Hunterpoet

....Happy New Year

I do not disagree with the others who have responded here. There is a verse concerning the proper way to offer a tithe, I cannot think of the specific verse, but believe I remember it teaching you cannot expect your tithe to be accepted if you harbor grief against someone. I cannot think of any verse that speaks to it, but I wonder what role our own state of righteousness plays in answered pray. Bearing in mind God's will and what is best for us, given we cannot see the future, why would God feel obligated to answer the prayer of someone who was not trying their best to glorify Him with their lives. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone here of not trying their best to live God's Word. Just offering another perspective, a question that I have had for years. It always amazes me when I hear people asking for things and you know these people have yet to remove huge boulders in theirs lives; and then they get upset because they cannot understand why God didn't answer their prayer. Again, this is not aimed at anyone involved in this discussion. So the whole issue of answered prayer is somewhat complicated, but until you have all your ducks in a row, any reasons for unanswered prayer are purely speculation.

Many Believers get a little confused on the various names given to sacred texts...but a little judicious searching on the internet would be the easiest thing to do. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Tenach/Old Covenant/Old Testament...it is believed to have been accomplished between 2-300 years ago, mostly because the 'known world' at that time was speaking Greek as the 'lingua franca' and many Jews living outside Israel, began to understood or be more familiar with Greek than they did Hebrew...so it made sense to provide their Scriptures in a language that they were most familiar with. It is also called the LXX which are the Roman numerals for 70, and it derived its name 'Septuagint' from 70 scholars that were said to have worked on the translation. It also included the Apocrypha, which is still used in some Catholic and Orthodox communities. Of interest is that fact that the New Testament writers often referred to/quoted from, this translation...so that even if you have say one of the original Gospels, it would contain extracts that were not original, but copies of a translation....just something to help confuse everyone....but it also shows that they were happy to consider 'translation' as the bone fide word of G-d, and deemed it accurate. Just wanting to ask if you mean 2-300 or 2-3000 years ago?? lol, I think we know what he means hunter How nice, at least now I know where I stand with you.

Many Believers get a little confused on the various names given to sacred texts...but a little judicious searching on the internet would be the easiest thing to do. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Tenach/Old Covenant/Old Testament...it is believed to have been accomplished between 2-300 years ago, mostly because the 'known world' at that time was speaking Greek as the 'lingua franca' and many Jews living outside Israel, began to understood or be more familiar with Greek than they did Hebrew...so it made sense to provide their Scriptures in a language that they were most familiar with. It is also called the LXX which are the Roman numerals for 70, and it derived its name 'Septuagint' from 70 scholars that were said to have worked on the translation. It also included the Apocrypha, which is still used in some Catholic and Orthodox communities. Of interest is that fact that the New Testament writers often referred to/quoted from, this translation...so that even if you have say one of the original Gospels, it would contain extracts that were not original, but copies of a translation....just something to help confuse everyone....but it also shows that they were happy to consider 'translation' as the bone fide word of G-d, and deemed it accurate. Just wanting to ask if you mean 2-300 or 2-3000 years ago??

cool story and analogy

Excellent point of teaching

http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/downloads/tobacco/TrueCost.pdf I understand this is research done by the military, but it is more around 930 million per year. I don't know if retirees tobacco related illnesses are factored into this. Battlefield transfusions: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/09/battlefield-blood-transfusion.html http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nh-tems.com%2Fdocuments%2FC3_HM_Casualty_Care_Course%2FBattlefield_Blood_Transfusion.ppt&rct=j&q=battlefield%20transfusions&ei=KyUOTaeMCJKQnweq_Km8Dg&usg=AFQjCNHskwTlBQYupCRiaWRFV5HiT0czHQ

OK...for starters I'm very distressed over the repeal of DADT, but....I have a few questions about your analysis of the affect it will have. Concerning the blood supply....To my knowledge, blood donations and transfusions are not done on the battlefield. If they occur anywhere, it would be in a rear area hospital within the theater of operations. Also consider that any donations would still have to undergo the rigorous testing which requires facilities and equipment all of which are not found on the battle field or in aid stations or even some field hospitals. I know for a fact that field hospitals , aid stations and even the medics that accompany the troops are required to supply themselves as best they can prior to any engagement. aid stations would have IV fluids and maybe even plasma, but would not be equipped to store blood or blood products , liked packed cells . Field hospitals would be equipped to handle and store blood and blood products, and may even be able to take donations, however, even under battle conditions, the proper procedures for screening and testing would not be deferred, as field hospitals are generally not found in the forward area's. I was surprised also to learn of the 1 billion dollar expense for treating tobacco related illnesses within the military. It would really be of interest to see a breakdown of the exact illnesses and age group and occupation of those being treated. As I read the news myself I wondered just what " serve openly " meant.

I agree and thank you for your post.

Andromada Strain...good movie.....scary, but good.

I saw this on-line yesterday. the incident with the purse happened before the tape showing him shooting. You see the woman leaving by the side door, you see him standing in front of that side door with his back turned to the door, you see the woman coming back in and swinging the purse at him. He turns around and takes her down, but he lets her go instead of shooting her. This is exactly what I saw...but were you able to actually see the purse well enough to determine the material it was made of.....that is my question There was a news conference and the lady held up her purse and her colleagues were joking about filling it with bricks... it was a faux vinyl bag that had squares of alligator type design. I think people can create something "prophetic" when nothing prophetic exists... the man was sick and needed to be getting psychiatric care. OK that explains it...I missed that interview.....yes the shooter was a sick man, but it was Da servant that stated an " indirect reference " to satan because the hand bag was an " alligator type " material.....never heard that before and was wondering how Da servant came to that knowledge. i don't know of any scripture that makes that inference. Nor do I, Hunter. Has the OP explained or given reference for his supposition? not yet

I saw this on-line yesterday. the incident with the purse happened before the tape showing him shooting. You see the woman leaving by the side door, you see him standing in front of that side door with his back turned to the door, you see the woman coming back in and swinging the purse at him. He turns around and takes her down, but he lets her go instead of shooting her. This is exactly what I saw...but were you able to actually see the purse well enough to determine the material it was made of.....that is my question There was a news conference and the lady held up her purse and her colleagues were joking about filling it with bricks... it was a faux vinyl bag that had squares of alligator type design. I think people can create something "prophetic" when nothing prophetic exists... the man was sick and needed to be getting psychiatric care. OK that explains it...I missed that interview.....yes the shooter was a sick man, but it was Da servant that stated an " indirect reference " to satan because the hand bag was an " alligator type " material.....never heard that before and was wondering how Da servant came to that knowledge. i don't know of any scripture that makes that inference.

I saw this on-line yesterday. the incident with the purse happened before the tape showing him shooting. You see the woman leaving by the side door, you see him standing in front of that side door with his back turned to the door, you see the woman coming back in and swinging the purse at him. He turns around and takes her down, but he lets her go instead of shooting her. This is exactly what I saw...but were you able to actually see the purse well enough to determine the material it was made of.....that is my question

Da Servant. I'm curious why you think the KJV was a biblical prophecy fulfilled. The Geneva bible was printed in english and distributed 51 years before the KJV of 1611. Also I would like you to expound on Psalm12:6-7 as to how it relates directly to the translation and printing of the KJV. You mentioned that the very couragious women who attacked the shooter used her purse made from alligator type material and that this is an indirect reference to satan. I don't get it....are you saying satan tried to disarm the shooter, or because her attack was thwarted that satan could not stop the shooter???? This really puzzles me. Now, I watched that video several times and I barely saw the womens purse. How are you able to discern the material. Was there a later discussion and close up of the purse that I missed?? Another point I would like answered is the indirect reference part....is this in the bible?? Did some theological authority announce that gator like material is a reference to satan??? The Apostles have instructed us that if what we say does not Glorify or Edify, that we should remain silent. God has commanded us not to bear false witness. I pray that you will repent from this very dangerous form of false teaching. I pray you God's counsel.

The following reference verses in my bible explain it for me: Psalm 51:17 Proverbs 16:19, 29:23 Isaiah 57:15 Luke 6:20

It has been a very long time since I discussed this, but this is what I remember, hope it is helpful. Men in the past and even today wore hats that showed their profession or their standing in society, like a soldiers hat or a fine silk hat. Because man should have nothing above him when he worships or speaks to God, that hat is removed. Women. A womens hair is her mantle, one only need to know a women, any women, a short while to understand how they fuss about their hair, so because the hair is a womens mantle and it cannot be removed,( unless her head is shaved) then it is covered. In this way she too has removed any barriers to herself and others when in worship or in prayer.

I have never accepted the thinking that mankind was less intelligent in the distant past.

Which King do you wish to be like...Solomon or David??

I expect it is a typo, but I just want to make sure.....John 3:7 reads(ASV) Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. In John 3:3 we see it written.....Jesus answered and said to him, verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Other verses that you may want to look at are 1 peter 1:23, 1:18...Luke 1:68, 24:21...Galatians 3:13 and Rev. 5:19

Joe and notbaylonian are on the right track. The idea of santa claus originated out of the true story of St. Nickolas, but there were no images until per say until that artist from the coca cola company came up with what we see today. It's all satan and secular based to lead people away from Christ and God. The excellent lesson here is for folks to learn how satan can trick folks into glorifying what humans do, even if it is in the name of the Lord. The example being the life of St. Nicholas. And in my humble opinion, this is why followers of God and Christ Jesus should totally abandon anything associated with the secular christmas.

Which St. Nicholas are you referring too, the real person or the one satan made up???

The ending was a bit predictable, just the same, the lesson is not lost. My memory of scripture fails me, with the exception of Mark 1:3. Making preparation. Making yourself such that would be pleasing to the Lord, not knowing what lies ahead, but suitably prepared none the less.

I chuckled when I read your comment concerning the medical logo....it is copied from the Old Testament when God told Moses to put a bronze serpent on a staff so those looking upon it would be healed from their snake bite....a single snake on a staff without wings....somehow though, the mythical symbol for Heremes, the caduceous, has come to be identified with medical practice, this being a staff 2 snakes and wings...maybe the later is more appropriate these days:)

I'm not familiar with any scripture that would support what I have highlighted in your response. Another point I'm fuzzy on is the scripture that says " no man can come to the Father save the Spirit draw him". I'm familiar with John 14:6; and understand this to mean our belief and acceptance of the Christ and His gospel, which is of course, God's word. I agree that the churches have a tendency to preach an "instant" salvation message; and there are those who would argue against me for believing that salvation is a process; but I do not think we should put forth the the idea that you must be individually called first. On that premise, it makes James 4:8 a little confusing for me. In that verse all the action is placed on the sinner and the positive response, from God, is based on that action. I cannot help but wonder how many people were given up on by believers because they did not think they had been called yet. The number may very well equal the number " instantly saved" and then left to figure things out on their own via the Spirit. I have a feeling that the purpose of the church is to support and nurture the brethren, and yet what I see is man placing more restrictions on salvation than what God has allowed. On the first, I have in mind the scripture "no man can come save the Spirit draw him". Not that God would not give that person a chance, just that God may not want him now. When evangelists try to beat salvation into a person, it's like trying to rush the delivery before baby's ready to be born. In other words, they are deciding the process, not God. But God decides who will be born again. That's the sovereignty of God. On the second, when God does the calling, then today is the accepted time and one is ready to be born so-to-speak. But if one keeps harding their heart when opportunity arose, then that becomes what is often debated as the "unpardonable sin" --- whatever it takes God will leave that person to their own devices, they will believe a strong delusion, and become damned. But I do believe God is patient and is willing to give a person opportunity, so don't get me wrong there. And the paradox I just stated, my friend, is how we can have predestination and free choice at the same time. It depends whose end one is looking from. I never join those debates because both sides are right, and yet they are both wrong. OK...I did a search for that scripture exactly as you quoted it and came up with a goose egg, in all 10 translations...can you give me the reference please. It's starting to sound as if we agree, that salvation is a process, am'I correct in this assumption. If we differ at all, it is in the how that God does the calling.

I'm not familiar with any scripture that would support what I have highlighted in your response. Another point I'm fuzzy on is the scripture that says " no man can come to the Father save the Spirit draw him". I'm familiar with John 14:6; and understand this to mean our belief and acceptance of the Christ and His gospel, which is of course, God's word. I agree that the churches have a tendency to preach an "instant" salvation message; and there are those who would argue against me for believing that salvation is a process; but I do not think we should put forth the the idea that you must be individually called first. On that premise, it makes James 4:8 a little confusing for me. In that verse all the action is placed on the sinner and the positive response, from God, is based on that action. I cannot help but wonder how many people were given up on by believers because they did not think they had been called yet. The number may very well equal the number " instantly saved" and then left to figure things out on their own via the Spirit. I have a feeling that the purpose of the church is to support and nurture the brethren, and yet what I see is man placing more restrictions on salvation than what God has allowed.