GandalfTheWise

Sounds a bit weird. As you said, this could be going a lot of different directions. Don't want to incorrectly accuse but at the same time don't want to be taken advantage of with a huge bill for things not needed. As a FWIW story which may or may not apply here. We had something similar happen with a local mechanic the first time we went to him in the last place we lived. Didn't even have the promised loaner for when the part "didn't arrive on time". As we were standing there, he answered the phone and gave someone the same promise of a loaner we'd gotten. We got our car back within a few days and the work was okay. We went to the dealer the next time which was an awful mess. Some friends really recommended the local mechanic so next time we went back and tried again since there was no other option in town. It turned out he did good work for good rates but was just overwhelmed with work. Within the next five years, he'd built his own multi-bay building and had a handful of mechanics working for him. Bottom line was he did good work and was honest and made sure his mechanics had the same attitude. Having an office manager to deal with ordering parts, scheduling, and paperwork freed him to do what he was good at which was fixing cars. We went there for over a decade and in a small town with an active gossip chain rarely heard a bad word about him and his crew. In contrast, when we lived in a college town, we went to a local dealer twice, and each time a "new" problem developed. My memory is vague, but what are the odds of picking up a rock in the brake rotors (requiring a new set and expensive repair) the same day of picking up a car? And never having had or even heard of that problem before then or since? Not much to offer for advice other than "to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves". (Matt 10:16)

Past threads and posts suggest to me that the original post is heavily influenced by teachings similar to that titled I NEVER KNEW YOU, The Horror Of The Great White Throne Judgement And How You Can Avoid It by Michael Patrick Bowen (available in PDF form at http://www.soulwinning.info/books/i_never_knew_you.pdf). This lays out the reasons for his belief that (from page 17) "I am at eternal odds with the false, counterfeit messages of salvation-by-works that are taught from virtually every pulpit today, on every television channel, and on every Christian radio station; however, I am not at eternal odds with the individuals who preach these counterfeit messages. My heart literally goes out to all of them because they simply do not understand Christ’s plan of salvation. They have been lied to by a crafty enemy named Satan, whose sole aim is to take as many people with him to the lake of fire as he can possibly manage to steal away from God using a counterfeit plan of salvation that appears so real, so genuine, and so holy that few ever realize they have been deceived by it. Oh reader, so many of today’s professing Christians who think they are going to heaven when they die are not going to make it to heaven as they had assumed because they’ve been lied to by today’s error-filled gospel messages." Who are some of these that author considers false teachers who teach salvation by works? Joel Osteen, Charles Stanley, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, John Hagee, Beth Moore, James Dobson, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, and Franklin Graham. The site which hosts this book also adds John MacArthur to this list saying "One of the most popular religious teachers in America, who is widely recognized worldwide, is Pastor John MacArthur of the Grace Community Church in California. Sadly, Dr. MacArthur is a false prophet. It is a serious matter. There's a large independent Baptist Church down the street from me, aka, the Bob Jones University (BJU) crowd, who distribute Mr. MacArthur's Bible study materials to the congregation, poisoning the flock with false doctrine." The owner of the site says concerning Bowen's book: "Bowen documents the so-called “salvation” messages of some of the “great” pastors and evangelists of today, which do not give eternal life. He compares them to the message of Christ, which does give eternal life. He makes his comparisons respectfully, considering that these pastors and evangelists are just as deceived by Satan, the Father of Lies, as are their followers by the message they preach." In other words, those of that mindset seem convinced that people could not have been saved through what Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swagart, James Dobson, or James MacArthur have taught. As far as I can tell, they are saying most or all people saved at Billy Graham rallies (or under the ministry of others listed as false teachers) did not believe the true gospel and thus aren't saved. As far as I can tell, what is being advocated is some form of salvation through grace alone which may or may not result in a changed life. In my opinion, it's one thing to correctly teach that no amount of works or keeping rules can save us. It's by far another to teach that a Christian may or may not exhibit a transformed life having become a new creation in Christ. As far as I can tell, what they are teaching is this. When you've had a conversion experience (whether called being born again, accepting Christ, being saved), that means you are good forever whether or not your life actually changes afterward. They seem to be condemning anyone who says that being saved will result in a changed life calling that salvation by works.

It's not often I'm absolutely overwhelmed listening to a new song. Set the view to full screen. Put on headphones or use a good set of speakers. Turn on the the CC since the lyrics are in Russian.

@Hopefully The best version of the Bible for you (or anyone else) is ultimately one that you read regularly with good comprehension. For devotional reading or reading through the Bible, one that uses language you easily comprehend helps a lot. For more in-depth study of particular passages, it's best to compare a number of versions. This will give you a good sense when translators tend to all agree as to what the Greek or Hebrew text is and should be translated as, and as to when not all translators agree. I've not used the ERV myself. From what I read about it, it started out as a version of a Bible for the deaf and has since been focused on readers for whom a simpler form of English significantly helps. My sense it would be a reasonable Bible for devotional reading or reading through the Bible. However, for more in-depth study of particular passages, it would be good to compare it with other English versions.

The physical reality of existing manuscripts of the GNT (Greek New Testament) is that there are variations between them. Here's link to a quick history I wrote awhile ago. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/257347-discussion-of-bible-translations-and-versions/?do=findComment&comment=3289557 Anyone who wants to can go to a site such as http://www.csntm.org to see images taken from existing manuscripts. Many museums and universities have also digitized images of old manuscripts. This is a truly exciting development. Decades and centuries ago, only scholars with permission could usually see these. Now, various Christian groups are working so that any Christian can see images of these manuscripts. Some are working to transcribe these so electronic versions of the texts will be available for study. I've looked online and found images of most of the manuscripts Erasmus used in his first eclectic GNT text. I've looked at images of the last page of the Revelation manuscript he used which was missing the last few verses. I've looked at images of the pages of the last chapter of Mark of the existing manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries. To my knowledge, there are no Christians who point to one of those existing manuscripts and say that it is identical to the originals. Instead Christians look to the various eclectic texts of the GNT. An eclectic text is one in which the editor(s) selected which variations to use from among the manuscripts they had access to. In essence, the editor is treating each manuscript as a witness to the original text and weighing the credibility of each manuscript in various passages and choosing the reading they feel is better witnessed to by the witnesses they have available. Erasmus in his first Novum Instrumentum (a Greek/Latin parallel text of the NT and the first version of what later called the Textus Receptus by a publisher) published in 1516 was really the first published eclectic text. Erasmus himself continued to make changes to later versions as more manuscripts became available. Others continued to do that as well. Later publications of the Textus Receptus included footnotes indicating variant readings in various manuscripts. In 1707, John Mill published an eclectic text largely based on the Textus Receptus which contained footnotes documenting the variations in about 100 manuscripts and quotes from early church fathers. Interestingly enough, some attacked him for calling into doubt the text of the GNT by doing that. A line of eclectic texts from Daniel Mace in 1729 (which was largely a paraphrase, but made variations from the Textus Receptus from Mill's footnotes), Edward Harwood in 1776 (which was based on 5th and 6th century manuscripts), Lachmann in 1831, Tregelles in 1857, and Westscott and Hort in 1881 were a series of eclectic texts which continued on the work that Erasmus started. Over this time, various editors had different opinions about how to weigh which variations were better witnesses of the original text than others. In the past century, much of the work done by Christians in this field has been to look carefully at the assumptions used to weigh the credibility of the various manuscripts as well as collating the existing manuscripts into an organized fashion. Christians usually take one of two fundamentally different approaches to eclectic texts. The first is by faith to choose one of them as being essentially identical to the originals and thus God's appointed GNT for all times. This is often referred to as some variation of a doctrine of preservation with those holding it sometimes called preservationists. The second approach is continuing to revisit each passage in the eclectic text as a new manuscript is discovered which contains that passage as well as allowing more scholars to discuss the assumptions about what makes various manuscripts more or less credible than others. As a practical matter, the majority of Christian scholars and denominations have followed the second approach. One practical difference between preservationists and the majority is their view toward footnotes. Preservationists tend to see no use for them since that would question the accepted text. In contrast, the majority look to a comparison of various witnesses and want to know when various witnesses disagree with each other. For the preservationist, textual scholarship does not exist as a field by and large except in the historical sense of documenting what lead up to the accepted text. In addition, a preservationist is forced to defend each and every choice of passage in the chosen eclectic text as a matter of faith regardless of what historical evidence may or may not exist for that passage in various manuscripts. Typically, textual matters for a preservationist amount to a defense of the text of faith in every single passage and a denunciation of all variations away from that. In contrast, textual matters for the majority are about looking at a particular passage and comparing what different manuscripts have as that passage.

There's nothing new there I haven't seen before in some form or another. It's pretty reminiscent to me of many of the uniquely American sects that emerged among the followers of William Miller in the 1830s and early 1840s. He'd predicted Jesus would return in 1843 and then in 1844. After that didn't happen, his followers split into various sects. The stuff I saw on the site seemed to be a mixture of standard Christians beliefs coupled with exposure to some of the more radical views that emerged in aftermath of the Millerites dealing with the lack of a visible return in 1844/1843. I could see someone with the views expressed on that site fitting into that type of environment and having started their own little sect or joined one of them. In some of those sects, there was an underlying assumption of God's Truth resting only in a few brave NT prophets or teachers who would be opposed by the apostate church. I've seen Christians with this general outlook point to a particular denomination, a particular local church, a handful of teachers, a single teacher, or themselves as the only people still true to God in this day and age. They then spend their time and effort proselytizing to convert other Christians to their point of view. They then see any opposition as proof that they are right. Most of those sects just died out with their leaders. Some carried on as pseudo-Christian sects that became religions opposed to Christianity (e.g. JWs) and others were groups of Christians who ended up isolating themselves from other Christians. Been there, and done that myself to some degree many years ago, and finally realized the folly of isolating myself from the rest of the body of Christ. I also realized the folly of propagating division myself under the guise of eliminating it. I was merely telling people it was more important to reject other Christians I disagreed with than to look closely as to the fruit of the Spirit in their lives and hearing their testimonies. Ultimately, unity and fellowship come from loving and valuing each other as unique creations of the Almighty and not just ticking all the right boxes on a 101 doctrines you must believe checklist. As I just read recently somewhere as a half-joke and half-truth sort of thing: Don't start your own denomination that is completely correct about everything. Someday when you change your mind about something, you'll have to leave and have to start a new one that is completely correct. Anyway, I'm not going to respond further here. I do not want to draw away any further from the OP asking about possible studies to use than I already have. Bottom line is that my assessment of that site is that it is not a good one for someone looking to get back into the Bible. Its coverage of topics is sporadic and not well organized. It presents a few views way outside the mainstream of Christians as definitive. It presents minimal example of how to properly use exegesis or hermeneutics to study particular verses. It pushes the idea that only a few Christians today are real Christians. The main reason I have responded here is to give an example as to the type of things I look at in deciding if I will recommend a study to someone or not.

There are different ways to go about reading the Bible and countless studies of various types. The most important thing is settling into a way of reading and studying the Bible that works well for you where you are at right now. We are all different and need different things at different stages in our Christian walk. The best way of reading and study is what works best for us at this point in our lives. One thing to consider in a study is if it focuses on Bible familiarity or doctrinal familiarity. Some studies focus on becoming familiar with what is in the Bible. Other studies focus on what a particular individual or denomination believes the Bible teaches and as such is basically indoctrination into what you should believe. Some such studies focus on fundamentals of the faith that the vast majority of Christians believe and would give a good base to build from. Other such studies focus on distinctive beliefs as to why one group of Christians thinks another group of Christians is wrong. Those types of studies set you up for adding to divisions in the church. Some are a mixture of fundamentals and distinctive views which basically leave the student not knowing the difference between core beliefs and those held by only some Christians. My personal opinion is that studies that focus on Bible familiarity are a much better starting point because that Bible familiarity is what can provide a solid base for further study later. Some Christians find that reading through the Bible or various books in the Bible is fruitful by itself. If you are not that familiar with the Bible, a good starting point would be to read the Gospel of John followed by one of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, or Luke). I'd also recommend Acts. Since Luke and Acts are written by the same author, reading Luke followed by Acts gives a solid overview of the life of Jesus and the beginning of the church. After that, reading Genesis and the first part of Exodus covers a lot of ground in the OT. In addition, books such as Psalms or Proverbs make good books to read individual chapters. My opinion is that in books such as Genesis, it's fine to skip over long lists of names and genealogies if you're just getting into reading those books for the first time. The other thing that is probably the most important is finding what type of routine works best for you. I had one pastor who for the past 20 years has used the One-Year Bible. Every morning, he wakes up, grabs his coffee, and reads the day's chapters. For some, the same good routine is good for them for years and years. I'm of the type that I go through seasons where one thing works for awhile and then I need to do something else. For example, I once spent 3 months reading the Bible through once per month spending hours per evening doing it. It was great. The 4th month however, I crashed and burned. For about 6 months, I tried to get back into that reading rate but couldn't. I didn't yet realize that I'd gained a lot from those three months, but it was now time for me to do something different with my reading and study. Over my life, I've just learned to go with the flow with what works. We are all different and what works for one of us at one stage in our lives may or may not work well for someone else. I'd encourage you to learn what works for you. That might require some experimenting. To some degree, some amount of change and discipline may be needed. But if we are forcing ourselves to read and study in a way that doesn't work for us, we'll burn out and fall into a trap of forcing ourselves to read and study out of guilt rather than as a natural enjoyable part of our spiritual lives.

I took a quick look. This site appears mostly anonymous and done independently by some individual. There are 12 total topics covered. It looks to me like a "lone ranger" who views themselves as being right and most other Christians being wrong. In addition, it explicitly claims Jesus was a created being in the topic where it calls the doctrine of the Trinity a false teaching. Here's a few quotes from the first page that comes up. (I changed the formatting to better fit here and retained a different formatting for statements by the writer and scripture quotations as done in the original.) We are not to go beyond what is written as so many denominations are doing today but seek out the hidden precepts from Genesis through Revelation and bring them together precept upon associated precept in our quest to discover the sum of His truth: 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Paul demanded all the brethren in all his churches think, speak, and teach the same doctrines: 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Father told Ezekiel that he was a watchman who was commanded to warn His people who went astray from His Word or the blood of those men would be on his hands and cost him his soul: I would NOT recommend this site as a good one to use for a person wanting to get back into the Bible. Anyone who in essence claims most Christian denominations are wrong and that they or a particular denomination are the only one who is right is usually not a good teacher to learn from.

In my first paragraph which was not quoted, I specifically pointed out that there is a transformation by human effort which is like new years resolutions that anyone can do and leads only to limited external changes. Scripture clearly points out the things like fruit of the Spirit occur as part of salvation and are a God produced change within us. This is what I was referring to as part of long-term transformation. As far as I know, doctrinally speaking, very few Christians would deny that sanctification which produces tangible changes is an integral part of salvation. Indeed, some Christians would call denial of sanctification with tangible changes a heresy. The work of the Holy Spirit will produce changes in our lives which will change our motives, attitudes, feelings, and behavior. If nothing to little changes in us over the course of years and decades after we are "saved", I'd question whether God did anything at all. My observation is that pretty much every Christian I've known has struggled with doubts, sin, and other such things at some point in their lives. Weeks, months, years, and decades of walking with God and seeing His hand working in our lives and other's lives result in our trust and confidence in Him growing over time. This is what I'm referring to when talking about assurance. Most testimonies I've heard from Christians talk about a conversion experience where God becomes real to them and which they point to as when they become Christians. I think this is what most Christians refer to when they talk about the witness of the Holy Spirit. But most also talk about at times struggling with doubts and sin, sometimes severely and sometimes for years. As God works in us and we walk with God, this changes. Doubts tend to diminish, sin tends to drop away, fruit of the Spirit grows, and we become more and more Christlike. This is what I'm referring to as long-term transformation. I've also heard people testify about spiritual experiences which gave them some type of warm fuzzy reaction, gave them a sense God was real, but did not produce transformation. Often, these were part of the process whereby God was revealing Himself to them that He was real and exists, and then there was a subsequent conversion experience. How do we distinguish between these preliminary (for lack of a better term) experiences and a real conversion event? Ultimately, it is by the changes and transformation that occur. This is not about how well we can set and keep the equivalent of Christian new years resolutions. It is about observing spiritual fruit starting to sprout and grow in our lives and seeing God do things.

A true living saving faith will result in tangible changes in motives, thoughts, and behavior. Some will occur in an instant and some over time. I'm not talking about keeping new years resolution type of changes or doing charitable works that any sinner can do to some extent through will-power and determination and sincerity but being transformed so that fruit of the Spirit grows in our lives. In the long run, this is the ultimate evidence both to ourselves and those around us that Christ is in us and changing us. Over the years, I've come to see passages regarding works, keeping commands, and lack of sin such as in James and I John as being promises and descriptions of what the Christian life is to be like. Some want to take these passages as commands we have to follow through will-power and volition. Some want to explain them away as not meaning what they say so that they are optional in some sense. I think they are to be taken as both a description and a promise of what God's transformation in us will look like as it goes on. My sense is that one reason some Christians rebel against believing these types of passages as written is that they want to believe in and teach some form of instant complete assurance of salvation in absence of long term evidence of transformation. It's one thing to encourage a new believer (or even a not-so-new believer) having doubts that God's work in them will take time. It's by far another to in essence teach that absence of long-term change is compatible with salvation by always making it optional.

A bit of fact checking on sources. Various versions of this appear on a number of sites with minor variations. Most name the nun as Claire, but I found one with Clara. The woman's name shows up as variations of Ani, Anne, Annetta, etc. Following a tenuous trail of internet clues, the English versions appear to either come from Portuguese or German translations. Perhaps from a Portuguese translation of the German since the original author (as named in the text) seems to show up as a nun named Klara in Germany in the 1930s. As far as I can tell, there's a single book that seems to be the original English source of most of the posts and blogs that mention this. "The Letter from Beyond" (translated by Marian Therese Horvat) seems to be the only reference I could find with any names or organizations attached to it. There are mentions that it was translated from an original source in Portuguese. Here is a quote from their online copy of this. "What follows is the faithful translation from the Portuguese edition of the work titled Letter from Beyond, published by Artes Gráficas Armando Basílio and distributed by Livraria Clássica Brasileira. On the first page of the original German edition of 1953 are these words of approbation: “Imprimatur of the orginal German: Brief aus dem Jeneseits: Treves, 9/11/1953. N. 4/53. Ecclesiastical approbation of this work: Taubaté – Est. de São Paulo – 2/11/1955." As near as I understand it, someone in the Catholic church with the authority to do so (in Sao Paulo??) issued an imprimatur for this work which means that it is doctrinally sound by Catholic standards but this does NOT vouch for authenticity. The title "Brief aus dem Jeneseits" is German for "Letter from the Beyond" (per Google Translate). I found a site with a copy of a German version of this where the nun's name was Klara. I was unable to track down the original Portuguese version alluded to. Dr. Horvat is one of two founders of the TraditionInAction group. They seem to have some ties to South America. I'd note that I found some links from Catholic groups rather very critical of this group because it rejects the second Vatican Council. I had no inclination to investigate further as to what that means. As far as I can tell, some of her works are collections of various writings of various individuals that reflect various Catholic teachings. As far as I can tell, she makes no claims of original authorship but that it is translated from some original source. I don't have the inclination to spend any more time on this. To be honest, this strikes me much more as a work of vivid imagination or a morality tale rather than an actual revelation. I would like to see the original source of this tracked back to some book or collections of works to get a better sense of where it originated. The lack of even an original editor who found the letters or the collection the letters were in gives me a lot of pause. It's not clear to me if the original source was doing something similar to The Screwtape Letters as a teaching tool (which some later person thought was real and started copying it as such) or if this is claimed as a revelation. My reaction is that it is simply too long and detailed as a revelation when compared to various visions, dreams, and revelations in scripture.

Good clarifying point. I agree with what you say. My comment was geared toward older children and adults. Gallup's work on student engagement shows a steady and significant drop from middle school through high school with only about 1/3 of final year high school students actively engaged. Basically, the more we move from more individualistic "play" based learning to formal scheduled curriculum material, the fewer students are actively engaged. This would make an interesting thread in its own right if some are interested.

Nice post with many good thoughts. Just grabbing one here. Well said. Jesus' comment about entering the Kingdom as children comes to mind. I've spent the past decade doing research on learning methodology. A good summary of what I've learned is that the more like play it is for us, the more enthusiastic we are and the more progress we make. I think a large part of western education has been about turning human beings into soulless cogs that can efficiently fit into the machines of society. I think God often uses various things in the arts to help shake us free from that oppression.

There's a huge difference between seeing the world and individuals as completely evil versus being a corrupted and damaged version of something beautiful that God created...and which can only be restored by God. One can put one's focus on the damaged portions of things or the vestiges of the original creation which reflect God's handiwork.

Good point and well stated. I often drop into time-wasters such as Sudoku and other puzzles when I'm not doing well emotionally or spiritually. At times in my life, foreign language learning has become such a thing for me. Could be a lot worse things to spend time on, but doesn't change that at times over indulgence in positive things can be a symptom of a problem.

I'd chalk it up to individual differences and situations. I think the key is following God's leading and timing. Some new believers are effective in a new ministry and others are not. Some miss opportunities because they wait too long and others move in God's timing.

I think some dive into biblical history and Jewish culture of the era might be necessary here to provide some background. I do NOT have that available at hand, but the following is something that I think is at the minimum helpful and to some degree mandatory to provide a sound answer and is something I'd like to hear as part of a complete answer. Some of Jesus' sayings and teachings were correcting misconceptions his contemporaries had. For example, many passages in the OT had lead many toward thinking that health and wealth were a sign of God's blessing and lack thereof was a sign of God's displeasure. Hence, in John 9, the disciples ask whose sin resulted in a man being born blind. Also in Matt 19:23-25, we have the disciples simply assuming wealth was such a sign of God's blessing that the rich were automatically "in". Another misconception was that the Messiah would be another king such as David who would politically restore the kingdom. In John 6:15, some wanted to make Jesus king. Even in Acts 1:6 the disciples are still asking about this. Up to this point in Matthew, Jesus has not yet sent out his disciples for ministry. In Chapter 4, Jesus has begun his ministry and it is not until chapter 10 he sends others out empowered to do this. If 7:21-23 was meant to be a cautionary note to those sent out to minister, I'd have expected to see in a passage where the 12 or the 70 are being sent out rather than as part of an address to the masses. This makes me wonder if 7:21-23 was meant to reveal a common misconception about those who did such things. Basically the question is what did Jesus' hearers (in chapters 5-7, sermon on the mount) think about those who prophesied and cast out demons? Did they see them as specially anointed or chosen or holy or what? Was it primarily those associated with the Pharisees or lawyers that did this? Was it special groups or individuals like John the Baptist or other groups not mentioned in scripture (e.g. Essenes) but known to have been spiritual separatists in the desert? Jesus' statements in 7:21-23 might have been similar to those saying wealth didn't indicate spiritual health and good health didn't indicate lack of sin. He might have been pointing to those commonly viewed as specially blessed by God and saying it is the heart that matters. I think there's a good possibility that the key to 21-23 is verse 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21 NIV) If this is the main thought, the remaining verses are basically a case in point that not even the most miraculous things someone might do means anything compared to doing the will of the Father, nor is such a thing proof that one is doing the will of the Father. Anyway, these are some of the things I wonder about when looking at passages like this. Bottom line, Jesus' contemporaries had to some degree formed a picture of God whereby external things such as health, wealth, religious position, etc. were indicators of God's blessing and approval and that you were doing something right. I think that to some degree that 7:21-23 could very well be a part of Him addressing such a misconception.

Same with me. I had no clue some people read looking word by word and reading silently to themselves.

Was just talking with my adult daughter about these this morning. She was just saying she wanted to go back and read some of the classics. I mentioned the Rama series to her when she mentioned Clarke. We also brought up Andre Norton and what she did for the genre as a woman decades ago. [Edit: First sci-fi book I ever read was "Star Rangers" by Andre Norton. At which point I started grabbing every other book I could find and discovered Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Verne.]

A large part of why I am drawn to fiction stories and impacted by them is the following. For me, it's the difference between a menu or a meal, or between a musical score and hearing a symphony, or between reading a wedding announcement and walking my daughter down the aisle on her wedding day, or reading an obituary in a newspaper and going to the funeral of an old dear friend. I'm a scientist and can run in analytical and logical mode with the best of the them, but that doesn't bring meaning or light or joy to life. It is utilitarian like a menu, musical score, or wedding announcement are. For me, stories bring dry concepts, theories, and truths to life in a way that has deep meaning and impact in our hearts and souls. Which of the following is more true about the sun? 1. Our sun is a star which is about 100 times larger than the earth and about 300,000 times more massive. It consists primarily of hydrogen and helium. It is emits energy by undergoing a fusion reaction which converts hydrogen into helium. It's an average of 92,955,807 miles away from the earth. The surface temperature is about 5800K and it's interior temperature is estimated at 15 million K. etc. etc. 2. After his car broke down in the desert, the glowing eye above him unblinking watched him slowly succumb to thirst. The burning fire above hurt his eyes and scorched his skin. It was an unshakeable presence that made each passing moment less tolerable. Even the temporary relief of its passing at evening only meant its inexorable killing gaze would return the next morning and the morning after... 3. She'd hardly slept at all. She got up in the dark and pulled the warm quilt around her shoulders and went out and sat on the porch. The sky slowly reddened and lightened and birds started to chirp. She saw the first glimpse of the rising sun over the horizon. The herald of her wedding day caused her to blink as she could no longer stare directly at it. While 1 is factual and objective, it only engages my mind. Things like 2 or 3 (if well-written and insightful) engage my entire being. Fictional stories are often a way of conveying concepts, ideas, and truth that do not merely engage our minds but our hearts and souls. It too has been my observation that our reaction to such stories often give us hints of the unique person God created us to be. I think that sometimes those instances when suddenly in a movie, book, poem, song, or times in real life, that we are suddenly struck deeply by something are sometimes God's tap on shoulder to us to say that's what I made you to be like. Those things can often speak more clearly and deeply to our hearts than listening to a dry list of jobs we can do or a generic list of things that applies to everyone. In decades of hindsight, I realized that some of stories I was most drawn to from the time I was a teen fit into two categories. There were those that were an unhealthy escape from the world, and then there were those that were reflecting something of who God created me to be. I was talking about this once with a pastor, and he paused and told me something he said he's usually too embarrassed to tell anyone because most people simply don't get it. He said he'd often start crying at cross-country meets. There was simply something that drew him to people having given their all and crossing the finish line no matter where they were in the field. That simple story told me about all I needed to know about where his heart is at as a pastor more than any biographical list of education and past ministry experience or list of doctrinal positions. I think well-crafted stories are often a means of communication that goes beyond the factual and speak to a deeper reality of what life is really about.

This question arose in my mind in another thread. Why is it that some people like fiction stories, (be it books, comics, graphic novels, video-game story lines, oral story-telling, TV shows, movies, or whatever media)? Why do some people not care about them or to actively dislike them? I'm not talking about preferring particular genres, but rather liking, not caring, or actively disliking fiction stories in general. I'm not talking about what details cause someone to dislike particular stories (such as profanity, graphic descriptions, non-Christian world view, etc.). But, what is it about fictional stories that they even exist and that some people like them? I didn't phrase it in a personal way in the title, but what I am curious about is why different people here are drawn to consume fiction while others have no interest and others might be actively repelled by fiction. What is it that drives your feelings toward fiction stories? I'm hoping this thread can be one of constructive reflection where we can learn from each other and maybe explore a topic that doesn't get talked about very much.

I know Christians who pray over their homes and other things usually in the context that those things would be a blessing and used for God's glory. For a lot of people, a means of transportation is important. I'd put it either in, or at least close to, the category of praying for daily needs such as "give us this day our daily bread".

There was another thread a bit ago where the Hebrew gospel of Matthew came up. Here's a link to a post I wrote in that one. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/259775-the-hebrew-yshua-vs-the-greek-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=3306272 It has a few links in it. Two main points: 1. Basically, we do have some existing physical manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, but from what I could see, they tend to be from later dates. Unlike Greek Matthew which can be attested to with high confidence back to the 4th century, the oldest complete version of Matthew in Hebrew (referred to as the Shem-Tob) is from the 14th century. It was part of an anti-Christian treatise by a Jewish author who may or may not have accurately reproduced the sources he was copying from and may have chosen sources with a similar outlook to his. There's a good chance that some passages in these manuscripts do bear witness to an original Hebrew form of some type, but it's not clear how accurately they reflect an original that Matthew wrote. 2. Any doctrinal diverge from Greek versions may or may not reflect Matthew himself, but rather a fringe group whose ideas were by and by rejected by most Christians. It's not clear that the original Hebrew source of all passages and phrases in these manuscripts was Matthew himself or if it was taken from Matthew and edited and produced by an individual or group on the fringes of Christianity similar to the Jewish Christians mentioned in Acts and Galatians who believed all Christians must obey the Law of Moses. My observation is that a lot of the articles and comments about Matthew in Hebrew come from JWs who hold the existing manuscripts in very high regard and see them as superior to the Greek version. In some of those articles, you have to look pretty closely to figure out the outlook of the writer. I'd hesitate to draw doctrinal conclusions from them where they differ from the Greek version of Matthew. We simply do not know if the views in them that differ from Greek are directly from Matthew who walked with Jesus or were edited later by groups who had different views.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. Luke 3:23 NIV

@rhomphaeam FYI: There's a separate section in the forum for video links. They all need to be manually approved by moderators. This is simply forum policy that all videos must be approved and aggregated together in the appropriate section. Once there, they can be linked to in a thread like this one. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/144-videos/