive" topics, even if that meant being critical of one's employers (my dad was for a long period of my childhood a conference officer).

I guess that's why I feel so strongly about it. And why C/A frustrates me to no end. There is so little real "discussion" and so much "denouncing." I appreciate Calgary Guy's attempts to refocus this thread and hope that it can remain open to discussion (though I don't have high hopes ).

{{{{{Nico}}}}}

M

[Guest]

Howdy Ed & Others!

Ed; I read your post comments above re "sinful pants;" it reminds me of the time when my wife & I went to someone's house for lunch after Church, sometime ago now; and the hosts said to us after we ate: "We believe that it is only right to wash the dishes on Sabbath; but certainly not to dry them." We still laugh about that one.

Now Ed, you also stated in a recent post above that I had a "problem" with "exegesis." It seems to be in reference to my comments re two communication models pointed out by Isa.50:4, and Rom.12:1-2. Please, allow me to begin explaining further; but I will do it one text at a time rather than address both at once. This will be very important to illustrate better where I am coming from when I say what I do re Narnia or Simpsons.

Quote:

---

Isa.50:4 ¶ The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.

---

I would like to challenge forum participants to consider this text carefully. Who is saying what to who here; and what does it mean to Christians today, who really want to "reach people?" I will give you a small hint - try to look extra close at the word "learned" here.

I will be back soon. I have to take my lads out for a bit...

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

"We believe that it is only right to wash the dishes on Sabbath; but certainly not to dry them." We still laugh about that one.

---

And I still don't get why people don't just put them in sudsy water to soak and leave them for Sunday or at least after sunset ... which only seems logical to me. BUT of course I would NEVER make this something to "judge" someone over!!! Yeah there's a contest I'd lose in a hurry ... your "sinful" Sabbath dishwashing versus all the rage in my heart ... now let's see ... who's closer to God on this one? LOL.

[Guest]

Wait now! Putting them into that soapy water is called _______?

[Nicodema]

... called saving the WORK for LATER.

[Michelle]

I have an unnamed family member who is ultra conservative, but the thought of unwashed dishes would send her OCD self into an absolute tizzy and she would NOT enjoy any of the Sabbath thinking about those dishes waiting to be washed!

Use paper plates!

M

[Nicodema]

Paper plates? Horrors! My good environmental stewardship soul is supremely offended!!

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

... called saving the WORK for LATER.

---

According to the same person who nailed a page from Selected Messages, Book 2 to my front door, with a three inch spike; (regarding "proper dress" at Church); it would be called "work."

I have often wondered if I should have invoiced him for the door repair I had to do.

[Nicodema]

Dude, you better believe I would have!!!

Please tell me where you were fellowshipping at the time. I want to make sure I never go there.

[Guest]

Tongue Of The Learned

Quote:

---

Isa. 50:4 ¶ The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.

---

Pastoral Approach As A Nurse: In nursing, there is a specialized branch of patient care called “Palliative Care.” Palliative is used to mean no cure expected. Therefore, care will involve nothing that is aimed towards cure of the pathology involved. But it does mean always trying to minister to the needs of the person . Even when that need appears to be to die soon. When a dying patient says: “I wish the Lord would take me home;” or “I have had enough pain – I just want to go now;” can the nurse receive such a statement without having to challenge, contradict, correct, change the subject, or to preach? Can the nurse say those very things for the patient in a prayer to God?, expressing submission to His will; as well as the patient's desire to die? Such acceptance, and empathy on the part of the nurse will do far more for the palliative care patient than the usual, negative, reactive, or judgmental “alternatives,” in the form of corrections, and being “in control.”

Too many nurses and other “professionals” get caught up in the dying process, rather than the dying patient themselves.

It can be even worse when trying to deal with children who are dying. At first, it may seem to be more than you can ever bear to try and care for a dying child. But after we deal with our own personal feelings, and can begin to look carefully, only for what the child needs; it can then turn into the most rewarding nursing of all.

Pastoral Approach As An Evangelist: In the Isaiah 50:4 model of communication; God takes into consideration some of the deepest needs and most ingrained characteristics that people have. Through just this one little verse; God teaches those who are looking to be taught, how that we must never be dogmatic about another person's perceived or stated relationship with God. Only God can have any degree of certainty about a given person's relationship with Him. True communication of the gospel, that brings lasting results, takes the person's felt needs into consideration first. Before “doctrines,” before moving them to “the next step;” or before getting them involved in the “reaching out program.” Like in nursing; people need our care first; they need to literally feel the love of God first, through our “genuine ministry” to them. Too many evangelists, lay pastors, and others who want to “witness, “ get all caught up in the witnessing process; rather than focusing on the witnessing recipient; and Who it is they are actually witnessing about to same.

In the text under consideration here; Isaiah points out a communication model that is especially suited to a healthy witness that is sure to reach all people, of all classes.

Literally speaking, this phrase “the learned,” means “the learners,” or “the disciples.” This verse also introduces a new section where Jesus, the Servant of Jehovah, declares His devotion to the great task before Him – that of His earthly mission. Jesus comes as a teacher of men; yet, He is, in turn, instructed by the Father.

Jo.8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

In order to “speak a word in season;” the Savior was to come into the world as the Living Word; (Jo.1:1), and apart from this salvation so graciously provided by Christ; the restless hearts of us sinners can never be at peace.

But now we are left with the question: “How do we, as Christ's witnesses, (Isa.43:10, 12), “speak a word in season,” as a “learner?” How do we speak to anyone; and yet remain a “learner?” The only way that the Bible reveals to us to do this, is through the public ministry of Jesus where He models the Isaiah 50:4 communication mode.

You see; during His public ministry, Jesus asked 308 questions. If you check out the four gospels: Mat., Mark, Luke and John; that is how many questions by Jesus are therein recorded. ( I counted them). Much of what Jesus said was in the form of a question. Now, what was the reason for this kind of approach to communication of the gospel? Why did Jesus choose to “reach” people in this way? (as opposed to “giving the straight testimony” approach, or the many program/step approaches).

It is so that Jesus could “speak a word in season;” to anyone, of any class or race, and still be a “learner.” When you ask the right kind of questions, in the right way, at the right time, to the right person; and for the right reasons; even though you may “tell them” something, you are still, mainly devoted to being the learner. ( as opposed to the teacher, the big authority figure).

As evangelists today, don't we need to also be this kind of “learner” or “learned” in our communications of the gospel? (reaching people). Do we not need to first, accurately empathize with people in order to reach them? Can questions help us to do this in our evangelism? How might this questioning approach differ from having to worry about The Engel Scale, or modern-day gospel gimmicks like Narnia or Simpsons and moving people from one to the next step. And I would suggest that at churches where these gimmicks are used; it is only the caring attitude of the people that is making them “successful” in reaching people for Christ – the gimmicks just don't cut it. In the next post; I will look closely at a specific question that Jesus asked, (Mat.22:42); which will sufficiently represent how we can eliminate having to worry about a great, long list of steps to “move people through;” and still model the “learner” approach to “reaching people.”

[Guest]

BTW; a "real Adventist" is a Jehovah's Witness...(Isa.43:10, 12)

[there buster]

As interesting as your theory might be, by taking the verses out of context, you rob your position of any authority.

It would ordinarily be fatal to an argument that there is no textual connection between the verses you start with, and those you add to it. But since the original verses are used contrary to their original setting, it doesn't matter anyway.

I realize that Christians often approach the Bible in this "cut-and-paste" way, so it's not unusual you would do so. The problem is, the method lacks discipline. The interpreter becomes the determinating factor, and there's no way to either verify or falsify an interpretation.

Using the same method, I could build an elaborate suicide theology around these three texts: "And Judas went and hanged himself." "Go thou and do likewise." "What thou doest, do quickly." We would all agree that it was false, but there's nothing in the method to protect us. If we did not agree, we'd have no way of resolving which view was correct.

So, you can by all means continue your theory. Just understand that it lacks any Scriptural authority from the start. It may make sense to you, it may be appealing. It might even coincidentally be correct. But the means you're using to get there robs it of an power beyond your own persuasiveness.

[Nicodema]

Just FYI -- since I cannot see any way in which this was actually a reply to my post I'm going to conclude that you must have used the "quick reply" frame and that's why it looked that way--and thus you weren't looking to address this to me specifically but just posting to the thread in general. Let me know if I'm wrong about that, ok?

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Just FYI -- since I cannot see any way in which this was actually a reply to my post I'm going to conclude that you must have used the "quick reply" frame and that's why it looked that way--and thus you weren't looking to address this to me specifically but just posting to the thread in general. Let me know if I'm wrong about that, ok?

---

Yes; you are right Nicodema. My last post was just in general to this topic.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

As interesting as your theory might be, by taking the verses out of context, you rob your position of any authority.

It would ordinarily be fatal to an argument that there is no textual connection between the verses you start with, and those you add to it. But since the original verses are used contrary to their original setting, it doesn't matter anyway.

I realize that Christians often approach the Bible in this "cut-and-paste" way, so it's not unusual you would do so. The problem is, the method lacks discipline. The interpreter becomes the determinating factor, and there's no way to either verify or falsify an interpretation.

---

OK Ed, fair enough. This is the second time that you have said this kind of thing about my references to Isaiah 50:4 within this topic. When you get the time; I am genuinely open to you explaining point by point what I have said that is Biblically "wrong." I would like to see Biblical or other references that would show where my statements are not right. You have so far, simply made the allegation without giving any references to support same; so I am open to that.

I have tried to draw some principles out of this text, that would be very pertinent for us even today in our "reaching" people. Some of my comments may not sit well within your religious framework; but FYI, I did draw some of my comments from 4 BC, pg.282:

Quote:

---

Literally speaking, this phrase “the learned,” means “the learners,” or “the disciples.” This verse also introduces a new section where Jesus, the Servant of Jehovah, declares His devotion to the great task before Him – that of His earthly mission. Jesus comes as a teacher of men; yet, He is, in turn, instructed by the Father.

Jo.8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

In order to “speak a word in season;” the Savior was to come into the world as the Living Word; (Jo.1:1), and apart from this salvation so graciously provided by Christ; the restless hearts of us sinners can never be at peace.

---

This quote, from my last post above, actually does give some good context. And therefore, my comments are not totally originated from me.

I don't know about anyone else; but I want to be like Jesus, and "speak a Word in season;" and be the "learner" that our Father in heaven had envisioned when He gave this text to His Son & to Isaiah. (Isa.50:4, Luke 4:17-18)

In Luke 21:15, God does promise to do this for us in our evangelism today.

May the Lord bless you; and keep you; and make His face to shine upon you.

[Nicodema]

I think what I'm seeing here is a basic conflict between the formal exegesis versus personal communication approach to and/or usage of the Bible. This kind of thing has come up before. It might be a useful topic to explore in itself. What is the appropriate place of formal exegesis? What is the appropriate place for devotional/"personal communication" (with God) reading of Scripture? We seem pretty settled that the former is not invalidated by the latter. But is the latter invalidated by the former? Does any given Scripture have strictly one meaning which is to be established and substantiated by formal exegesis and have the final word on how it will be understood? Or is it valid to draw from the wellsprings of salvation by the Holy Spirit, as it were, letting different ideas in Scripture play upon each other to generate new ideas? If so, how does this impact the statement in the New Testament that no scripture is to be of any "private" interpretation? Does that statement preclude personal communication with God through scripture if the insight received is (a) not put forward as a formal DOCTRINE; and ( not something everyone else sees immediately?

Lots of questions ...

[there buster]

Well, it's a matter of context.

As far as proving you Biblically "wrong," that's got the whole thing both backwards and unnecessarily adversarial. Please don't take this amiss, but what you have so far isn't coherent enough to be right or wrong. It's just a string of notions and verses.

Instead, it's up to you to demonstrate how your interpretation is legitimate. How your conclusions are plausible and in harmony with what the Biblical authors are saying in each case.

When it comes to Isaiah, you single out verse 4 of the 50th chapter, as though it was an independent entity. But it occurs in a much longer passage. That passage has little to do with "spiritual formation" or "moral development" or even "discipling."

How do you reconcile your reading of verse 4 with the three verses that precede it?

Quote:

---

1This is what the LORD says:

“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce

with which I sent her away?

Or to which of my creditors

did I sell you?

Because of your sins you were sold;

because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

2 When I came, why was there no one?

When I called, why was there no one to answer?

Was my arm too short to ransom you?

Do I lack the strength to rescue you?

By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea,

I turn rivers into a desert;

their fish rot for lack of water

and die of thirst.

3 I clothe the sky with darkness

and make sackcloth its covering.”

---

or what about the verses that follow

Quote:

---

5 The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears,

and I have not been rebellious;

I have not drawn back.

6 I offered my back to those who beat me,

my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;

I did not hide my face

from mocking and spitting.

---

How do those verses relate to your point? More importantly, what does verse 4 actually mean in the context of these other verses, which is where it appears?

What relationship does chapter 50 have with chapters 49 and 51?

It's very difficult to see that Isaiah was concerned about the topic you're so interested in. That's the point. Not "What do you think about it?" but "What did Isaiah think about?" Unless I missed something, Isaiah was the inspired one. So his meaning must take priority. Otherwise you're just reading what you want into the text. And since we can all do that, there's no way to resolve anything.

Quote:

---

Some of my comments may not sit well within your religious framework; but FYI, I did draw some of my comments from 4 BC, pg.282:

---

My "religious framework" is not at issue here. What the Scripture actually says trumps that. Oh, and FYI, the BC is more than forty years old. And the last forty years have yielded an amazing amount of new information.

Quote:

---

This quote, from my last post above, actually does give some good context.

---

Look again, and you'll see that all it provides is a definition of a particular word. Definitions themsleves often depend upon the context in which the word appears. But words have little meaning outside of their context--the phrase, the clause, the sentence, the paragraph. Your above quote ignores actual contextual questions.

Secondly, where is the textual connection between Isa 50:4 and John 8:28? What within the Biblical texts links the two? I'm not saying they're not linked, I'm saying you haven't demonstrated it. You've just assumed it.

So far your exposition is all gingerbread and no foundation. It may be pretty, but it's precarious.

[there buster]

Interesting questions.

I do wonder about one statement:

Quote:

---

We seem pretty settled that the former [devotional] is not invalidated by the latter [exegetical].

---

I don't think I could sign on to that unconditionally.

Without disputing that, however, it seems to me that the first difference is one of scope.

To say, "this text means such-and-such to me," is a devotional statement.

By contrast, to say, "This text means such-and-such for the church (or all Christians, or whatever larger group)," must at least begin with exegesis.

Another difference deals with application, the third step of the interpretive process. I can apply a text in my own way to my own life. That is a personal, devotional choice. To attempt to apply it to any larger group, even husband-and- wife or parent-and-children, requires a less subjective approach.

calgary_guy is advocating a soul-winning paradigm for others. For that purpose, he needs stronger evidence.

[Nicodema]

Ed -- OOPS!! Did I get those reversed? What I intended to say is that we seem settled that the EXEGETICAL is not invalidated by the DEVOTIONAL -- not the other way around -- and then I questioned whether the DEVOTIONAL is invalidated by the EXEGETICAL.

Sorry if I got my formers & latters switched ... ... there shall be last that are first, and first that are last!

p.s. I agree with what you've said about scope -- I think that's sound & reasonable.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Well, it's a matter of context.

As far as proving you Biblically "wrong," that's got the whole thing both backwards and unnecessarily adversarial. Please don't take this amiss, but what you have so far isn't coherent enough to be right or wrong. It's just a string of notions and verses.

---

Actually; it is not adversarial. I genuinely want to know what you mean.

Quote:

---

Instead, it's up to you to demonstrate how your interpretation is legitimate. How your conclusions are plausible and in harmony with what the Biblical authors are saying in each case.

---

It is up to me; only because you say so. I have referenced some scripture (much older than the Bible Commentaries) which you ignored.

Quote:

---

When it comes to Isaiah, you single out verse 4 of the 50th chapter, as though it was an independent entity. But it occurs in a much longer passage. That passage has little to do with "spiritual formation" or "moral development" or even "discipling."

---

This is unreasonable. Do you just want me to quote and exegete the whole Bible for you just to flesh out one small point, referenced in one small verse?

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile your reading of verse 4 with the three verses that precede it?

Quote:

---

1This is what the LORD says:

“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce

with which I sent her away?

Or to which of my creditors

did I sell you?

Because of your sins you were sold;

because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

2 When I came, why was there no one?

When I called, why was there no one to answer?

Was my arm too short to ransom you?

Do I lack the strength to rescue you?

By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea,

I turn rivers into a desert;

their fish rot for lack of water

and die of thirst.

3 I clothe the sky with darkness

and make sackcloth its covering.”

or what about the verses that follow

5 The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears,

and I have not been rebellious;

I have not drawn back.

6 I offered my back to those who beat me,

my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;

I did not hide my face

from mocking and spitting.

How do those verses relate to your point? More importantly, what does verse 4 actually mean in the context of these other verses, which is where it appears?

What relationship does chapter 50 have with chapters 49 and 51?

---

The reference I gave from 4 BC above actually does address well your basic question here. I did not make the claims re Isaiah 50:4 that you seem to be saying I did.

Quote:

---

It's very difficult to see that Isaiah was concerned about the topic you're so interested in. That's the point. Not "What do you think about it?" but "What did Isaiah think about?" Unless I missed something, Isaiah was the inspired one. So his meaning must take priority. Otherwise you're just reading what you want into the text. And since we can all do that, there's no way to resolve anything.

---

I did not once say Isaiah was primarily concerned with communication models; I just said that in verse 50:4 there is mention of it.

Quote:

---

Some of my comments may not sit well within your religious framework; but FYI, I did draw some of my comments from 4 BC, pg.282:

My "religious framework" is not at issue here. What the Scripture actually says trumps that. Oh, and FYI, the BC is more than forty years old. And the last forty years have yielded an amazing amount of new information.

---

So, are you saying in a round about way that the quote from 4 BC has "error" in it? If so, where?

Quote:

---

This quote, from my last post above, actually does give some good context.

Look again, and you'll see that all it provides is a definition of a particular word. Definitions themsleves often depend upon the context in which the word appears. But words have little meaning outside of their context--the phrase, the clause, the sentence, the paragraph. Your above quote ignores actual contextual questions.

Secondly, where is the textual connection between Isa 50:4 and John 8:28? What within the Biblical texts links the two? I'm not saying they're not linked, I'm saying you haven't demonstrated it. You've just assumed it.

So far your exposition is all gingerbread and no foundation. It may be pretty, but it's precarious.

---

Likewise Ed; you have not in the least, demonstrated what you are saying. Atleast I have tried; but everytime I do; you dismiss it categorically as "too old" "out of context;" or just plain out to lunch. I am not sure what your point is at all; except to make me out to be wrong.

But anyways; you have won!!!! I will not pursue Isaiah 50:4 within this topic again, unless someone really wants me to.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It is up to me; only because you say so. I have referenced some scripture (much older than the Bible Commentaries) which you ignored.

---

No, it is up to you because you are urging a particular understanding of the text. It's not a matter of party A makes a statement, and that's automatically true unless party B disproves it. The positive assertion needs evidentiary support.

Quote:

---

This is unreasonable. Do you just want me to quote and exegete the whole Bible for you just to flesh out one small point, referenced in one small verse?

---

No. But I think we should at least examine the logical units immediately surrounding it. That's what context is.

Quote:

---

I did not once say Isaiah was primarily concerned with communication models; I just said that in verse 50:4 there is mention of it.

---

Is that in fact what Isaiah 50:4 is referencing? The "I" who has been given the "tongue of the learned" also appears to be the same "I" whose back has been beaten, and whose beard has been plucked out. Is that not so?

Quote:

---

Atleast I have tried; but everytime I do; you dismiss it categorically as "too old" "out of context;" or just plain out to lunch. I am not sure what your point is at all; except to make me out to be wrong.

---

My point is that we must first see what verse 4 meant, when it was written, and when it was read, before we can say what it "means" today.

I'm not trying to make you out to be wrong. That's not of the slightest interest to me. What the text meant, and what it means, are what matters.

It appears you don't understand what "context" means when it comes to exegesis.

First of all, it means understanding the verse "as it lies." What's going on in Isaiah 50? Is Isaiah instructing Israel in how to win their neighbors? Is Isaiah speaking in the first person? Is Isaiah quoting God, that is, is God portrayed as speaking in the first person?

As far as having "won," in Bible study, no one wins until we understand what the text is saying.

I hope you won't stop. On the contrary, I'm hoping you'll start actually addressing the text, as it lies.

So far, you've started with "the text means this." Well, it doesn't appear to me that your meaning fits into what's being said in Isaiah 50. I want to first answer the question, "What is this text saying, in chapter 50? What's going on here?"

Once I have that answer I can move to the next step, and eventually find out what it means for you and me today.

As a medical professional, imagine that I come to you and say, "Patient X has this symptom, so let's use that treatment regimen."

I'm guessing you'd say, "Wait a minute. That's just one symptom. Don't you think we'd better identify the disease/condition first?"

From my perspective, that's what you're doing with this text. You've jumped the gun.

You may be right. I don't yet know.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Sorry if I got my formers & latters switched

---

I have the same problem.

I have Former-Day Saints playing Chutes & Ladders

or is that Hook & Ladder playing Heinrich Schutz (obscure musical pun)

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Let me start with a few ideas. First, we often teach children terrible things. In my field, Religious Education, one of the things we spend a lot of time looking at is how to teach children about God in ways that we won't have to "un-teach" later.

---

Well, inspite of everything said here; there are many people reaching out to "contemporary" Christians; (if it's even fair to call them this just based on age); just by being Christians. Many people who are coming to Christ, and coming into the Church in North America, are coming just because some of us care about them; and we show that we do. I can personally name people here who are "contemporary;" non-Adventists; and even they abhor the Narnia Hype. But they are coming to Church. I had several young people all begging me to take them to

Church this past Sabbath; and not one of them will go for Narnia types of things. They only come because they know someone there cares!

Narnia is touted for it's timeless insights into the classic struggle between "good and evil." The fact that witchcraft and wizardry form the framework for the entire drama is simply seen as a benign teaching device used to capture the active imaginations of children, leading to essential moral lessons. This is why some are saying how that Narnia is such a "good" way to "reach" people.

There are many parents and Church members who are concerned about a dark side behind this pagan craze; and to bluntly dismiss them all as "not getting it;" or some other such denegrating characterization, is simply creating new problems, in addition to not even solving the original one.

Beyond the obvious fantasy element of Narnia; it is also replete with much mysterious information about witches, sorcerers, spells, curses,charms, out-of-body travel, and communication with spirits; all of which reflect actual beliefs and practices in the real world of both ancient and modern occultism.

"What makes real witchcraft so appealing today especially to the many young people involved; and to all who are searching for guidance; is witchcraft's claim to offer a degree of personal power, strength-to-cope, adventure, and inner fulfillment not accessible to the average Joe (the uninitiated). Wicca says all of these perks come through access via occult techniques to supernatural powers which trained witches can "tap into." Such power supposedly comes from three primary sources: From within oneself, from nature, or from contact with the spirits of dead people."

One, Linda Beam, with Focus on the Family has stated the following concern: "Any time the dark side of the supernatural world is presented as harmless or even imaginary, there is the danger that children will become curious and find out too late that witchcraft is neither harmless nor imaginary." (Linda Beam, in an article entitled, "Exploring Harry _Potter's World," Teachers in Focus, Dec. 1999, available at www.focusonthefamily.org ). "Hour of the Witch" by Steve Wohlberg, (an Adventist) is well worth all of us considering. It deals mainly with Harry Potter; but the principles can apply equally to Narnia. I have echoed some of what Steve is saying in this post. Amazing facts pointed me to this info; they too would not be likely to use anything like Narnia; yet they are reaching thousands...traffic to their web site is record-breaking to say the least.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Christians need to really re-think the real effects of witchcrafted cartoons in "reaching people" for Jesus; especially as it affects children, who definitely would perceive such things much differently than adults.

It's time to shift this discussion into the sobering reality of what the Bible literally says about wizards, witchcraft, and sorcery. "The exact word, "Wicca," or "pagan" is not in the Bible, but there are many

references to "witches," "wizards," "witchcraft," and "sorcery." It seems the "Craft" has been around for centuries, and even in Bible days there were witches and wizards living near the Israelites. Are any of these occult practitioners presented as wise, insightful adventurers" like certain Narnia characters?? Far from it!

"Here's a brief survey of just a few Old Testament passages: . "You shall not permit a sorcerer to live" (Exodus 22:18). . "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:31, KJV). "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:27, KJV).

Now for the New Testament:. "Now the works of the flesh are evident . sorcery . those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21). These are from "Revelation," God's last book at the end of the Bible: . "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). "But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie" (Revelation 22:15).

There's no getting around it. God's Word categorically condemns sorcery and witchcraft in the strongest language possible. In the Old Testament, all witches were to suffer the death penalty. The New Testament says they will "not inherit the kingdom of God."

Ed, you too have ignored some things I have posted on, and asked you about. I would like to remind you of them:

1/ Your church's core values

Quote:

---

2/ I would be interested in the next couple of posts here to explore with you; another, equally important concern as you have stated that "our comfort;" is with God; and it is found in texts such as: Ez.22:26: "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane,"

Can you comment, with some scripture references, just how/where we should make this "difference" when it comes to using pagan symbolism to "reach" people "for Jesus? Especially as it pertains to the religious education of children. But, also, The strong emotions evoked in some adults who see this movie; do these reactions really reflect some kind of religious awakening/revival; or are there other possibilities?

Ed, you stated that Narnia was "Christ-centered." Therefore, as an extension of that thought; I would like to see you explain just where we draw the lines there. How would you describe, (with Biblical references), the "difference" between something being "Christ-like," and not Christ-like? (in our "contemporary" society, of course). And, within a similar context; there are spirit of prophecy writings which seem to contraindicate the use of such materials as Narnia:

Quote:

---

"8T.308.003

Myths and Fairy Tales

In the education of children and youth, fairy tales, myths, and fictitious stories are now given a large place. Books of this character are used in the schools, and they are to be found in many homes. How can Christian parents permit their children to use books so filled with falsehood? When the children ask the meaning of stories so contrary to the teaching of their parents, the answer is that the stories are not true; but this does not do away with the evil results of their use. The ideas presented in these books

mislead the children. They impart false views of life and beget and foster a desire for the unreal."

---

Ed, how would you reconcile this and other such comments with what you are advocating here? Would Narnia or Bart Simpson fall into these categories of undesirable materials as described here in 8T? How do we make this "difference" spoken of by Ezekiel, in the modern day context of Narnia, Simpsons, etc., as currently used by some in "evangelism?"

[there buster]

It's a mystery to me why you spend so much time condemning C.S.Lewis and so little actually attempting to understand the Bible.

You're certainly free to lump Narnia in with Harry Potter. Just don't complain when others lump Ellen White in with Joseph Smith.

I'm quite aware of the Bible's teaching about witches. But the way you're using the texts, you should also condemn 1 Sam 28. It also features a witch. Contrary to SDA understanding, 1 Sam 28 states that the witch of Endor did in fact raise Samuel.

As far as fantasy goes, the Bible has fantasies in it. You're just used to calling them something else.

Finally, there's no point in trying to "draw the line" so long as you employ the method of Bible study you do.

Because all we have to do is collect verses that appear to support our case, without regard to original meaning. Anyone with a computer can compile verses (and EGW quotes) to prove almost anything they want to.

You have been concerned that I was trying to "prove you wrong," but you show no interest in understanding the actual meaning of the text.

Then you spend your effort attempting to "prove me wrong" about Narnia. You demanded to know anyone who has been helped by Narnia. I gave you an example. That apparently has been forgotten or ignored. You ignored the context of your own chosen verse.

Whan I do respond to your demands, you ignore the evidence. I offered to work through Isaiah 50 with you, to find a common understanding. You respond with this latest.You keep shifting the grounds of the debate.

For some reason, you felt attacked by my original post. Your response has been to attack me. At one point, I stopped, but you requested me to continue. Well, I'm tired of being attacked, and have better things to do. If you ever really want to understand what I'm saying, let me know.

Ill-informed attacks like the last post are reason enough for me not to invest any more time.