No, nothing mystic. Paul never said that the women who were receiving prophecy in 1 Cor. 11 were receiving anything weird, and/or receiving either "lite" or "extra strength" versions of the charism. There is one Holy Spirit, and the Spirit distributes gifts. Paul didn't have a problem with the legitimacy of prophecy or women prophets (or men prophets). It was the chaotic nature of the worship service.

But what is it? When someone in the Bible receives prophecy what does that mean? What do they do?

Prophecy usually has two connotations: one, a revealed Word of God, the other revelation about the future events. Most of the examples of prophecy in the Bible and in the church are related to the first meaning. My pastor's wife is considered a prophetess. She told a story one time how she was on a plane and talking with the person next to her. The person was visting a friend and out of the blue, my pastor's wife mentioned the friend's name as though she knew from the get-go. It turned out they knew the same person, but my pastor's wife had no idea that was who the person was taking about. She stated that she felt a clear word from the Holy Spirit about that.

Another example is at a youth camp I went to as a counselor, one of the other youth pastors (or leaders) spoke with one of the girls from my church. He said that she would have two big choices: to go to college with plenty of scholarship offers, or go to YFN (Youth for the Nations). He also said God was going to have her to go YFN. My schedule pulled me out of the youth group ministry before she graduated high school, so I don't know where she ended up, but this is another example.

There are other cases where someone you met for the first time will say something that directly applies to what you are going through in life and say it directly to you. Most of the time this is Holy Spirit talking through that person to you and this is call prophecy.

That being said, there are false prophets as well. So that is the case when we need what is called 'spiritual discernment'. We are to test what is being said with what the Bible says. If they are not in conflict, then it is likely from God. If there is conflict, don't trust it. Also, a prophetic word that is from God will be specific in terms of details. God will not be vague for us to guess what it what. That is one of the means we have of testing whether a prophecy is from God or not.

Hope that answers your questions somewhat.

I apologize if my saying "take it or leave it" offended anyone. But truth is truth. In a sense, we all have to "take it or leave it." Will we obey God or not? Will we believe God's Word or not? Will we receive Christ or not? And when we present the gospel to others, it's up to God whether they "take it or leave it." But I thank God He's more patient with us than we deserve. He gives us many opportunities to "take" the gospel. I just don't want to waste those opportunities. Some have a "one-chance" attitude toward witnessing, i.e. if they don't get it the first time, walk away. That seems cruel to me. God doesn't act that way with us. Why should we act that way with others?

Abraham and Lot: Fencer, I partially agree with you on Lot’s connection with Abraham, i.e. why he was spared. At the same time, Peter called Lot “righteous” and “just” [2 Peter 2:7-8]. And when Abraham asked God, “Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” [Gen 18] I think he had Lot in mind. Verses 24-32 show Abraham repeatedly, but humbly, asking God to spare the city if He found X number of righteous people in it, the final number being 10. And yet, God could not find even ten righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. But He still spared Lot and the family members willing to go with him, while justly destroying the wicked. Does God condone sin? Of course not. I think what happened to Lot in Genesis 19:30-38 was a punishment of sorts for his willingness to offer his virgin daughters to creeps. I think being in Sodom compromised him somewhat. And yet, for Abraham’s sake, Lot and his family were spared. Even then, the family members who chose not to go with Lot were destroyed along with the wicked. In order to be spared, they still had to leave! In one sense at least, Lot was righteous. Why? He believed the angels and told his family to leave town. As a result, he and two daughters escaped punishment. “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness” [Rom 4:3; cf Gen 15:6].

Lucy P., I think you said earlier that the “way” in Isaiah 35:8 referred to the church. The “way of holiness” in this verse refers to Jesus Christ, who calls Himself “the way, the truth, and the life” [John 14]. Jesus is “the way that leadeth unto life” [Matthew 7]. The gospel of Christ is called the “way” in Acts 9:2, 18:25, 19:9, 23, and 24:14, 22. In the Old Testament, “the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest” [Hebrews 9]. But what does Paul later say? “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh” [Heb 10:19-20]. “The way of peace” [Luke 1] ... Jesus “is our peace” [Ephesians 2], the “Prince of Peace” [Isaiah 9].

My college experience: I went to a Christian university with standards. No alcohol, no drugs, modest clothing, single-sex dorms, and the opposite sex can't be in the dorm hallways unless it's moving in/out day. I was grateful! But a few years ago, I taught at a Catholic university that compared to others was traditional, conservative. And yet there's an alcohol problem on campus. They have co-ed dorms. I don't know about the "sex scene" there, it didn't come up in my classes thank God, but one student thought the university was strict compared to others. When I told her what my college experience was like, she realized where she was wasn't so strict.

There is a HUGE difference between taking pride in one's hard-earned accomplishments, as WWW is professing, and allowing those accomplishments to give you a sense of entitlement, which WWW is not professing.

Yet when someone comes along who had to struggle to get a good education simply because she was a woman, you dismiss it. I'm guessing that Wagga has probably been called some bad words that would make your ears bleed, "unwomanly" words, for toughing it out and fighting for the degree that you were born recently enough to take for granted. Paul did call his education "loss" (filthy rags, actually) but he said it to make a point about how humans can't save themselves, not to dismiss study.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. But I think I was misunderstood. I'm not talking about the difficulty of getting an education as a woman. Yes, it's hard for women in some countries today. It was hard for women in the US in earlier decades. My mother was the first one in her family to graduate both high school and college, and the first to get a graduate degree. [Others tagged along behind her]. She knows! What I am talking about is this: I won’t take pride in any accomplishment, academic or otherwise, that keeps me from taking God at His Word, from taking the Bible literally. If Genesis isn’t literally true, if we can’t take it or any other part of the Bible literally, then God is a liar. But God cannot lie. So why assume His Word does? The Bible is literal, historical fact from Genesis to Revelation. End of story. Darwin was a fool. He died believing a lie. Also, the type of education we seek matters. Some go to university to study science [and other fields of knowledge] with an atheistic worldview. Others go to university to study God's Word. There's a difference in the education, isn't there? My mother went to college to study the Bible. She has graduate degrees in theology and church music.

Shameless advertising...
Check out my "Fruit of the Spirit" thread in the Prayer Requests board! [and post something... ]

(edited)

Okay — look I’m getting to this much quicker than the last time, Pal! Earlier I was not referring to a situation like yours, in which you’re asking God for wisdom and to make a way for you to find a job.

The kind of mindset I was talking about would be to sit around and wait for some kind of supernatural or “inner peace” “sign” from God before you picked up a pen and did really unspiritual, human-action things like filling out job applications. Surely God does have a job picked out for you. But as Bookwyrm recounted about his college choices, you almost always don’t know what that will be in advance. Scripture never guarantees that we will. Rather, if what you’re doing is not obviously against Scripture (God’s revealed will), then it’s within the possibility of being God’s secret will. If it happens, it obviously was.

Thanks for your speedy reply and the prayer. I understand it much better now. Like I said before, I have a tendency to panic at times. Actually, it makes me feel better also to know that signs or inner peace aren't necessary. I've read about people who say "God told me that [blank] would happen" and wondered if I'd been doing something wrong because I've never had that kind of experience. Yesterday I was just feeling generally crabby and discourage. I'm on several lists to sub, but I hadn't had a call in a week and a half to sub and most of the calls I get are for an educational daycare, which is not my main interest (My degree doesn't even include that age group). Then last night I got a call to sub (in an elementary school), so I began to feel better. I had told my mom how discouraged I was feeling, and after I got the call she told me she thought God was trying to tell me something.
Since we are comparing college experiences, I might as well add in mine. There are a lot of students that party and are always talking about "going to bars" and drinking too much. I'm using the present tense since I know such things are still going on although I'm no longer attending. I was pretty much out of the loop about the negative parts of college life. I lived at home while going to college so I wasn't part of the dorm life. Unless you count club or class get-togethers (honor or education clubs), I wasn't ever invited to a party (if I remember correctly). Although the college students can be loud and destructive (we live next to student housing and it gets loud at times), a lot of the students also donate time and money to making the community better. Too often the bad is discussed and the good ignored.

I was pretty much out of the loop about the negative parts of college life. I lived at home while going to college so I wasn't part of the dorm life. Unless you count club or class get-togethers (honor or education clubs), I wasn't ever invited to a party (if I remember correctly).

Sounds familiar.

A few times God has told me to do X and I've done it. But when it comes to knowing His will about the future, about a job, I haven't had that kind of specific direction. I can't rely on feelings of peace or lack thereof either. I know they're unreliable. For me, it's basically been pray and wait.

My college experience: I went to a Christian university with standards. No alcohol, no drugs, modest clothing, single-sex dorms, and the opposite sex can't be in the dorm hallways unless it's moving in/out day. I was grateful! But a few years ago, I taught at a Catholic university that compared to others was traditional, conservative. And yet there's an alcohol problem on campus. They have co-ed dorms. I don't know about the "sex scene" there, it didn't come up in my classes thank God, but one student thought the university was strict compared to others. When I told her what my college experience was like, she realized where she was wasn't so strict.

I think a college that strict about gender separation can be damaging. Segregating men and women does nothing to help the imbalance between them in relationships. So many of my closest friends are men whom I met in college, and I have many very fond and totally platonic memories of hanging out in the dorms together. The idea that men and women in one place together will automatically lead to evil is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I lived in co-ed dorms for two years. I never once felt threatened by being in the same building as men.

Also, the type of education we seek matters. Some go to university to study science [and other fields of knowledge] with an atheistic worldview. Others go to university to study God's Word. There's a difference in the education, isn't there? My mother went to college to study the Bible. She has graduate degrees in theology and church music.

So what you're saying here is that a scientific education is worth less to God than a religious education? Please, please, please don't lump all scientists together as atheists. This is so far from the case. People assume that just because scientists' work is concerned with the physical world that they are incapable of having a spiritual thought. Being atheist is NOT a pre-requesite for becoming a scientist of any sort, even a paleontologist. There are many religious and Christian scientists. I'm sure your mother is a wonderful person, but does her degree in theology and church music somehow make her more "godly" than the scientist who has chosen to spend his life studying the glory of God's Creation? There is no difference in the education at all. The difference lies within the person.

The idea that men and women in one place together will automatically lead to evil is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I lived in co-ed dorms for two years. I never once felt threatened by being in the same building as men.

I must concur. While I've not spent any time in a university most of my military life was spent living in various dorms, and almost all of them were coed. Of course back then I was a lot more shy than I am now so I seldom spoke to any of them, but I can't seem to recall that there were ever any quibbles or issues that arose in any of my dorms...although a pair of airmen met in the dorm (they were living in the same wing) and did eventually get married. It was more like an apartment complex than anything else.

This is so far from the case. People assume that just because scientists' work is concerned with the physical world that they are incapable of having a spiritual thought.

I'm not sure that 220 meant it in that way, although the wording certainly contributed to that idea. The truth is that when you go to a secular college or university they teach you secular science, and since there will almost always be more non-Christians than Christians that outlook tends to be the more dominant out in the everyday world. It certainly doesn't help when the loudest among those non-Christian types take center stage and have really become some of our most ardent critics. I can fully understand why a Christian might then begin to look at a secular university with a bit of cynicism. I know full well their are plenty of Christian scientists, but a lot of them bite their tongues and the ones that do speak out on issues tend to get jackhammered by the more numerous non-Christian types. I tend to think Science and the Bible go hand in hand, and you likely believe the same. But the mockery this invites from our detractors is enough to silence a good number of people who are interested in perhaps keeping their credentials intact and maintaing steady work lest they be branded some kind of unscientific religious zealot.

Please don't think I'm coming down on you or anything because I absolutely agree with your statement 100%, but I felt the need to point that out because there is a flipside to the coin.

Too right. It's important to think critically and be discerning in whatever you learn/do. This applies to both public and Christian universities. We're all called to serve God in different ways, with our own skills and talents. I personally believe too many Christian create a bubble for themselves (although of course there are also Christians who are quite worldly). Hmm...

220CT, Something doesn't have to be "Literal" to still contain "Truth". Joseph Campbell spent a lot of his life explaining that Myth doesn't mean "Lie". Genesis can be a Mythopoetic accounting of Creation, yet still hold many layers of Meaning and Spiritual Truth. It could be a Metaphor for how Humankind gained Consciousness and separated from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

Before eating from the Tree of Knowledge humans were innocent like the animals and they didn't know they were naked. Having eaten from it, they became Self Aware, they knew they were naked, and thus they covered themselves in unnecessary shame. Being Self Aware, humans saw themselves as separate from, and even "above" Nature (they became "as gods themselves, knowing Good and Evil"). Ejection from The Garden by God can be seen as the separation or alienation of humans from Nature. That's one way this part of Genesis can be seen as a Spiritual metaphor for the rise of conscious awareness at the expense of our sense of being a part of the Natural Order of things.

Some Scholars also see the ejection from The Garden as a metaphor for drastic Climate Changes that began to dry out and Desertify parts of the Middle East, causing people to believe God was punishing them. In this reading, Genesis then becomes a way for ancient peoples without modern scientific knowledge to explain why misfortune had fallen upon them.

Both these examples are vastly oversimplified, but they represent a couple of the ways Myth can be Truth, even if it's not Literal.

I'm not saying you have to believe in those particular interpretations, but rather that you could perhaps see that other peoples interpretations are not "from Satan", or "Lies". I don't see why people of Good Will on all sides can't just accept that others have differing views of things, and simply agree to disagree.

I don't necessarily agree with what a few Literalist Gnostic sects said about the Fallen Nature of Matter vs the Purity of Spirit. But frankly, that current of thought runs through all Abrahamic Religions to varying degrees depending on the denomination. It's not my cup of tea, but they are welcome to their views.

But on a Metaphorical Level (such as recognized by Valentinian Gnostics), the "Fallen" state of Matter was seen more as a Physical Incarnation of Spirit. Indeed their views echo Einstein's famous equation demonstrating that Matter and Energy (Spirit) are just different Orders of the same substance. Of course this conception of a Dualism at one level resolving into Monism at another "higher" level makes much more sense to my point of view.

My goal isn't to claim that I have an Absolute lock on Truth. But I don't think you have that either, and I think such claims by anyone ought to be questioned . There are many ways to find "Truth" in the Bible without taking it all literally.

Peace and long Life

Gandalf's Beard

I think a college that strict about gender separation can be damaging. Segregating men and women does nothing to help the imbalance between them in relationships. So many of my closest friends are men whom I met in college, and I have many very fond and totally platonic memories of hanging out in the dorms together. The idea that men and women in one place together will automatically lead to evil is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I lived in co-ed dorms for two years. I never once felt threatened by being in the same building as men.

Interesting. But my school was taking precautions and I had no problems with it. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Better to be safe than sorry, I say.

So what you're saying here is that a scientific education is worth less to God than a religious education? Please, please, please don't lump all scientists together as atheists. This is so far from the case. People assume that just because scientists' work is concerned with the physical world that they are incapable of having a spiritual thought. Being atheist is NOT a pre-requesite for becoming a scientist of any sort, even a paleontologist. There are many religious and Christian scientists. I'm sure your mother is a wonderful person, but does her degree in theology and church music somehow make her more "godly" than the scientist who has chosen to spend his life studying the glory of God's Creation? There is no difference in the education at all. The difference lies within the person.

I realized last night, or this morning, that what I said would be misunderstood. So I apologize. My mom double majored in Bible and English. I majored in English, and minored in religion and history. And there's a good science department at the university too. The dept head publishes anti-evolution stuff all the time. I know there are plenty of Christian scientists out there. I tell atheists and everyone else who will listen about Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, and other Christian science organizations all the time. And let's not forget Sir Isaac Newton [was he non-Trinitarian? ] and Michael Faraday! I learned about Faraday in a PBS special on Einstein's relativity theory.

The truth is that when you go to a secular college or university they teach you secular science, and since there will almost always be more non-Christians than Christians that outlook tends to be the more dominant out in the everyday world. It certainly doesn't help when the loudest among those non-Christian types take center stage and have really become some of our most ardent critics. I can fully understand why a Christian might then begin to look at a secular university with a bit of cynicism.

This is partly what I meant. Do we go to a secular university or a Christian one to learn about science? The same with religion, history, literature, art, music, every field of knowledge. There are atheist and secular approaches to history and there are Christian ones. English, like science, has been taken over by liberals and conservative Christians don't have much of a voice. When they do speak, nobody listens. When I teach English, I teach the classics. I also want to create my own "Bible in literature" course.

On the subject of women in the Bible, and how they're treated in the secular world today, read this article called "More video violence against women."

It is instructive that after decades of cries for equal rights and feminism, a world without God has always resorted to violence and abuse, and devalued human life. In contrast, We have seen how the Lord has used women mightily in unique ways in Old Testament times (Deborah, Abigail, Esther, and Rahab, to name a few); He continues to do so. Though Galatians 3:28 tells us that our position in Christ Jesus is "neither male nor female," for we are all equal in Him, our condition is that God has created different spiritual as well as physical functions for us as human beings. The role of women is one of great importance and much to be sought after by those who understand its significance and value in the Kingdom (for example, 1 Timothy 3:11, 5:10, 6:1,2). . . .None of His promises exclude women; not one of them has failed (1 Kings 8:56).

So...your thoughts?

EDIT
GB, what are your thoughts on this article? "The first and final lie: Self-deification". It talks about Genesis 3 and Lucifer and eastern mysticism... How about this one? "More proof: The East is seducing the West"
/EDIT

220CT, Something doesn't have to be "Literal" to still contain "Truth". Joseph Campbell spent a lot of his life explaining that Myth doesn't mean "Lie". Genesis can be a Mythopoetic accounting of Creation, yet still hold many layers of Meaning and Spiritual Truth. It could be a Metaphor for how Humankind gained Consciousness and separated from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.....Both these examples are vastly oversimplified, but they represent a couple of the ways Myth can be Truth, even if it's not Literal.

I don't believe Joseph Campbell, whoever he is, is alone in his ideas. C.S.Lewis, whose works are at the heart of this whole Internet site, also spoke frequently of a 'true myth'. As for the bible, a lot depends on which version of the Bible you read how much you can take at face value and how much not, in the Old Testament, in contrast to the New Testament.

I've already mentioned that I am in possession of several versions of the Bible. There is the Good News Bible copies of which have been routinely given out at Australian Citizenship Ceremonies and the KJV version I was given for my Confirmation, both of which reflect the usual arrangement of Old Testament books from Genesis to Malachi. Possibly because of my Irish Catholic antecedents I am in possession of a Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, translated from the Septuagint, which replaces 1 & 2 Samuel with 4 books of Kings, followed by extras such as 1 & 2 Paralipolemenon, instead of Chronicles, 1 & 2 Esdras (the book of Nehemiah), Tobias and Judith, before reverting back to Esther, Job, Psalms and Proverbs. The book of Lamentations is replaced by the book of Baruch and the Canticles of Canticles replaces Song of Solomon. Isaiah and Jeremiah become Isaias and Jeremias, whilst other books become Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom. And let us not forget 1 and 2 Maccabees for the history of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid King, after the fall of the Persian Empire, which is attested to in Roman and Greek writings, including Josephus. Could someone please let me know why these interesting books get left out of the KJV version?

I've already mentioned the book of Jubilees, which turned up among the Dead Sea Scrolls and which has been omitted, except for occasional scraps, from most Bible version except, it seems, the Ethiopian one, and maybe others such as the Assyrian and Chaldean versions of the Bible. The Book of Jubilees also was referred to in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Somehow or other my Mum also got hold of a translation of the Jewish Scriptures on which the Old Testament is based. Again there is a different arrangement. All the KJV books are there, except for Malachi, which is missing. But you have to look for the equivalents. Somehow in reading the Hebrew version of Genesis, I find it far more believable and not at all contradictory of Evolutionary theory. Unless you take the idea of 7 24 hour days literally. And since the Book of Jubilees seems to find something more important about the number 7 and its multiples, rather than the unit of time which is a day, it is the number seven which is the key word and the word 'days' can be taken poetically, rather than literally. The same applies to the notion of Adam's rib, which when compared to legends of Lilith, found in other Jewish writings, and not Genesis, is a more acceptable way of explaining women.

I'm not saying you have to believe in those particular interpretations, but rather that you could perhaps see that other peoples interpretations are not "from Satan", or "Lies". I don't see why people of Good Will on all sides can't just accept that others have differing views of things, and simply agree to disagree.

I do have to agree with you, GB. Unfortunately I am having problems with my pms on this board so can't answer any I receive properly. Meanwhile, I never thought I'd see the day when I would find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the Muslim professor quoted in Wednesday's Australian

As he says, y0u don't have to stop believing in God just because you accept how Evolutionary Science works. However, a knowledge of Evolution is central to an understanding of Science. By believing in so-called Creationalism, students and teachers are making life unnecessarily difficult for themselves in comprehending things they need to know. You may not be aware that the Koran also includes a version of Genesis, as well as other parts of the Bible, including extra stories about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. But I've heard that though it relates the story of Abraham, it differs quite significantly from either the Torah or the Pentateuch about the relative status of Isaac and Ishmael. That throws out much of what both Judaism and Christianity have to say about the status of Hebrews, and most importantly to Christianity, the mission of Jesus Christ to the world. But if ever a word was true about the whole current world situation, I doubt that Genesis 25, verse 23 could ever be beaten.

I'd like to say more in response to previous posts, but have a lot to do at the moment so I'll have to come back later on.

I don't have much time.

As for the bible, a lot depends on which version of the Bible you read how much you can take at face value and how much not, especially in the Old Testament.

I take it all at face value. ALL. That's where I start. That's the foundation. Not taking the Bible literally = shaky foundation. What do you have to lean on if you don't? How in the world do you trust God if you can't even take Him at His Word? How and why should you believe anything He says?

Somehow in reading the Hebrew version of Genesis, I find it far more believable and not at all contradictory of Evolutionary theory. Unless you take the idea of 7 24 hour days literally. And since the Book of Jubilees seems to find something mystical about the number 7, rather than the days, the days are of poetic rather than literal significance.

Guess what? I take 7 24-hour days literally! 7 poetic rather than literal: how does that follow?

Gotta run! They're kicking me off.

Well for one thing 220CT, I can't speak for Wagga, but I don't view the Bible as God's Infallible Word. Rather I see it as compilation of ancient texts written by fallible Humans (who sometimes contradict each other) to explain the Experience of the Divine, how the World was Created, our place in that World, and the Spiritual/Philosophical Principles that guide us through the World, and a bit of Ancient History to boot. Therefore I see it as containing many Truths, but not the Only Truth . *very short oversimplified answer *

GB

PS: I'll comment later this weekend on the links you posted.

Read the Bible within the context of the times. Read the Bible as a reflection of God's love for his creations and what happens when they reject him. But don't take the Bible out of context. If you do, you can make the Bible seem to say whatever you wish.

W4J:
Read the Bible within the context of the times.

I agree 100% . Which is why I don't take all of it literally .

GB