Blog posts by William Dicks

Quoting big names out of context

2013-05-12T17:54:00Z

I found this review of a book that seems like pure science fiction instead of reality. The book is called “Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior.” Apparently a MUST-READ! I love sci-fi and always have. And this book seems to fit right in there with the best of them: Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, etc. You can find out more about the book here.

The only difference between this book and the rest, is that it claims to be meticulously researched truth! It sounds more like a hashed-up conspiracy theory, and we all know how these conspiracy theories are laced together to build an alternate truth!

Of course, they can “conspiracize” as much as they like to. The problem I have with them is that they quote Francis Schaeffer as backup for their cause. Maybe Schaeffer did write something that showed that he believed like they do? The problem is that they quote Schaeffer out of context as if he does agree with them. The point is that Schaeffer didn’t!

They quote the following from Schaeffer in his book, “Genesis in Space and Time,”

“More and more we are finding that mythology in general, though greatly contorted, very often has some historical base. And the interesting thing is that one myth that one finds over and over again in many parts of the world is that somewhere a long time ago supernatural beings had sexual intercourse with natural women and produced a special breed of people.” (p125-126)

I have “The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer” in 5 volumes. So, I decided to check it out. So, what did Schaeffer actually say?

The context in which Schaeffer made the quoted statement is within an explanation of two possible interpretations of Gen 6:1-2:

“(1) Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, (2) that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”

Schaeffer, in the context of the quote pointed out two different options for interpreting these verses of which the quote was part of option 1. In this option he explained the belief by some that angels came to earth, mated with these beautiful women and produced the Nephilim, hybrid creatures made of angelic and human DNA.

After this part, Schaeffer continued:

“The other reading—that verse 2 denotes that there were those in the godly line [of these genealogies] who intermarried with others in the ungodly line to the destruction of the godly line—fits into the whole of Scripture, for there is a constant prohibition throughout the Old and New Testaments against the people of God marrying those who re not of the people of God. The Old Testament says repeatedly: if you marry those who are not God’s people, and if you give your sons and daughters to them, the godly line will be destroyed. The New Testament contains the same command: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’ (2 Cor. 6:14). This passage has to do with those links which are central to men’s lives, and no link is more central than marriage. This point is made explicit in the great marriage passage in 1 Corinthians 7:”39. Paul instructs the church that ‘the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.’ The principle is clear: God’s people are to marry God’s people. It is therefore possible to interpret Genesis 6:2 as indicating the intermarriage between the godly line and the ungodly line.” (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume Two, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1982, p89)

Right after this passage in Schaeffer’s book he continues to speak of the godly line, and how the genealogies lead up to Noah as the last in the godly line.

So, Schaeffer is in no way underscoring the beliefs of the writers of “Exo-Vaticana!”

Biblical Words and Their Meaning (by Moises Silva)

2013-05-03T20:23:00Z

One of the most difficult books that I have read in recent years is that of Moises Silva, “Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.” I read the Kindle edition, so instead of page references, you will find location references.

When reading this book, it is important to keep your wits about you. Even though Silva wrote this as an introduction to lexical semantics, if this is not your field of study, you will have to concentrate hard.

However, I really enjoyed reading this book. There were some things that I already knew, but even then, Silva explained those things very well with some different ideas and examples. Then there were some other things that I didn’t know, and he opened my eyes to new things.

For instance, something that I already knew:

“Theologians have been particularly concerned with pointing out the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought. [I was taught this.] The former, we are told, is static, contemplative, abstract, intellectualized, divisive; the latter is dynamic, active, concrete, imaginative, stressing the totality of man and his religion. Whatever we may think of this contrast, Barr claims that the linguistic arguments used to support it are ‘unsystematic and haphazard.’ Evidence of the kind adduced by these theologians is valid only when the Biblical languages are rigorously examined and hen the method is integrated with general linguistic science. Modern theology fails on both scores.” (location 221/p18?)

Something that I did not consider before:

“In some cases, a derivative [a word derived from another] that has not undergone phonetic changes may nevertheless undergo semantic changes and become unrelated to the original word. English regard was a derivative from guard, but the meanings of these words have drifted so far from each other that the speaker is not aware of their connection (as is reflected by the difference in spelling).” (location 664)

Having read the above piece in the book, I wondered how I could have missed this, it is so logical!

All in all, I really enjoyed this book. While it was challenging, I found it very rewarding. Even if you do not understand Greek or Hebrew, the principles that are taught in this book could help you from falling into the trap of misusing Biblical words like so many Christians do.

There are some publication problems that I have with my edition (Kindle: ePub edition, March 2010, ISBN: 978-0-310-87151-4), and perhaps even with the paper edition. Unfortunately, I do not have the paper edition.

I am a stickler for spelling, and to find a spelling mistake right on the copyright page in the subtitle of the book is simply ridiculous. Ever heard of SEMNTICS? According to the Amazon “Look Inside” page for this book, that mistake is in the paper edition too!

Then there are a couple of misprints.

At location 2917 (somewhere on pp204-205), it is written:

"When προσκυνεω is used in this sense of entreaty, it is properly synonymous with another verb found in the New Testament, προσκυνεω, which also means to entreat..."

Here, the 2nd προσκυνεω should be another word.I tried to use the Amazon “Look Inside” feature here, but that page is unavailable. The 2nd προσκυνεω is a misprint!

At location 2981:

"ευσεβεω is another New Testament verb for worship from the same root..."

You see, ευσεβεω had just been dealt with, so how could ευσεβεω be another word for worship? Using, once again, the “Look Inside” feature of Amazon, here I found that my Kindle edition had the wrong words! Instead of ευσεβεω, the paper edition has σεβομαι (this can be seen on pp208-209). Yet another misprint!

Surely, the process of editing the Kindle book is the same as the paper edition? The same original files should have been used for both. I have made my own Kindle book, so it cannot be that difficult for the publishers and editors to have ensured that these misprints were not in the Kindle edition! Unless, of course, a pre-publication transcript, which still contained errors was used for the Kindle edition! That will be unconscionable!

Funny thing is, I contacted Zondervan about this and I was told that the Kindle ebook does not yet support a Greek font. However, I have my Kindle edition in front of me as I write this, and it is using a Greek font! Apart from this, Zondervan did confirm that σεβομαι must replace ευσεβεω and that my reasoning was correct concerning the wording at location 2917. The 2nd προσκυνεω must be replaced with γονυπετεω!

I find things like this very annoying, making me wonder if editors even care about their jobs anymore. And it is not just this book. It is almost every book that I read that has spelling mistakes in, or duplicate words.

But, besides all this, I will still recommend this book!

God’s Lavish Grace (by Terry Virgo)

2013-05-03T16:10:00Z

I just finished Terry Virgo’s book “God’s Lavish Grace.”

What I like about the book is that it sites many passages from the Bible. Grace is something many Christians battle with, thinking that in order to remain accepted by God, we need to follow certain laws or do certain things to be accepted. Virgo writes:

“You reign in life by receiving abundant grace, not by putting yourself under laws. It is because of your standing that you reign in life. It is because you have obtained grace, not because you have achieved or accomplished merit. It is by your position, not by your performance! The imposition of law upon your life will never cause you to reign in life. It will never cause you to enjoy fellowship with Jesus and the grace-filled life that is so necessary for you to bear fruit for God.” (p15-16)

Virgo’s main point, at least as I see it, is that the law cannot make us better. In fact, adding “the law to [the utterly sinful man] does not improve him but strangely makes him even worse.” (p24) It is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that brings freedom and we have died to the law and are now married to a new husband. It is He who will sanctify us by His Word.

I definitely will recommend this book to others and I think it accomplishes what it sets out to do, point us to the grace of Christ!

I have but one thing to complain about, and I find this with many charismatics (as Virgo is), even if they are reformed. Of course, I do not say that this is the case with all charismatics, and even less that this is how it is with all reformed charismatics.

In his sixth chapter, “A conscience cleansed from dead works,” Virgo does make Scripture say what it doesn’t say. It is the subject of “dead works” as mentioned in Hebrews 9:14, “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Concerning these "dead works, Virgo writes that they are:

Something with no life in it, done without faith, like church programs. Things done by routine.
Things done presumptuously. Things we think are good.
Things that God did not personally tell you to do.

When we look at the passage that Hebrews 9:14 comes from, it is clear that the writer of Hebrews did not have any of the three points in mind that Virgo proclaimed to be dead works. The context is clear as to what dead works are, regulations concerning food and drink, and of various washings, sacrifices of bulls and goats. It is attempting to be accepted by God through the law and rituals. The book of Galatians is very clear on this subject! It is not the law and rituals (dead works) that will cleanse our consciences, but “ the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, [will] cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

It is always important to read the Scriptures in context, and not to tag our own ideas onto what we read!

Todd Bentley and his healing revivals

2013-04-17T19:05:00Z

Todd Bentley is at it again with his healing revivals and it is being shown on God.tv. A friend of my wife’s alerted my wife to this revival and so my wife asked me about him. “Todd Bentley is a huckster!,” I said.

I have written about him before in 2008 in a post called Lakeland Revival: Not so much!

As a start, you can read the following:

Visions of Winnie the Pooh and a Field of Dreams?

Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival

Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival 2

A Lesson From the Lakeland Revival

The Lakeland, Florida Revival: You, However, Continue

Back from hospital, and no cancer! | Cerebrating about Life

2013-04-17T12:41:00Z

Some good news that I decided to share with readers of this blog too!
Back from hospital, and no cancer! | Cerebrating about Life

Back from hospital, and no cancer!

2013-04-17T12:38:47Z

I am back from hospital, and I am grateful to say, I don’t have cancer! Apart from the DVT scare (that still exists), this cloud of cancer that was hanging over me was the worst! It was intended that I go into hospital on Monday, 15 April and that the procedure to find and remove the possible cancer was to be done on 18 April.

The reason for this, as explained in my previous post, was to make sure that my blood returned to normal after stopping my Warfarin intake last week Thursday. By Tuesday morning (16 April), my blood INR was down to 1.2 and I was ready for the procedure. So, I went into theatre on Tuesday afternoon around 17:00. I was done and dusted by 18:00 and being discharged from hospital. Since the doctor found no cancer, I was in and out very quickly. My wife went looking for me at the theatre waiting room, and after thinking that it had been 40 minutes since I went in, she thought to go up to my hospital room. By the time she arrived there, I had already visited the bathroom for some business.

When I returned to my bed, the doctor was already there to give me the good news and to discharge me from hospital.

I am really grateful that I have no cancer and can only praise the Lord Jesus Christ for that!

“(1) For the choir director. A Psalm of David. O LORD, You have searched me and known me. (2) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. (3) You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. (4) Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. (5) You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. (6) Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. (7) Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? (8) If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. (9) If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, (10) Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. (11) If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” (12) Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You. (13) For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. (14) I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. (15) My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; (16) Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (17) How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! (18) If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with You. (Psa 139:1-18 NASB)”

Filed under: Health

Going into hospital tomorrow

2013-04-14T20:08:28Z

So, as the tough months continue, I have to go into hospital tomorrow. And, you can read about why I need to go into hospital here.

While I believe that God will bring about the best possible scenario from this for me and my family, it strikes me that I am somewhat stressed about this whole thing.

This will be the third time in hospital this year. It started with a broken ankle on New Year’s day. Then, two months later I landed in hospital with an emergency for eight days with a DVT (blood clot) of 10-12 inches long in my left upper leg, caused by the ankle operation on New Year’s day.

When I was in hospital with the DVT, they battled to thin my blood enough for about eleven days. They injected me twice daily at hospital with stuff to thin my blood, while I took tablets to help the process. My blood count (INR) only hit the target range of 2-3 after eleven days. Yet, since then, they have battled to keep my INR below 3 and it has been holding its position to close to 4 for about 60% of the time. Because of this I have a bleeding risk.

Now, since I need this procedure on Thursday, 18 April, I had to stop taking my Warfarin last Thursday, and tomorrow I am checking into hospital so that they can inject me with stuff daily to thicken my blood. So, now the very thing that they tried to prevent, stopping a clot from breaking loose and landing in my brain, heart or lungs, becomes a scary thought. Unfortunately, they can’t perform the procedure with my blood in its current condition, since I could bleed to death on the operating table. So, the battle begins tomorrow to bring my INR count down to 1.2.

Then, apart from this battle, what will they find? Will it be cancer? I pray that God will bring complete healing and that the lump is either just missing, or that it is completely benign.

I trust that in all of this, God will still bring about a good result, for me and my family. We do not always understand the outworking of God’s goodness, but I trust that His wisdom is greater than mine. I trust that all things will go well, and that I will re-join my family in health after Thursday.

Even in the midst of our worries, God is good, just and compassionate.

Filed under: Health

Lawrette McFarlane Photography

2013-04-14T15:15:12Z

Who is Lawrette McFarlane? First of all she is a friend from the church small group that we attend at 3CI. She has an infectious laugh, is physically active (running), and professionally, she is a photographer.

As a professional photographer, she has done all types of photography, such as:

Travel
Documentary
Commercial – studio and location
Portraiture
Interior and Architectural
Stage / Music
Medical
Wedding
Fine art / Lomography
Senior lecturer at National College of Photography / Vega (Evening school)

She has done work for a whole lot of companies, such as:

‘Weg’ / ‘Go’ Travel and Outdoor Magazine
Bombela Civil Joint Venture
NJW Engineering Services
Technology Innovation Agency
CSIR
VBKom Consulting Engineers / Projects
SVI Engineering
Sainsbury Design
FAIS Ombud
Realty1 Lynwood – Willem & Letsie Coetzee
Habitat for Humanity

Her pictures are absolutely amazing! Go to her website to view the pictures she has taken for clients. She lives and works in the Gauteng province of South Africa, so if you would like to have some photography done of a high standard with lots of creativity, then contact Lawrette McFarlane!

Filed under: Photography

The tough months continue

2013-04-05T15:26:38Z

So, while I was in hospital for DVT treatment, my doctor decided to send me for a sonar check over my pelvic area just to exclude it from possibly having a DVT. While the radiologist (a doctor) was scanning me, she found a large lump in my bladder. Of course, it was not supposed to be there. She checked the size of my prostate and that seemed normal.

My doctor who was treating me in hospital for the DVT, decided that this thing should be checked out as soon as possible. He made an appointment for me at the Urology Hospital here in Pretoria, and I saw the specialist on Wednesday.

After he checked me out he said that usually, if there is something in the bladder, it is cancer, and that he was treating this as cancer until proven otherwise. He also did a sonar on me, and could not really make out what the lump was and said he was hoping that it would just be a case of an enlarged prostate. He also did some other checks (that should not be mentioned here) and said that he thinks that it is an enlarged prostate. They also found blood in my urine.

However, because he cannot be sure, I am having a biopsy done on 18 April, and if any cancer is found, he would remove it immediately.

I was sent for a PSA blood test, and the results came back today and it is normal. So, if the PSA came back normal, and there is blood in my urine, what the heck is wrong?

A complication to the whole matter is that I can’t simply be operated on or have a biopsy done since I am on Warfarin to thin my blood in the battle against the DVT. So, it will not just be a case of going in on the 18th and then having the procedure done. Before they do anything, my blood must return to normal, and so the last time I take Warfarin will be 11 April. Then, I have to be in hospital on 15 April so that they can start treating me with regular injections to normalize my blood. This must be done for three days.

We are trusting that whatever is wrong, that the Lord Jesus Christ will indeed touch my body and bring healing.

“(22) For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. (23) And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (24) For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? (25) But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (26) In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; (27) and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (31) What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Rom 8:22-32 NASB)

Filed under: Health

New South African Electoral Amendment Bill

2013-03-27T19:11:00Z

South African politics have always been party politics, and not really whether those in parliament actually deserved to be there, or were accountable to anyone but the party they belonged to.

In simple terms, the South African system is a proportional system. That means that each party gets to allocate a proportional number of members of parliament (MPs) according to the percentage of votes it garnered in an election. If there are 162 positions for MPs, and party A got 23% of the vote and party B got 53%, then party A will get to put forward 37 of its members to be MPs and party B 86. This way, the voters will never know whether these MPs are really capable of doing the job, or whether they have a sense of accountability.

Read more »

[Video] Sorting out the will of God

2013-03-07T11:26:00Z

Here is a YouTube playlist of 8 teachings on Decision making and the will of God. This series was done by Geoff Volker and Paul Honeycutt at In-Depth Studies (IDS). The 8th video was done by Geoff Volker..

A tough two months and more

2013-03-04T17:08:13Z

I wrote about A tough two months that we had through December and January. Well, that has now stretched into March, making it more than 3 months!

My moon boot was supposed to come off on 13 February so that I could be back physically at work on 14 February.

On 7 February I had to rush back to the hospital emergency rooms with an infection in the wound from the ankle operation (1 January). Luckily, the doctor that operated on my ankle was in the hospital at that time, so he came to emergency immediately. He gave one look at my ankle, rattled off a whole lot of things the nurse had to get for him, and told her: “Nurse, I am going to hurt this man now!” Very comforting! He injected my ankle with anaesthetics, waited a few minutes, and then slid the scalpel into the wound with speed and precision. The stitches did not finish dissolving, and with the moon boot rubbing against it, I got this infection. He cut the stitches loose and then with tweezers he removed the stitches. After this he instructed me to clean the wound every two days and put a plaster over it. So, for a week then, I didn’t wear my moon boot and had to keep my leg elevated. I returned to the doctor for my last check-up on 13 February, and everything had turned out well, and the doctor was satisfied with my recovery. I was walking fine, but still had to elevate my leg at the end of the day and put ice on it.

Fast forward two weeks, and I started feeling a pain on the inside of my left upper leg, about two thirds up from my knee. I wasn’t too concerned as it wasn’t really painful. But, by Thursday, 28 February, I woke up with severe pain in my leg and walked very crippled to the breakfast table. By lunch time, the pain had spread to my knee and by about 14:00 my left calf was swollen way bigger than my right calf, and it was red, hot to the touch and hard.

Start of a DVT

By 15:00 I decided to go home and get to see my GP. He checked me out and felt that under my circumstances, there were only two possibilities, and they were a sub-dermal infection, or a Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT). He ruled out the sub-dermal infection due to the fact that I had just been on 4 different antibiotics. He sent me for an ultrasound that confirmed that my DVT ran in my upper left leg for about 25.5cm (10in). Also, my DVT is almost completely blocked with almost no blood getting through. Due to the fact that a DVT could be life threatening, I was admitted to hospital immediately and treatment was started too. Since Thursday evening, I have had 10 injections straight into the stomach and I was put on warfarin tablets. Since I was admitted to hospital, the pain levels and stiffness levels have decreased a lot.

The sad thing is that my INR on Friday was 1.00 and by today it was only 1.21. That means it is rising a bit slow. The doctor said that as soon as I hit an INR of 2.00, then I can be released from hospital. The next blood test is on Wednesday. So, it is safe to say that I might be here until at least Friday.

We may sometimes think that life is not fair, and that we “deserve” better. Really?

However, like Habakkuk the prophet, I would like to say:

“17 Though the fig tree should not blossom And there be no fruit on the vines, Though the yield of the olive should fail And the fields produce no food, Though the flock should be cut off from the fold And there be no cattle in the stalls, 18 Yet I will exult in the Lord, I will rejoice in the God of my salvation. 19 The Lord God is my strength, And He has made my feet like hinds’ feet, And makes me walk on my high places.” (Hab 3:17-19 NASB)

UPDATES:

07 March 2013 – Had blood tests done yesterday. My INR went up to 1.58. In the mean time, the doc said that he would release me if my INR reaches 1.8. I am having another blood test tomorrow, and I am hoping that my INR will then be above 1.8. Since it went up 0.37 between Monday and Wednesday, I am convinced that getting to 1.8 from 1.58 (0.22) is easily attainable.

05 April 2013 – I was released on 8 March by 16:00 even though my INR wasn’t high enough (1.68). By Monday 11 March my INR had jumped to 2.32.

Filed under: Health

What John 3:16 does not say

2013-03-03T03:34:00Z

"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 HCSB)

"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 New English Translation)

It does not say:
1. that everyone will be saved.
2. that all have the same opportunity to be saved.
3. that all could potentially be saved.
4. how anyone comes to believe.

All it says is that those who do believe will have eternal life.

Local radio station presenter claims giving blood will infuse receiver with blood of Jesus

2013-03-02T12:16:00Z

I wasn't sure how to write the subject of this post, but there it is!

Sitting here in hospital, I was busy reading and decided to listen to music, and one of the channels provided by the hospital is Impact Radio, a local Christian radio station in Pretoria. I usually don't listen to them (or any other radio station).

So, there I was listening at about 13:15. The presenters are at a blood drive and the female presenter said that as Christians we should give blood, since when the recipient receives the blood, he will be infused with the blood of Jesus! Then, instead of rebuking her for blatant heretical nonsense, the male presenter said that she just spoke about a very deep spiritual truth.

I don't know how they select their presenters, but what these two said was blatant nonsense! It is definitely not a Biblical idea and seems to me that these two have a sense of the blood of Christ as literally flowing in their veins and that they see the blood of Christ as some magical talisman that just needs to be infused into a person to change his life.

This is not the gospel, part of the gospel or even remotely related to the gospel!

The same station also promotes and hosts programs by some of these heretics!

Beautiful Creatures? Not so much!

2013-02-23T20:31:00Z

Beautiful Creatures, the movie, is not so much about beautiful creatures, than the claim to immortality and the fight between “good” and “evil.”

Beautiful Creatures starts slow (at least according to my wife), but soon reveals itself as the clash between casters (immortals) from the dark side and from the side of the light. There is enough excitement in the movie to be a popcorn movie, since it also involves the blooming love between a caster (Lena – Alice Englert) who will turn 16 on December 21, and a normal human, Ethan (Alden Ehrenreich).

However, when a caster turns 16, The Claiming happens. If the caster is a male, then he can choose at The Claiming, and later, whether he wants to be a “dark” or “light” caster. On the other hand, if the caster is female, then she does not have any choice at The Claiming whether she wants to be “dark” or “light.” This is decided for her, since at her Claiming, her true self will be revealed and she will turn to the “dark” or the “light” side based on that inner true self.

It is here where the evil, dark side shows its true colours, since Lena’s mother, Sarafine (Emma Thompson), has become the most powerful caster on the dark side. She is joined by Lena’s childhood friend, and cousin, Ridley (Emmy Rossum), who at her Claiming became a siren, and has amazing powers over men and can make them do anything for her, even kill for her. These two women are trying their utmost to influence Lena’s Claiming so that Lena would be claimed for the dark side.

Coming to grips with the will of God

2013-01-27T15:56:00Z

In the heart of every Christian is the yearning to please God, especially to do His will. It strikes fear in the heart of many Christians to think that they may be "outside" the will of God for their lives.

Geoff Volker from In-Depth Studies has done a series of videos dealing with decision making and the will of God, and it is well worth watching these teachings. So, here they are!

Decision making & the will of God is around 2hrs 7min.

By backing down FNB set a dangerous precedent

2013-01-27T07:06:00Z

This video can only offend the ANC!

The ANC once again has shown that it is incapable of taking criticism and of thinking about the future of South Africa! In just more than a week the ANC, and especially its youth wing (ANCYL) and its Women’s League (ANCWL), bullied First National Bank (FNB) into an apology to the ANC.

Read more »

There once was a preacher called Spurgy…

2013-01-20T15:08:00Z

I just love this limerick:

There once was a preacher called Spurgy,
Who really detested liturgy.
But his sermons are fine;
and I use them as mine!
And so do most of the clergy!

I first heard this limerick years ago when I first heard Alistair Begg in a sermon called Preservation of the Saints (well worth listening to!).

AGAPE and PHILEO: That much different?

2013-01-16T09:56:00Z

Introduction

"So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me more than these?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Tend My lambs.' He said to him again a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Shepherd My sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (φιλέω) Me?' Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love (φιλέω) Me?' And he said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend My sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

Notes:

Verb	Noun
ἀγαπάω – agapaō	ἀγάπη – *agape*
φιλέω – *phileō*	φιλία – *philia*

How many of us have not heard a sermon on this passage? Probably everyone reading this who has been a regular church attendee would have heard a sermon on this passage at least once in the last ten years.

I will do my best to remain objective at all times, even though objectivity is one of the most difficult frames of mind to keep and practise. We all have our rose-coloured glasses on, and that is how we look at the world.

The differences between these two words intrigued me ever since Bible college in the years between 1985 and 1989. I will be drawing from various resources, e.g. lexicons, e-mail discussion groups, and finally, the highest authority I could find on this subject, the Scriptures.

Before we carry on to execute our study, let me clarify my assumptions concerning the God kind of love, whether it be ἀγάπη or not. Firstly, it must be unchangeable. Why? God is unchangeable. Any attribute of God has to be unchangeable if God is unchangeable. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Secondly, it has to be pure. Due to the holiness of God any attribute of His has to be holy and pure. No stench, or darkness can be associated with any attribute of God.

Word Meanings

The meanings I present here I have gleaned from several lexicons (dictionaries), and one theological dictionary. They are:

Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known as BAGD), Second edition Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Fifth edition, 1958, published 1979, the University of Chicago press.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 Introduction & Domains, Second impression, 1988, United Bible Societies;
A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Twenty-first Zondervan printing 1981, Zondervan;
Theological dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, reprinted, May 1986, William B. Eerdmans;
Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible found in the Online Bible, version 7.03;
The Expository dictionary of New Testament words by W.E. Vine, Seventeenth impression, 1966, Oliphants;

Agape

Agape means the following: to be fond of, to love dearly; to love, to be full of good-will, to have a preference for, regard the welfare of: . . . to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it; a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, the weak sense to be satisfied, to receive, to greet, to honor, or more inwardly, to seek after; to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard.

Louw and Nida says this concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω:

“. . . Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between ἀγαπάω, ἀγάπη and φιλέω, φιλία (25.33), it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn, 21:15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with φιλέω or φιλία, but only with ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, φιλέω and φιλία are likely to focus upon love or affection based on interpersonal association, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη focus upon love or affection based on deep appreciation and high regard.” p294

and

“. . . It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that φιλέω and φιλία refer only to human love, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ.” p294

BAGD adds that ἀγάπη and φιλέω

"seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [βόσκειν - ποιμαίνειν, ἀρνία - προβάτια, ἑλκύειν - σύρειν]." p4

Phileo

φιλέω means the following: friendship, to be friendly to one; φιλέω more nearly represents tender affection; To love; to be friendly to one, to treat somebody as one of one's own people; to have love or affection for someone or something based on association; love, have affection for, like.

Kittel says,

"In the LXX phileo, which is less common than agapao, is mostly used for 'hb. In meaning it is very similar to agapao. . . . Like the LXX, the NT prefers agapao to phileo. . . . Alternation between agapao and phileo occurs in Jn. 21:15ff. Some exegetes think that Peter is grieved because Jesus uses phileo the third time (21:17), but the words are mostly synonymous in John, and Peter is more likely grieved because Jesus asks for a third time. . . ." p1263-1264

We have now seen what the lexicons have to say concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω. Even so, the best way of finding out what is meant by a word is to see how that word is used in a certain context.

How are these words used in the Scriptures?

Lets look at agape

1. Loving the unlovable

In Mt. 5:43-46, and Lk. 6:27-35 we are exhorted by Jesus to love our enemies and not just those who love us, and are kind to us. Verse 46 puts a twist on this love. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" If ἀγάπη is the God kind of love, then how is it that a hated tax collector could also love with ἀγάπη? The very idea of ἀγάπη - as proclaimed by many - as a special God kind of love is made redundant if a hated tax collector can also love with this kind of love. Our very idea of sinners makes it impossible for us to believe that a sinner can possess this kind of love. Romans 3:10-11 has this to say concerning the condition of mankind without the salvation that Christ bought for us, "None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands; no one seeks for God.". This makes it clear to me that the unsaved sinner does not have the capacity to love like God does.

John Calvin (one of the greatest theologians from the sixteenth century) expresses the condition of man so well,

"For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence [lust] use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq).

Now, if this is the condition of unsaved man, how on earth can he love like God (ἀγάπη)?

2. Levels of love

If we think of our first assumption concerning God's love, that it is unchangeable, then we have to conclude that it cannot have different levels. In Mt. 24:12 ἀγάπη is portrayed as growing cold, "And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold." We know that Godly love cannot change, and therefore, we have to conclude that ἀγάπη cannot be construed as a higher love such as Godly love. If God's love grew cold, surely, we all would have been in hell by now.

In Lk. 7:42 Jesus asked this question, "When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" In this passage from verse 42 to 47 Jesus explains that if someone has been forgiven little he will ἀγάπη little, and if someone has been forgiven much he will ἀγάπη much. If ἀγάπη is the God kind of love then it follows that either you ἀγάπη or you do not. Does God have different levels of love? I dare to say, no! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." God's love was complete from the beginning, and that can be seen in the depth of love He showed us in the death of His Son!

Paul writes to the Corinthians in 2 Co. 12:15 and tells them that he loves them more, "I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less?" Paul's love for the Corinthians is growing more and more. Our premise at the beginning says that God does not change, and therefore His love cannot change. If we therefore have the love of God in our hearts, surely that love cannot change then either.

In his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul writes in the first book, chapter 3 verse 12, "and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you." We have handled this type of love in the above paragraph, how Godly love cannot grow to become more.

Jude 1:2, "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." Can God's love be multiplied? No! God's love is already infinite!

3. Loving things

Jesus is speaking out condemnation over the Pharisees who have been living out their religion just to be seen. In Lk. 11:42-43 Jesus says, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [43] Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." Would a God kind of love, love the chief seats like these Pharisees did? Our second assumption has it that the God kind of love has to be pure, just as God is pure. Following from the above passage we have to conclude that if agape is used in such a defiling way, that it cannot be the God kind of love. Jesus would not have acted this way.

Based on our second premise Jn. 3:19 proves to us that ἀγάπη cannot be claimed as the God kind of love. This God kind of love cannot love the darkness. If one reads the section on Loving the unlovable it will be seen that mere man without Jesus in his life cannot express the God kind of love. Yet, in this passage ἀγάπη is used as love for the darkness. We also find in John 12:43 that these unrepentant people loved the approval, or praise of men rather than that of God. Would a God kind of love, love the approval of men, rather than that of God? Would the God kind of love, love this present world as against what God desires? (2 Tim. 4:10) Would the God kind of love, love the wages or money of unrighteousness? (2 Pet. 2:15) Would the God kind of love, love the world and the things of this world? (1 Jn. 2:15) The love of God cannot be in us if the love of the world is in us. ἀγάπη is used 3 times in this verse. Once referring to loving the world. Can this be the God kind of love?

What about phileo?

1. Loving things

It is amazing how similar passages are between the ἀγάπη and φιλέω counterparts. When looking at Mt. 6:5, it seems so similar to what Jesus told the people in Lk. 11:43 where ἀγάπη is used. The cross-reference for the Lk. 11:43 passage can be found in Mt. 23:6. Guess what word it uses? φιλέω! Here we have two passages by two different writers about the same words that Jesus said. Yet, two different words are used by these writers for our one word, "love"! In one passage ἀγάπη is used, and in the other φιλέω. It seems to me that in the Scriptures we can almost see these two words as synonyms. We have the same kind of idea in Lk. 20:46.

2. Levels of love

In Mt. 10:37 we see that even with φιλέω there are different levels, or intensities of love, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." We have seen that there are different levels, or intensities of ἀγάπη, and now we find the same of φιλέω. It seems to me that there are no real differences between the two words.

John 21:15-17

Probably the one passage that has caused the most controversy in the ἀγάπη vs. φιλέω debate, has been Jn. 21:15-17. Just about every preacher has preached on it some time or another in his career. Many have their ideas on this passage, and many staunchly so. I have always been taught that the two different words in this passage are two almost diametrically opposing words, with almost completely different meanings.

According to Kenneth S. Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 109) there are four words for love in the Greek language. Stergein, which "is a love that has its basis in one's own nature. It speaks of the constitutional efflux of natural affection." Eran, which "is a love that has its basis in passion, and its expression takes the form of a blind impulse produced by passion." Filein, which "is a love that has its basis in pleasurableness, and is the glow of the heart kindled the perception of that in the object loved which affords one pleasure." Agapan, which "is a love that has its basis in preciousness, a love called out of one's heart by an awakened sense of value in the object loved causes one to prize it."

In Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 63) Wuest has this to say, "In John 21 : our Lord uses 'agapao' in verses 15 and 16, 'phileo' in 17. Peter uses 'phileo' three times. Our Lord uses the noblest word in the Greek language the first two times and changes to Peter's word the third time, but assures Peter that his coming martyrdom speaks of the fact that his future love for his Lord will be based not only upon his delight in his Lord but upon his apprehension of His preciousness."

In contrast to Wuest, BAGD, on p. 4 has this to say concerning the uses of ἀγάπη and φιλέω,

"ἀ. and φιλέω seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [βόσκειν - ποιμαίνειν, ἀρνία - προβάτια, ἑλκύειν - σύρειν]."

These are the meanings of the above synonyms:

1. βόσκειν - actively of shepherds to feed or tend the sheep. Passively of livestock to graze or feed.
1. ποιμαίνειν - herd, tend, (lead to) pasture.

2. ἀρνία - sheep, lamb.
2. προβάτια - sheep.

3. ἑλκύειν - drag, draw.
3. σύρειν - drag, pull, draw. From John's multiple uses of synonyms in this passage, it is reasonable to assume that agape, and phileo are also synonyms.

Some other passages to point to ἀγάπη and φιλέω as synonyms, are Mt. 23:6 (φιλέω) and Lk 11:43 (ἀγάπη) - where Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees as loving the chief seats in important places, and Jn 13:23 (ἀγάπη) and Jn 20:2 (φιλέω) - where it mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Don Wilkins, one of the translators of the New American Standard Bible (Updated Edition) - regarded as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible today - has this to say about this passage (while discussing it with other Greek scholars on the B-GREEK e-mail discussion list),

"On the more specific question of FILEW/AGAPAW, I would like to suggest that PHILEW is a higher form of love than AGAPAW. AGAPAW seems to be a 'charitable' love in that one provides for another's needs, without developing a relationship as a friend to the other person (i.e. no personal ties). PHILEW, on the other hand, implies the close connection between friends and the related obligations that were so important in the ancient world. By this interpretation, then, Jesus twice asks Peter if he is committed to him at the lower level of love, and Peter responds by raising the commitment to the higher level of a true friend. The third time, Jesus questions whether Peter is really committed to him at this higher level, or perhaps whether Peter really understands what such commitment really entails, and this would explain Peter's hurt feelings. So it is not that Jesus asks him the question three times, it is rather (as I think the Greek implies) the fact that Jesus uses PHILEW the third time. Some people object to the notion that AGAPAW would not include the bonds of friendship, but in every passage where the objection would be raised, I think there is a reasonable answer--sometimes that friendship is not being denied, but that it is just not the focus of AGAPAO." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 21 Jun 1996)

He also has this to say,

"As to my view that FILH is a higher form of love than AGAPE, I suppose that you can interpret 'higher' in various ways. I stand by my original comments, at least until proved otherwise. Carl's explanation of FILH seems consistent with my own; I think it implies a relationship between people while AGAPE does not, and in either case there is a willingness to do good to the other person. We can see AGAPE expressed in charitable activity, without the personal relationship. However I would not argue for a natural/unnatural (and certainly not 'divine') distinction." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 23 Jun 1996)

Trench says this (as quoted on the B-GREEK list, 21 Jun 1996),

"agapasthai ... expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection ..., from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or the like; while [phileisthai],without being necessarily an unreasoning attachment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passion" (Trench, Syn., sect. xii)

Yet another participant on this list had this to add,

"To be sure, etymologically and apparently originally the root FIL- seen in the adjective FILOS,-H,-ON, the noun PHILIA, and the verb PHILEO referred to the affection of kindred persons (or things?) Odysseus, according to Homer, repeatedly spoke PROS hON FILON HTOR (which we translated gleefully as under graduates, 'to his own dear liver' but now more appropriately we render 'to himself'), i.e. to HIS OWN (hON is the reflexive pronominal adjective) KINDRED (belonging to himself) HEART (the liver being the seat of affections?). So PHILIA is the affection of those who recognize a kindred affinity with each other and express kindred affection for each other (PHILEO may mean 'kiss'): call it 'familial love,' if you like. Is it more 'personal?' Perhaps it needs to be studied again, but I'm not convinced that the usage is clearly distinct in the NT to suggest it is a 'superior' kind of love." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 22 Jun 1996)

Another one also adds,

"I repeat that I fail to find any evidence in the NT that any distinction is preserved between the words AGAPAW and PHILEW." (B-Greek Archives, Synonyms in John 21 etc, 22 Jun 1996)

Conclusion

I guess that for many this is a difficult question to answer. Yet, we have to consider that both ἀγάπη and φιλέω are used to describe the Father's love for Jesus and mankind; man's love for God and his fellow Christians. We also have to take into account the parallel passages where ἀγάπη and φιλέω are used interchangeably. Lastly, we also have to consider the synonyms used in the passage of John 21:15ff. The vast usage of ἀγάπη as opposed to the relatively little use of φιλέω is striking. With ἀγάπη used approximately 320 times, and φιλέω approximately 45 times, makes me think that ἀγάπη is more a general word for love whereas the other Greek words for love are the detailed words for love.

In today's English we have lost the meaning of love, and it has become a general word for love. We say things like, "I love this ice-cream", etc. It is almost like saying "I love you" the one day and the next day you say "I am crazy about you." The second phrase ("I am crazy about you") in today's usage of the language has a greater force behind it. It almost puts detail to the first phrase ("I love you"). I believe that ἀγάπη is used in this sense in the New Testament. According to Wuest in Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Volume Three, Bypaths In the Greek New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted, January 1979, p. 113),

". . . when Attic Greek was spread over the world by the conquering armies of Alexander the Great, and remained in its simplified and modified form as the international language of the period between Alexander and Constantine, agapan suddenly sprang into the ascendancy. Because it was the common word for 'love' during these centuries, the New Testament writers naturally found it not only desirable but necessary to use it. It became the general word for love in the New Testament."

Still, everyone has to be convinced in his own mind as to the validity of this post and what it has to say. There are groups from both sides who would die rather than change their minds. After all the evidence, I have decided that I was wrong all those years to believe in ἀγάπη as a God kind of love. I just pray that this study was helpful, maybe just to make you think along different lines.

I originally posted this blog post at Just Thinking...

Blessings come in all shapes and sizes

2013-01-11T10:19:08Z

As some of you know by now, we’ve had a tough two months, but hopefully that is at an end now!

Like I said in my post Sometimes even bad events can turn into something good, it happens sometimes that good come from bad events in our lives—seen from a human point of view.

Well, apart from the new Sony SLT-A37K I received from my insurance, I finally got the rest of my stuff stolen from the first burglary replaced. So, now that whole set has been replaced! I was given a genuine Sony, model SAL55300, DT 4.5-5.6/55-300 SAM, zoom lens; the original external flash was replaced; the camera bag was replaced with a much better one and I was also given a UV filter that I didn’t have before. I am very happy with what I got this time. When I bought my original camera, zoom lens and external flash, it all came to R4,500 ($517). The value of the replacements came to R15,000 ($1,724). Everything I had was upgraded except the external flash. They gave me exactly the same as I had before (for only 4 days, BTW!). And, for all of this, all I had to do was pay an excess of R1,850.

That concludes the saga of the first burglary!

At the 2nd burglary (21 Dec 2012), just two weeks after the first, my Samsung Pro815 camera (with bag), my old Lenovo 3000 C100 laptop (with bag) and an older Sony video camera that still used tape (with bag) were stolen. These were finally replaced and I picked up the replacements on Wednesday (9 Jan). Once again, it is a major upgrade for each of the items that were stolen.

My old Lenovo (80Gb HD, 512Mb RAM) was replaced with a Toshiba Satellite L755—S1M2 (500Gb HD, 4Gb RAM). In place of the Samsung camera (8.1MP, 15x optical zoom) I asked if I could look at some other compact cameras and I decided to take the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX20V (18.2MP, 20x optical zoom, full HD movie 1920×1080). The old Sony mini-tape camera was replaced by the Sony Handycam DCR-SX22E ( 60x optical zoom, Steady shot Stabilisation). Each of these items were replaced with their bags and I was also given two 16Gb SD cards. The Sony Cybershot was way cheaper than replacing the Samsung Pro815, and so with the difference it created between the original quote and what I actually took, I ended up not having to pay the excess of R1,850. What a deal! I got equipment to the value of about R13,500 ($1,552)!

So, now that everything has been replaced I am very happy, especially with the replacements themselves.

Filed under: Crime, Photography