---

Reply to : having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??God BlessE5

---

---

Reply to : earth5Reply to : DidaktikonHi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,IanHey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??God BlessE5Earth,the Revivalist view on that one is that there was creation man on the sixth day of ceation and Adam came later, on the seventh. One was created out of nothing and the other(Adam) was formed out of dust. To back up pre-adam man, Cain was banished to the land of Nod, 60 miles away, and took

---

Hi Brogla, thank you for your considered and mature response,

I guess to go back to my post, re conversation is that I still think that there was man around prior to Adam and Eve, my friend used to follow this thought, however is now convinced scripture says other wise, my question to Ian if he can be bothered is in his view and over anything that he has studied what does scripture actually say???

---

Reply to : earth5Reply to : brolgaReply to : earth5Reply to : DidaktikonHi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,IanHey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??God BlessE5Earth,the Revivalist view on that one is that there was creation man on the sixth day of ceation and Adam came later, on the seventh. One was created out of nothing and the other(Adam) was formed out of dust. To back up pre-adam man, Cain was banished to the land of Nod, 60 miles away, and took

---

thanks again Brogla,

My point in this post is that Ian has asked us to come up with rever doctrine that needs to be clarified, after my discussion with my friend, i thought that this may also be one that can be discussed are they right or wrong re this.

Anyway bro have a great day of to the airport in 10 mins so must get going be blessed

e5

Oh, I knew exactly what E5 was asking, I was simply waiting to see if he did

DIDA, your know bro I know we dont see eye to eye a lot however when asked a serious question do you think that it is your christian responsability to answer or to use it as another reason to attack.

You came on here asking for questions that needed clarification and yet when done by me I get put down thanks bro really appreciate it.

Re your explanation to my question, im sorry bro but still dont get it sorry preety thick, you need to make it simple for this wee fellow

e5

Chapter two follows chapter one, ipso facto chapter two must introduce something new!

Ha-ha-ha!

Is there somethiing new or any corections? The ch 2 says ch 1 was wrong. Corrections in ch 2: God did not blessed humans to multiply! They did not  deserve this blessing because they disobeyed God and now they have to dig Earth and bear children in pain. Eve was not made from the dust as Adam, but from his rib. Hmm...  She must be really divine then! What the .... she has to be a man's property then? Compare to that, It looks like Aboriginals in the Adamic time have not tried this fruit of knowledge. Strangely enough, they still bear children in pain but did not have to dig the Earth in the same sense as the white man. May be Aboriginals are related to pre-Adamic men? Oh, I am so confused! I 'll be stuck in the first 2 chapters forever and never have faith again!

Should not we just regard the whole Bible (as well as the first 11 chapters) as Jewish poetry and forget about it? I mean, isn't it Ian's advice, anyway?

---

Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian

---

Hi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.

Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee) or beyond. The leader with vision ?

Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.

Looking forward to your reply.  

---

Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian

---

Ian, while Im at it I was wondering what your thoughts are re two writers that I have found helpful over recent times. The 1st one is Frank Damazio and in particular his book ' The Making of a Leader'. The other author is Gregory Boyd and his book ' Repenting of Religion'. Both of these authors have strong theological training which is something I have now come to value as opposed to rubbishing  under the RF banner.

Many thanks and look forward to your response.

---

Reply to : GlawreyGood morning, Glawrey.Hi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.Sure.Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee) or beyond. The leader with vision ?The terms 'Elder' and 'bishop' are used, more or less, interchangeably in Paul's writings (and always in theplural, thereby denoting what is nowadays referred to as a collegial episcopate). The former term refers to their 'dignity', that latter to their 'role' (and it'sepiskopos, by the way)Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.Tough questi

---

Thanks for your reply.

Would we then take it that a married women should not take up the role of elder/bishop because it might indicate that that particular marital relationship is in itself out of order ie women ruling over the man and perhaps not being under his covering and would thereby exclude her from eldership. All a bit hyperthetical I know but just struggling with new non RF concepts at the moment.

Also re Eph 4 leadership which I understand to be separate again from elder/bishop question, is it resonable to draw the conclusion that these positions are not gender specific.

Episkopas. Ta. Would a reasonable interpretation be 'epic vision'. 

---

Reply to : GlawreyGlawrey, once again.Ian, while Im at it I was wondering what your thoughts are re two writers that I have found helpful over recent times.Sure.The 1st one is Frank Damazio and in particular his book ' The Making of a Leader'.Frank Damazioisn'tone of my preferred authors. A little too many 'dodgy' views on certain issues for my likingThe other author is Gregory Boyd and his book ' Repenting of Religion'.Greg Boyd, on the other hand,alwaysrepays careful readingBoth of these authors have strong theological training which is something I have now come to value as opposed to rubbis

---

Ian, just a quick thuought on what you might consider as "dodgy, views" in regard to Frank Damazio.

Thanks for your time. I'm enjoying your replies.

Ian , back to your quote, question for  you. Please.

Biblically, the earth also 'suffers' under the effects of sin

An orthodox bible says :all creatures, not creation. They bear in pain. And that is true. But Why do animals have to pay for the human sin? Especially when they were blessed to multiply in the first ch. Are we abolishing ch 1 alltogether?

King James version says ALL creation, so it is not just the earth but the whole universe. And that is weird. Because the whole universe does not have to pay for the human sin! Does God  think otherwise? Do you?

brolga :Give it up worried mum, and I thought I was ignorant

We are all ignorant  in one way or the other. I am ignorant in the bible, Ian in science. It is not a sin to be ignorant, a sin is not to want to learn.

---

Reply to : DidaktikonHi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,IanHi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee)or beyond. Theleaderwith vision ?Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.Looking forward to your reply.

---

Sorry to butt in here Glawrey, I was exploring Frank Viola via google and I found an article worth checking out on the topic. Just type in.

Frank Viola- 'Rethinking the Five Fold Ministry'               (which is really only 4).   It's just an essay. 10 Pages or so.      

So I hope this is of interest to you, I think i'ts relevant.

Didi, can a non-scholar handle Fee?

---

---

Reply to : franks ghostFrankie,Didi, can a non-scholal handle Fee?Sure, certainly those of his books which are aimed at 'average' Christians ("How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth", "How to Read the Bible Book by Book", "Paul, the Spirit and the People of God", "Gospel and Spirit", and "Listening to the Spirit in the Text"). Some of his writings requireconsiderablefacility in Greek ("New Testament Exegesis", "God's Empowering Presence" and "Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study", along with certain compilations of his journal articles (mainly on text-critical issues) including, "To What End Exegesis?").Fee has been a prolific commentary writer in recent decades, with his labours centering on the Pauline writings (1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians [x2] and the Pastorals). All his commentaries are accessible to

---

Ok , I went and bought 'Paul the Spirit and the People of God' today at about 3.00 pm. We had a backout with the storms tonight and now when I logged on I see your response.

Thanks, I'll hook in. Ps I am still quite taken by Viola- I guess he answers many of the very relevant questions for me in the current cultural environ.

---

Reply to : franks ghostFrank,Frank Viola- 'Rethinking the Five Fold Ministry' (which is really only 4).Don't be so sure, 'boy-o'. Whilst some argue to the contrary, the flow of Paul's Greek actuallyfavoursa separationbetweenthe gifts of 'pastor' and 'teacher'Blessings,Ian

---

You know Didi, I'm just pleased right now that I know that there even is a differing opinion out there on the subject. Know what I mean.

I am loving re-reading the word.

I'm sure I'll keep you posted.

Blessings

Ghosty

Definitely, Ian,

I can see you do not take the bible literally? You just give an interpretation to the best of your knowledge. The knowledge you have is coming from  somewhere. God did not come to you in your dream to teach his word, people came to you or you went to people, or read books recommended to you by people. You listened to someone's interpretation.  Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you try to combat Revivalist teaching, however you cannot see another persons' point of view. An atheist like me is your best enemy, you are buried in your scriptures and you cannot see the light outside of your window. The best you can do is to accuse me of not willing to learn. What does it mean to be willing to learn, isn it there any other knowledge available about the world apart from the bible? You dismiss the majority of this knowledge because it contradicts the scriptures. You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant. I am not an expert in the bible and I do not claim to be an expert, however you claim to be an expert of everything, because you know the bible and it the truth. How is it the truth if it is simply your (or someone elses) interpretation?

The same bible, which we know have been interpreted by Catholics, Orthodox and fundamentalist differently, and these interpretations have been changing throughout the history of Christianity. Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so! I hope you don't have these beliefs? I listen what people and you say about a need for a teacher. Well, at the moment I am learning from you, you are not learning from me. (Yes, of course, you know everything already and you don't need to learn, I remember that) What you are teaching is contradicting everything what I learned during  40 years of my life! I am willing to learn from you but all I can hear is "You are ignorant"

So please educate me! The concept that Creation itself is affected by sin is 'weird' to you, huh? Why? It is weird because it seems to me you believe that the universe has to suffer (what is suffering?) because of the desire of humans for the knowledge, especially women's desire which was prohibited by god. Is it why you never read any other books, except the theological, because god prohibited the knowledge? Moreover, you say that you don't base your exegetical work on translated versions. May I ask you in which language do you read the bible? Which language of the bible do you call original, not translated? I guess, you answer may be : oh, you are ignorant. Well, I am, I want to know and I am asking you, but it seems to me that you simply don't know a lot of stuff, which is why you don't answer. May be you do know but simply cannot connect the dots in your head. May I ask you why the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest recorded Hebrew Scriptures, which allegedly may have been used by Jesus to teach, are not available to the public? About 40% of them are not available to the public, and those that are available do not contain any of the New Testament scriptures. May I ask you in which language did Jesus speak? In the language of God? Is there any evidence that the bible we are reading today is what Jesus told us?  I believe there is not.  This is why this religion is so ineffective to ensuring our immortality or cure illnesses. It does not matter, how you practice your beliefs, whether you pray with your hands up or down, whether you pray in Latin or English, whether you pray alone or in a church, all there is to it is a prayer. It may give you hope, but it does not do the job.(If it did, we would not need the doctors.)  What is important, what comes with the religion as a package: an efficient tool to control the minds of the people. Religion is a powerful tool and with it you convince the people that by doing certain things people insure yourself a place in heaven when they die. .The fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) are dangerous because they use religion to kill people. The Revivalist reaching is damaging because they use christianity to abuse people. This is all about power, control, and dominance.

There are a lot of people who come here in search of a good place to worship, or simply wanting to leave Revivalist church, but they are deterred by your "brutally honest" way of communicating the message, by your way of not answering the questions (Yes, because you don't know everything) and bugging them off as ignorant. They do get disappointed by this treatment, all they can see in you is a bitter person, unchristian, arrogant, this is exactly what has been told in RF centres, and people go to RF looking for love. And until you understand this, no, understanding is not the right word, comprehend the whole idea about religion, what role it plays in the world, and how it is being used to manipulate, to control people, and look at yourself from a side, your work will not be effective; you will do more harm than good.  It is not important how we practice our religion, what is important is the effects of it.  And you want to do good by teaching us here, I hope, you did not come here to satisfy your hunger for power.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you try to combat Revivalist teaching,

 

Yeah... can we let him do that please? For Pete's sake. Read the first post on this thread... forget trying to debunk Ian; it's not the point here. It just isn't. So stop. Now. Thanks. I'm not saying he shouldn't be questioned, but this forum is concerned with discussing Revival churches and their doctrines. Ian is invited here to do that and therefore there is a bias here, so deal with it.

 

You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant. I am not an expert in the bible and I do not claim to be an expert, however you claim to be an expert of everything, because you know the bible and it the truth. How is it the truth if it is simply your (or someone elses) interpretation?

 

Oh we're all ignorant to various things on various levels. I'm sure you have a good grasp on many topics, but this forum (and particularly this thread and room within it) focuses on Revivalism. Some people actually are well studied in a large manner of subjects. I envy such people and respectfully tip my hat in kudos when they share it.

 

The same bible, which we know have been interpreted by Catholics, Orthodox and fundamentalist differently, and these interpretations have been changing throughout the history of Christianity. Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so! I hope you don't have these beliefs?

 

Science is real. Religion is faith... and the twain can meet. Flat Earthers and the like are faithful but pathetically ignorant in their faith.

 

I listen what people and you say about a need for a teacher. Well, at the moment I am learning from you, you are not learning from me.

 

Honestly, the theologians from Ian's camp are not on the hunt for teachers who aren't as well read as they are.

 

(Yes, of course, you know everything already and you don't need to learn, I remember that) What you are teaching is contradicting everything what I learned during  40 years of my life!

 

Yeah, that's fun hey?! You seem really passionate with your long and well considered following paragraph, but... meh.

 

 The Revivalist reaching is damaging because they use christianity to abuse people. This is all about power, control, and dominance.

 

Ya got that right. They really do think they have all 'dat' with all the answers but then, so does pretty much everyone.  I hate that about people. Yeah abusive is right... At least Ian holds a view of the bible that weighs up the whole book in context with key elements.

 

There are a lot of people who come here in search of a good place to worship, or simply wanting to leave Revivalist church, but they are deterred by your "brutally honest" way of communicating the message,

 

They are being deterred? Yeah, probably some.

 

They do get disappointed by this treatment, all they can see in you is a bitter person, unchristian, arrogant, this is exactly what has been told in RF centres, and people go to RF looking for love.

 

What I do like about people, and the factor that unites us all, is that we are all human.

Dear worriedmum, I have tried not to get too involved with your posts in the past, but I would like to respond to some of your 'ideas' and offer my viewpoint to you for what it is worth.

wm: You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant.

urch: I realise that you are directing this to Ian and I'm sure he'll respond - but I am certainly no judge of whether you are 'ignorant' or not, but if you have university qualifications in the field of science then you must have studied (not stidied) to achieve this therefore you must be an intelligent person. However, intelligence does not necessarily give a person common sense. Nor does it teach a person a lot of things like faith, trust, hope etc

 wm: Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so!

urch: Does it really?

wm: It is weird because it seems to me you believe that the universe has to suffer (what is suffering?) because of the desire of humans for the knowledge, especially women's desire which was prohibited by god. Is it why you never read any other books, except the theological, because god prohibited the knowledge? 

urch: I wasn't aware that women's desire for knowledge was prohibited by God and indeed that God prohibited knowledge at all! What a bizarre thought! I have an incredible desire (thirst, hunger) for knowledge & I don't think that God is ' displeased '  with this.

wm: This is why this religion is so ineffective to ensuring our immortality or cure illnesses. It does not matter, how you practice your beliefs, whether you pray with your hands up or down, whether you pray in Latin or English, whether you pray alone or in a church, all there is to it is a prayer. It may give you hope, but it does not do the job.(If it did, we would not need the doctors.) 

urch: my prayers HAVE been answered on many occasions, regardless of hands up or down or what language I pray in.

I HAVE experienced miracles and healings and whether you believe me or not does not detract from what I have received from God. If you had ever experienced a healing from cancer, maybe you would then understand although there are those who 'see but still don't believe' anway.

wm: What is important, what comes with the religion as a package: an efficient tool to control the minds of the people. Religion is a powerful tool and with it you convince the people that by doing certain things people insure yourself a place in heaven when they die. .The fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) are dangerous because they use religion to kill people. The Revivalist reaching is damaging because they use christianity to abuse people. This is all about power, control, and dominance.

 urch: You will probably struggle with this thought but you need to try to understand the difference between 'religion' and 'relationship'.  Religion is not what God desires - He desires relationship with us. Man has tried to reach God through religion but we can really only reach Him through relationship with Him. The RF have no concept of this at all which is why they are a religious and legalistic organisation even though they don't recognise it in themselves.

 wm:. And until you understand this, no, understanding is not the right word, comprehend the whole idea about religion, what role it plays in the world, and how it is being used to manipulate, to control people, and look at yourself from a side, your work will not be effective; you will do more harm than good.  It is not important how we practice our religion, what is important is the effects of it.

urch:   Do you really truly understand/comprehend the 'whole idea about religion' and the 'role it plays in the world' ? I wouldn't have thought that your study of science would have touched on religion at all.

It is not 'religion'  that manipulates and controls people - it is PEOPLE that seek to manipulate and control other people, sometimes (in fact, quite often) in the name of 'religion'.

You say it is not important how we practice our religion it is the effects of it that matters - isn't the effect the result of what we practice?  Scripture tells quite clearly ' you shall know them by their fruits' - good fruits from good roots, bad fruits from bad roots.

Please understand wm, that I am not looking for any arguments with you, but I would so love it if you could open your mind a little more and try to understand what I am attempting (maybe not very well!) to say - I do not have the years of study or the knowledge of scripture that Ian and others have, but I have found (since leaving RF) that the grace of God is awesome.  I am humbled, honoured and so very blessed to have found a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - He is my friend, my guide, my helper, my redeemer, my saviour and so much more.  I know that I will not convince you to believe anything I say and that's OK cos we're all different. However, it takes a measure of faith which is something that you either have or are prepared to seek - or you are not.  It is all about choice worriedmum.

Kindest regards, urchin

WM & Didi,

O' thanks. This has to be yet another (but somewhat longer and plainly laid out example) of how the thought process works.

WM congratulations for taking the time to articulate, I do hope that you work back over the text to have a look at the Questions you ask and the reponses you recieve.

If this were me (Ghost) as a narrow minded revivalist thinker [debating with you], fortified with a splash of reading here and there, throw in a half finished tertiary education, add a dash of utube, mix a bit of Google add a few popularly written books from uneducated authors, a dash of praying in tongues, maybe even a few gathered News Paper Articles. Then WM you'd have someone to really WORRY about.

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd be saying this, but keep gutsing it out. BUT make sure you review you questions and sourses, you would normally have to pay for an education like this one.

Congratulations for the courage and the time you are dedicating.

Ghost

---