I have a problem with an article Kenneth Copeland wrote

[ABlessedAnomaly]

I disagree. It is all the faith of God. The faith that we have is imparted to us by God. It is His faith that we are using.

Hmm. I distinguish between God's faith, that which He holds and uses; and our faith, which, yes, God imparted to us and it is His faith, comes from Him, but he has measured it out to us to use it along with our dominion in this world. We are to use it to change our circumstances. So in this I distinguish God's faith from our faith. In this, all verses in Hebrews 11 that begin "By faith..." is talking about each individual's measure of faith (agreed that it came from God, but it is now their faith to excercise and use).

This distinction is quite important. For if we leave the faith of Abraham as being God's faith (the use of which would be God's action) then Abraham's faithful obeying was forced by God. And I don't think you would say this. God measured out to Abraham a measure of faith; Abraham then used that faith, excercised it and strengthened it, and was recognized as a mighty man of God.

I cannot play on this field, I do not know Greek. Though I am planning to take a Greek course next semester. I would like to get a degree in it eventually.

You'll have a great time with it. But the only point (even though I dove in the deep end there) was that the original language tells us what it is saying. We cannot render new meaning UNLESS the original ALLOWS for that meaning to be rendered. We cannot render a new meaning and try to justify it by saying "Hey, nowhere else in scripture is this disallowed." Nor can we render a meaning to a verse and say "Over there in scripture it says this new meaning, so it must be ok." You ask me below to show anywhere that faith is shown to help us understand: but that is not the point. If I showed you such verses it would not make my rendering right if this verse doesn't support it; likewise if I can't it does not make your rendering right if this verse doesn't support it.

If this verse supported two renderings (like what I say elsewhere about Mark 11:22) then we look outward throughout scripture for support of either rendering.

I have already said this several times. Mabey you are not hearing me. If faith helps us to understand that God framed the worlds by His Word, then the second half of the verse, which is referring to THE INVISIBLE THINGS WHICH CREATED THE WORLDS, would have to be referring to the Word of God, rather than faith.

I'm going to get really, really picky about words here...the second half of the verse does not say that "invisible things...created...the worlds." The verse says that the "worlds were framed...by the Word of God...so that what is visible....was not made from what is visible (or: was made from what is invisible)." [ellipses used here to emphasize parts, not so show missing/left-out words.]

But the subject of this chapter is not the Word of God. It is Faith;

Yes, it is faith. And it is also about the testimony and approval of those with faith; it is about their receiving (or not) the promises that they sought after through faith.

and faith has already been described as the invisible things that this chapter is talking about.

No, faith is not the invisible things. Faith is the force by which the invisible things become visible (manifestation).

If you truly believe that this verse is not talking about the faith of God, then what is the invisible things that created the worlds that he is referring to? Your interpretation only leaves one possibility, that he is referring to the Word of God. But the Word of God is nowhere described as 'invisible things', only faith is described as 'invisible things', and faith is the subject of this chapter.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
​

What is faith? Faith is the substance. Faith is the evidence. Faith is not the "things not seen." Faith is the evidence [of the things not seen].

Remember the story of the woman who wanted Gloria to die so that she could marry Kenneth? Did she have faith? No. She had hope. But there was no substance to back it up (it apparantly is not God's will!!). There was no faith, for faith is the substance [of things hoped for].

Of course God used Gods faith. Every verse in this chapter is talking about Gods faith.

Only in that faith comes from God. It is his. But verse 39 sums it all up when it says: "And all these, having gained approval through their faith..." God imparted the faith to them, but now it is theirs to use, excercise and strengthen.

It is the invisible things that created everything. It is also the invisible things that in us allow us to believe Gods Word.

No. Invisible things did not create anything. Invisible things are created things themselves.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible....
​

Hebrews tells us that faith is the evidence of the invisible things. It tells us that the invisible things were used to make the visible things, and this was framed by the Word of God [through faith].

Please show me other verses that explain that Faith is what helps us understand the things of God? There are none that I am aware of. This fact alone, brings this interpretation into suspicion, IMHO.

Dan, this is wrong application. This verse simply does not support that the word 'faith' applies to the 'preparing of the worlds.' And so to try to go out into scripture to support/refute whether faith belongs with 'understands' is bad practice. We must first start with THIS verse and see what it says.

And it (tying faith to understanding) does not refute that God has faith; it does not refute that with His faith God framed the worlds; it does not refute that faith moved the invisible to the visible. All that stands on its own, and is supported by the concepts of faith shown in this chapter, especially verse 1.

 

[hhodgson]

No, faith is not the invisible things. Faith is the force by which the invisible things become visible (manifestation).

Hebrews 11:1
​

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
​

What is faith? Faith is the substance. Faith is the evidence. Faith is not the "things not seen." Faith is the evidence [of the things not seen].

Hebrews tells us that faith is the evidence of the invisible things. It tells us that the invisible things were used to make the visible things, and this was framed by the Word of God [through faith].

I have already said this several times. Mabey you are not hearing me. If faith helps us to understand that God framed the worlds by His Word, then the second half of the verse, which is referring to THE INVISIBLE THINGS WHICH CREATED THE WORLDS, would have to be referring to the Word of God, rather than faith. But the subject of this chapter is not the Word of God. It is Faith; and faith has already been described as the invisible things that this chapter is talking about. If you truly believe that this verse is not talking about the faith of God, then what is the invisible things that created the worlds that he is referring to? Your interpretation only leaves one possibility, that he is referring to the Word of God. But the Word of God is nowhere described as 'invisible things', only faith is described as 'invisible things', and faith is the subject of this chapter.

For what it's worth, this is my take on these differences as a third party look at the two interpretations...

Faith is not the "things hoped for."​

Faith is not the "things not seen." (invisible)

Faith "is" the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for.
Faith "is" the EVIDENCE of things not seen. (invisible)


You cannot get the "things hoped for" unless there is SUBSTANCE. (faith IS the substance, the things hoped for is the result of manifestation of the "substance.")

You cannot get the "invisible" things not seen unless there is EVIDENCE. (faith IS the evidence, the invisible things not seen results in manifestation of the "evidence.")

If we put these two things together, I would see that:

(Faith is) the substance and the evidence of things hoped for and the invisible things not seen...​

Just my toughts... Anybody else want to add to this discussion..?

_______________
Harry
​

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

For what it's worth, this is my take on these differences as a third party look at the two interpretations...

Faith is not the "things hoped for."​

Faith is not the "things not seen." (invisible)

Faith "is" the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for.
Faith "is" the EVIDENCE of things not seen. (invisible)
​

​

ok.

You cannot get the "things hoped for" unless there is SUBSTANCE. (faith IS the substance, the things hoped for is the result of manifestation of the "substance.")
​

​

Well, the manifestation is the thing hoped for in the presence of excercised faith. Yes, faith is the substance. The hope is unrealized; and it may remain unrealized (a hope) if there is no substance (faith).

You cannot get the "invisible" things not seen unless there is EVIDENCE. (faith IS the evidence, the invisible things not seen results in manifestation of the "evidence.")
​

​

Huh? ok. Invisible things not seen is redundant. So: true...you cannot have the invisible unless there is evidence they actually exist...this evidence is the faith that God imparts to you. The invisible things will manifest if the faith (evidence) is exercised to the point to pull the invisible into the visible (manifestation).

Remember, the promises are already provided. Your healing, for instance, was provided for in the atonement. We have this promise. But to actually manifest your healing your need to use your faith. ALL have faith for healing, for your healing is in the invisible as a promise of God, and the faith He has imparted to you for your healing is His evidence that He has done this and that there is something there for you to bring to manifestation.

I remember that we discussed on these boards in the past the concept of "little faith." Jesus would tell his disciples that they had "little faith." It didn't mean that they had no faith; it means that they did not excercise their faith and "grow" it into miracle producing faith -- into "manifest the invisible into the visible!" faith.

If we put these two things together, I would see that:

(Faith is) the substance and the evidence of things hoped for and the invisible things not seen...​

​

And thus we are back to Hebrews 11:1.


​

​

​

Is this what Paul was talking about here....

2 Corinthians 12:3-4
And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
​

Those words were: "we are out of coffee!"

 

[hhodgson]

Hey Bob... My post is not necessarily what I believe about this... I came back in here to my post with intentions to edit and add at the end and put, "Did what I post make any sense..? But you answered already so I did not add the end question... That question would have let all that read, know that I along with others are betwixt between the two opinions... From what I read from your response, If I understand it right, is that some of it was just words that probably did not make sense... When we have opposing opinions as with this with you and Dan, the rest of us, or at least "me" have to take a back seat and listen and learn... I guess I would like to know if I was correct in what I said, or partial correct, or just plain wrong, and It's not for just my sake to know, but for our viewers who are eagerly searching for the truth also... Still waiting for other responders to post their thoughts... We have a lot of WoF head scratchers here on our WoF forum and waiting for their input on you and Dan's posts...

As I said earlier, you guys are the best... and a full cup of hot coffee definitely hit the spot...


Greater works... for such a time as this.
_____________
Harry

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Hey Bob... My post is not necessarily what I believe about this... I came back in here to my post with intentions to edit and add at the end and put, "Did what I post make any sense..? But you answered already so I did not add the end question... That question would have let all that read, know that I along with others are betwixt between the two opinions... From what I read from your response, If I understand it right, is that some of it was just words that probably did not make sense... When we have opposing opinions as with this with you and Dan, the rest of us, or at least "me" have to take a back seat and listen and learn... I guess I would like to know if I was correct in what I said, or partial correct, or just plain wrong, and It's not for just my sake to know, but for our viewers who are eagerly searching for the truth also... Still waiting for other responders to post their thoughts... We have a lot of WoF head scratchers here on our WoF forum and waiting for their input on you and Dan's posts...

As I said earlier, you guys are the best... and a full cup of hot coffee definitely hit the spot...


Greater works... for such a time as this.
_____________
Harry

You did good. To me, you needed just a few words moved to and fro to clear up some confusing phrases. "Invisible things not seen," to me is redundant so I reduced it to "invisible." Otherwise just keep clear on what faith/substance/evidence is versus hope versus invisible versus manifestation/visible.

We also need to get too "dictorial" here either. I've heard it said (and probably said it myself a time or two) that Hebrews 11:1 is the DEFINITION of faith. I don't know if I like this. It certainly is a working example of what faith is.

But we are also told to "have faith in God." I don't quite see having 'evidence' in God or having 'substance' in God. In this usage it comes closer to the those who define faith as trust.

On the other hand: "have the faith of God" doesn't have the same problem if we say "have the evidence/substance that God has." I find that comparison interesting indeed.

 

[x141]

I have a monthly subscription to Believer's Voice of Victory, and just got around to reading my April magazine all the way through. In "The Faith of Abraham" pg. 6, 5th paragraph down he says "It tells us, for example, that 'through faith... the worlds were framed by the WORD of God' ". The problem I have with that is that the verse doesn't say that, it says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,"

He left out "we understand", and this to me is changing God's word. Can someone explain why he would leave out those two words? This to me is very serious.

Isa 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Hab 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

These are the waters of baptism or identification as the sea is our mind that we are tossed to and fro in.

 

[dkbwarrior]

For what it's worth, this is my take on these differences as a third party look at the two interpretations...

Faith is not the "things hoped for."​

Faith is not the "things not seen." (invisible)

Faith "is" the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for.
Faith "is" the EVIDENCE of things not seen. (invisible)


You cannot get the "things hoped for" unless there is SUBSTANCE. (faith IS the substance, the things hoped for is the result of manifestation of the "substance.")

You cannot get the "invisible" things not seen unless there is EVIDENCE. (faith IS the evidence, the invisible things not seen results in manifestation of the "evidence.")

If we put these two things together, I would see that:

(Faith is) the substance and the evidence of things hoped for and the invisible things not seen...​

Just my toughts... Anybody else want to add to this discussion..?

_______________
Harry
​

Harry, this is very good. In fact, the only reason I didn't jump on it right away was that I wanted to see ABM's responses first.

I actually believe that the text is talking about TWO invisible things here. The invisible thing that we hope for (the desired end result that we do not yet see), and the invisible SUBSTANCE of faith, which is the invisible substance of our invisible hope. I say that only because hope has no substance. It is simply an invisible idea, a thought, a concept, a blueprint. Faith however, is the invisible substance of that invisible hope that has none.

As you said:

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-Hebrews 11:1

Hope is actually the unseen thing that is being referred to in verse one. Faith on the other hand is defined by the writer as the substance and the evidence of our unseen hope.

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-Hebrews 11:1

After all, hope is referred to obliquely as an invisible thing also in Romans:

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
-Romans 8:24

Yet we can extropolate from verse one that if something is not yet seen, (the hope), then the substance of that unseen thing is also unseen, (because, after all, it is not yet seen). For the scripture reads that "Faith IS the substance..." of that unseen thing, not "Faith WILL BE the substance..." of that unseen thing. Therefore, if faith IS the substance of the unseen thing, before it is seen, then ergo, the substance of faith itself is unseen.

After reading your post, and ABM's, it occured to me that to be clearer in my earlier post I should have written it this way:

I have already said this several times. Mabey you are not hearing me. If faith helps us to understand that God framed the worlds by His Word, then the second half of the verse, which is referring to THE INVISIBLE THINGS WHICH CREATED THE WORLDS, would have to be referring to the Word of God, rather than faith. But the subject of this chapter is not the Word of God. It is Faith; and faith has already been described as the substance of the invisible things that we are hoping for but do not yet see. If you truly believe that this verse is not talking about the faith of God, then what is the invisible things that created the worlds that he is referring to? Your interpretation only leaves one possibility, that he is referring to the Word of God. But the Word of God is nowhere described as 'invisible things', only faith is described as 'invisible things', and faith is the subject of this chapter.

Changes above in purple^...

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
-Hebrews 11:3

I would submit that the things [plural] that are not seen being referred to here are referring to both faith and hope, the two invisible things of God by which everything else was created. (I would even go further to say it is also obliquely referencing love, which is the third of the invisible things of God). It is not, however, referring to the Word of God, which has been manifested, was seen, and was handled by men. However, we still come full circle to the Word of God in any case, as the words of God are the vehicles that carry these invisible things, the substance of faith, and the bleuprint of hope.

Yet, even though he is referring to all these, I further contend that the subject of the passage is, and remains, FAITH. Therefore, the invisible substance of faith is the primary focus of the writer.

Well, the manifestation is the thing hoped for in the presence of excercised faith. Yes, faith is the substance. The hope is unrealized; and it may remain unrealized (a hope) if there is no substance (faith).

Agreed.

Peace...

 

[plmarquette]

1. Isaiah 29:16
   Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
   Isaiah 29:15-17 (in Context) Isaiah 29 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2. Ephesians 2:21
   In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
   Ephesians 2:20-22 (in Context) Ephesians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
3. Hebrews 11:3
   Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
   Hebrews 11:2-4 (in Context) Hebrews 11 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

The Faith Chanpter Hebrews 11... by faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the early saints... Genesis , by faith, and the Word ; John 1.1-14 Jesus the Word spoken by God in Genesis.... a homily....the frame work of God, our faith, in His words....our words and our faith.....don't trip over which translation, don't trip over words added (parentheticals); what is the Spirit saying to you.... "implied" .... without faith it is impossible to understand, without eyes, ears, and mind...speaking to believers...not heathens... what is implied... Trinity is not in the bible, but implied in baptism of John, nor is rapture found, but implied in Paul's epistles...

 

[Wayaok]

Cindy’s #2 post was most sufficient and that should have been the end.
​

That's really cool that you know the Word so well that you caught that!

To me, that is not a big deal because it does not change the verse as far as what it means in context to the point he's making in the article. Now if the subject has to do with how understanding comes through faith, or better put, because of faith our understanding is increased, then it would be vital to keep that preposition in there.

The point is, the world was framed by the Word of God, isn't it? I mean, isn't that the point the author of the article is making?

Wasn't it rather obvious to all the purpose/intent behind torcot posting this thread. Yet you guys had to fall right into his trap and start disagreeing among yourselves. Do you think your many lengthy replies in any way changed the opinion of torcot . He possibly see the lengthy expository of disagreement as unsettling and reminiscence of his own church.

For sure. So everybody's right. Yay. We all agree.

Cindy tried again to end this tail chasing with her above post … only to have you guys turn it into a Battle Royale.

I disagree. I know exactly what Kenneth Copeland is saying, as I believe the same way. Faith is the invisible substance that God created the Worlds by. It isn't by faith that we understand anything, in fact it is just the opposite, understanding is what gives us faith; not the other way around. This verse is directly referring to the faith of God as the invisible substance by which the worlds were created.

Wrong.

I agree that Cope is teaching that God's faith created the Worlds. And I have no disagreement with this teaching.

Hebrews 11:3 is not the verse to try to support God's faith with. This verse is NOT directly refering to God's faith (nor is v4, v5, v7, v8, v11, v17, v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v27, v30, v31, and not even v39, which all but 39 follow the same grammatical pattern).

I disagree completely, as I do think that the verse supports the interpretation that I gave above, and which Kenneth Copeland gave it. Good men disagree on the meaning of scripture all the time. We can disagree on this. I am not going to make my whole argument again. You simply need to read it; slowly and with an open heart and mind. The biggest proof of what I am saying is the last argument in my post.

What you are doing here, Cindy, is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. What you have done here is taken the verse, claimed that we can choose the punctuation such that we can read this two different ways, and then applied the way you like best (or feel best with) to the text (outside looking in). You application was (after claiming we can punctuate things any way we want): "The new question arising is, by faith do we get understanding, or is it by understanding we get faith?"

This turns the translation from "what does scripture tell us" to "here is a way to understand this verse."

What you have done is started with an English translation and then modified it to see how it could otherwise be formulated, dimissing the original text and intent along the way.

Bob, you're reading me wrong. What I was asking is which IS the way the verse reads, not how do I WANT it to read. It was written in Greek, so it was translated into English and punctuation is inserted by man.

I'm ALWAYS looking to know what God IS saying. He is God, my Father, and what He says IS right. I am not looking to tell Him what He is saying. That is plain dumb!

"The new question arising is, by faith do we get understanding, or is it by understanding we get faith.."

I admit that after reading all posts up to date that I am "unsettled in both opinions." Hmmm..! I think that being "unsettled" could be a definition of being double minded on what to agree on in both of these opinions, since I am right now back and forth, and that's not a good thing, at least for me, since the scripture in (James I:8) says that "a double minded man is unstable in all of his ways... Hmmm!..

You still seem to think I am inserting commas when actually I don't know if they should be or should not be there. I only pointed out that it can be read two ways, the very two things that you and Dan are going round and round about. I am not adamant on either, though with all due respect I am leaning to Dan's pov at this time.

I simply went to the Lord and asked Him. After all, He is the author! He always reveals and always teaches anytime anyone asks. I receive the ministry of the Holy Spirit - to lead us into all truth. I also believe He brings us all into the unity of the faith. He said so, and I expect that is what will happen.

Amen. Anyone can. It is for 'whosoever'. Thank You Jesus for revealing it to babes! Oh, how I love You!!!

It’s my undivided conclusion that Cindy is the Gold Medal WINNER of this Battle Royale
​

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Ok. We are standing on the same platform, looking at different things, but still having one belief dividing us. (did that make sense?)

I actually believe that the text is talking about TWO invisible things here. The invisible thing that we hope for (the desired end result that we do not yet see), and the invisible SUBSTANCE of faith, which is the invisible substance of our invisible hope. I say that only because hope has no substance. It is simply an invisible idea, a thought, a concept, a blueprint. Faith however, is the invisible substance of that invisible hope that has none.

Hmm. In Hebrews 11:1 there is one thing that is said to be invisible: the thing. It is the thing that we hope for. It is our desire. We do not have it yet, so it is invisible to us.

If we realize faith -- if God imparts faith to us for this thing -- then our faith is the substance and our faith is the evidence. The substance is not invisible: it is either: (1) known, for we have the faith for the thing; or it is (2) nonexistent; there is no imparted faith because you can't have the thing (it is not God's will).

Man conceives hope. It is ours. It is very tangible. We can make any hope we wish. God imparts faith. It is His. It is very tangible. He will impart faith to us to fulfill His promises and for us to manifest the invisible things. Those things are the things we desire, not our hope, not the substance (for the substance is faith imparted).

We stand on the same platform. We both describe faith as the substance and the evidence (caveats above).

I do like your definition of hope: "an invisible idea, a thought, a concept, a blueprint." I don't know that I would use the term "invisible" with idea, for invisible is used in the verse for a very specific thing (and it isn't the hope -- it is the thing).

As you said:

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-Hebrews 11:1

Hope is actually the unseen thing that is being referred to in verse one. Faith on the other hand is defined by the writer as the substance and the evidence of our unseen hope.

errrmmm. Hope is man-conceived, not unseen. Faith correctly is the substance and the evidence.....but it is this for the unseen thing. We have hope FOR the thing, the thing is not our hope. (We are not in faith to manifest hope.)

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-Hebrews 11:1

After all, hope is referred to obliquely as an invisible thing also in Romans:

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
-Romans 8:24

Ok, albeit a very oblique reference there; Romans simply says that what we hope for is unseen -- this may be because it is still invisible or that it may not exist at all. We must remember that faith is God-given; hope is man-conceived. But all in all we are generally in agreement here.

Yet we can extropolate...

uh-oh :o

...from verse one that if something is not yet seen, (the hope), then the substance of that unseen thing is also unseen, (because, after all, it is not yet seen). For the scripture reads that "Faith IS the substance..." of that unseen thing, not "Faith WILL BE the substance..." of that unseen thing. Therefore, if faith IS the substance of the unseen thing, before it is seen, then ergo, the substance of faith itself is unseen.

Whew! Ok. We are in near agreement still. I would change your parenthetical "(the hope)" to "(the thing hoped for)" and I would not talk of the substance as being unseen -- the substance is our faith. Faith is...the substance....[and]...the evidence.

After reading your post, and ABM's, it occured to me that to be clearer in my earlier post I should have written it this way:

Originally Posted by dkbwarrior

I have already said this several times. Mabey you are not hearing me. If faith helps us to understand that God framed the worlds by His Word, then the second half of the verse, which is referring to THE INVISIBLE THINGS WHICH CREATED THE WORLDS, would have to be referring to the Word of God, rather than faith. But the subject of this chapter is not the Word of God. It is Faith; and faith has already been described as the substance of the invisible things that we are hoping for but do not yet see. If you truly believe that this verse is not talking about the faith of God, then what is the invisible things that created the worlds that he is referring to? Your interpretation only leaves one possibility, that he is referring to the Word of God. But the Word of God is nowhere described as 'invisible things', only faith is described as 'invisible things', and faith is the subject of this chapter.
​

Changes above in purple^...

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
-Hebrews 11:3

This clarifies that the invisible things are still unseen, but that our faith verifies its existence, even being still unseen. So, yes, it is better, more exact language. I agree with the purple part.

I would submit that the things [plural] that are not seen being referred to here are referring to both faith and hope, the two invisible things of God by which everything else was created.

Here's we drift ever more apart. Above you correctly said that hope is "an ... idea, a thought, a concept, a blueprint." But you put it into the category of the invisible thing. No. Faith is substance and evidence of some other invisible thing. The invisible thing is what we hope for (ie: hope is not the invisible thing). In fact, we can hope for something, but no faith ever be imparted; our hope is nothing, for there is no thing to fulfill the hope. It is a vapor in this latter case.

With hope we wish. With faith we know (better: with faith God imparts knowledge).

Yet, even though he is referring to all these, I further contend that the subject of the passage is, and remains, FAITH. Therefore, the invisible substance of faith is the primary focus of the writer.

And to this I never disageed. The entire chapter is about faith. This does not change my view, though, on verse 3.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Cindy’s #2 post was most sufficient and that should have been the end.​

Wasn't it rather obvious to all the purpose/intent behind torcot posting this thread. Yet you guys had to fall right into his trap and start disagreeing among yourselves. Do you think your many lengthy replies in any way changed the opinion of torcot . He possibly see the lengthy expository of disagreement as unsettling and reminiscence of his own church.

Cindy tried again to end this tail chasing with her above post … only to have you guys turn it into a Battle Royale.

It’s my undivided conclusion that Cindy is the Gold Medal WINNER of this Battle Royale​

First of all, we all know this: Cindy always wins. She is the calm voice that always reminds us that it ultimately is about worship and praise of our Lord and Savior.

ok.

Next. torcot who? Just kidding. Wayaok, this was not a battle. This is not a fight to see who will win or who will come out on top.

What it is is this: I am confident in my beliefs. Dan is confident in his beliefs. As far as our confidence reaches. By discussing (not battling) this and other topics it makes both of us think about what the other is saying. It allows us to talk back and forth to try to sharpen the iron that is the other person. It truly makes us better in our study -- even if we never reach coincident agreement.

What it also does is allow the Casual Reader to see two or more side of an issue in scripture. It allows observers to participate, even if they never post a single post. It makes the ones who care go back to their very own Bibles and open them up (cough on the dust) and delight in learning.

I praise God for Dan, for he has taught me much in this forum. I praise God for everybody here. If it wasn't for this type of discussion, who knows what sort of things I (or anyone here) would have made up from scripture sitting in the silence and loneliness of our closets.

If you see this as a battle, as a search for a victor, then you see it poorly. If there is any victor, it is Jesus Christ, whose Living Word goes out loud and strong from these forums.

This is first and foremost: a learning experience.



---
ps: if you want to see a forum with believer hating believer, bloodshed, hurt feelings, disgusting and violent battles....I CAN take you there. A place of no respect, especially for the Word/Faith believer. It is an ugly and prideful place. The type of honest discussion that this current thread exhibits is a breath of fresh air in honest conversation.

 

[Wayaok]

First of all, we all know this: Cindy always wins. She is the calm voice that always reminds us that it ultimately is about worship and praise of our Lord and Savior.

Next. torcot who? Just kidding. Wayaok, this was not a battle. This is not a fight to see who will win or who will come out on top. This is first and foremost: a learning experience.

My learning experience from this thread was in the end similar to that of Job's learning experience. Sometimes, the fewer words the better. Did this thread impress Cindy or torcot or others with all the lengthy posts and highly educated sounding words (e.g. "the difference between exegesis and eisegesis")?

Like a famous Indian Chief once said at a Treaty presentation presided over by a persuasive government agent. "You speak many words, but say little."

 

[dkbwarrior]

Cindy’s #2 post was most sufficient and that should have been the end.​

Wasn't it rather obvious to all the purpose/intent behind torcot posting this thread. Yet you guys had to fall right into his trap and start disagreeing among yourselves. Do you think your many lengthy replies in any way changed the opinion of torcot . He possibly see the lengthy expository of disagreement as unsettling and reminiscence of his own church.

Cindy tried again to end this tail chasing with her above post … only to have you guys turn it into a Battle Royale.

It’s my undivided conclusion that Cindy is the Gold Medal WINNER of this Battle Royale​

First, I don't think torcot asking the question was a "trap" that we "fell into". Torcot has been asking some very clear and pointed questions in this forum, and has politely allowed us to answer them to the best of our ability withouth getting his back up, or arguing with us. I don't know his true motives, of course, but I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and take him at his word that he is a seeker looking for answers, unless he at some point proves himself different.

Secondly, this is not a battle of any kind. If it sounds that way to you I sincerely apologize. Text is limited in its ability to convey feeling or emotion through body language, so mabey you cant feel the respect that I have for ABM in my posts. For this I am terribly sorry. ABM, with his unique perspectives and depth of knowledge of the scripture, is my favorite person on these forums to sharpen my sword with. We use the same whetstone, after all, the scriptures, and the same brand of oil, the Holy Ghost. I am not trying to win an argument. I am testing my theology, and hopefully testing his as well. This subforum is our safe place to do that, without being interrupted by those with little understanding. I am learning from this. Why would I want it to stop? When I feel that I have learned what I am after, I will stop posting on the subject. I wont stick around for the last word, or to try to prove that I am right. That is not my intent here. This isn't fighting, it is refining.

As far as Cindy goes, well, Cindy is our peacemaker. She always wins.

Peace...

 

[now faith]

First, I don't think torcot asking the question was a "trap" that we "fell into". Torcot has been asking some very clear and pointed questions in this forum, and has politely allowed us to answer them to the best of our ability withouth getting his back up, or arguing with us. I don't know his true motives, of course, but I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and take him at his word that he is a seeker looking for answers, unless he at some point proves himself different.

Secondly, this is not a battle of any kind. If it sounds that way to you I sincerely apologize. Text is limited in its ability to convey feeling or emotion through body language, so mabey you cant feel the respect that I have for ABM in my posts. For this I am terribly sorry. ABM, with his unique perspectives and depth of knowledge of the scripture, is my favorite person on these forums to sharpen my sword with. We use the same whetstone, after all, the scriptures, and the same brand of oil, the Holy Ghost. I am not trying to win an argument. I am testing amy theology, and hopefully testing his as well. This subforum is our safe place to do that, without being interrupted by those with little understanding. I am learning from this. Why would I want it to stop? When I feel that I have learned what I am after, I will stop posting on the subject. I wont stick around for the last word, or to try to prove that I am right. That is not my intent here. This isn't fighting, it is refining.

As far as Cindy goes, well, Cindy is our peacemaker. She always wins.

Peace...

I couldent agree more! Who else could we talk and learn with to sharpen our swords? We are all soldiers for Christ. There is nothing mean spirited about learning and testing our faith in Gods word. I would not misconstrue passion for argument , unless it was non WOF trying to impose other views.

 

[CindyisHis]

You guys have me literally laughing out loud!!



Jesus is the winner!!!

And since I am in Him, I am too.


And so are all of you.



I'm not sure I agree that the thread should have ended though. There's no argument, no disrespect, and no strife going on. There are two brothers with the gift of teacher who are using that gift to expound. I tend to this myself but don't exercise it much here because it does take some time, though I admit, I do not get as deep into digging since I've had a husband and children.

I've thought a bit on these two positions, as most of you have, and it has occurred to me that both could be right at the same time. I know now I have opened a can of worms and they may come firing, but oh well. Hear me out.

Yes, through understanding we get faith. Through hearing the Word of God we get faith, and understanding comes from the Word. Yes, I can give you scripture, but it's that 'mom thing' going on - "I gotta hurry" - because I have out of town family coming today, my sister who was missing for 23 years, yeah, you did hear that testimony right? - Rabbit trail over.

Repeat - Yes, through understanding we get faith. Through hearing the Word of God we get faith, and understanding comes from the Word.

Really, what did we ever start ourselves? What did we initiate? Has not all things come from God? Did He not create us? Did He not put the stars in place, and day to day utter speech? Do these things not stir us up to seek Him? Is there not a glimmer of hunger in all of us that causes us to seek after Him? Do we really think we are so holy or just or right, that we are really something, that WE went after Him? Was it not He who called us? Was it not He who sent His Spirit to draw us? Was it not He who opened our eyes?

Blessed be His name. There is none like Him who is worthy of all honor, and glory, and praise. Thank You, Father, for sending Jesus. (With tears burning my eyes.)

I love You, Lord, and give thanks to You for my CF family. Thank You for knitting our hearts together and making us one in You. We are in You, You in us, and You are in the Father. Oh what a wonderful place to be!!! Wouldn't want to be anywhere else. You have the words of life. Only You.

 

[hhodgson]

First, I don't think torcot asking the question was a "trap" that we "fell into". Torcot has been asking some very clear and pointed questions in this forum, and has politely allowed us to answer them to the best of our ability withouth getting his back up, or arguing with us. I don't know his true motives, of course, but I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and take him at his word that he is a seeker looking for answers, unless he at some point proves himself different.

Secondly, this is not a battle of any kind. If it sounds that way to you I sincerely apologize. Text is limited in its ability to convey feeling or emotion through body language, so mabey you cant feel the respect that I have for ABM in my posts. For this I am terribly sorry. ABM, with his unique perspectives and depth of knowledge of the scripture, is my favorite person on these forums to sharpen my sword with. We use the same whetstone, after all, the scriptures, and the same brand of oil, the Holy Ghost. I am not trying to win an argument. I am testing my theology, and hopefully testing his as well. This subforum is our safe place to do that, without being interrupted by those with little understanding. I am learning from this. Why would I want it to stop? When I feel that I have learned what I am after, I will stop posting on the subject. I wont stick around for the last word, or to try to prove that I am right. That is not my intent here. This isn't fighting, it is refining.

As far as Cindy goes, well, Cindy is our peacemaker. She always wins.

Peace...

There is no need to apologize for anything Dan... We are not only helping and teaching Torcot but whoever comes into our house... Remember the other active thread that has close to 18,000 viewers..? All of our answers (long or short) are for everyones edification and clarification... Our teachers are doing an "excellent" job.

We don't fall into traps... We teach..! Even if there was a trap that we sometimes fall into, (don't believe there was in this case) we would "teach" through it anyway...

Greater works... for such a time as this...
_____________
Harry

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

There is no need to apologize for anything Dan... We are not only helping and teaching Torcot but whoever comes into our house... Remember the other active thread that has close to 18,000 viewers..? All of our answers (long or short) are for everyones edification and clarification... Our teachers are doing an "excellent" job.

We don't fall into traps... We teach..! Even if there was a trap that we sometimes fall into, (don't believe there was in this case) we would "teach" through it anyway...

Absolutely. We must always be wary of traps. We are here to edify one another and build each other up for times when ravenous wolves might set in.

 

[splat]

I have a monthly subscription to Believer's Voice of Victory, and just got around to reading my April magazine all the way through. In "The Faith of Abraham" pg. 6, 5th paragraph down he says "It tells us, for example, that 'through faith... the worlds were framed by the WORD of God' ". The problem I have with that is that the verse doesn't say that, it says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,"

Here is a reading taking from Hebrews 11:3 (concordant translation) which you can see from www .concordant.org/version/NewFiles/19_Hebrews.htm

3 By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is appearing.

(Note I had to add a space after www because this forum won't accept my links. Remove it before pasting in browser).

and you can compare with interlinear greek via
www .scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb11.pdf

The difficulty seems to come from translation of the word "eons" which sometimes translated as world and sometimes as age as in "eonian" (everlasting) life.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Here is a reading taking from Hebrews 11:3 (concordant translation) which you can see from www .concordant.org/version/NewFiles/19_Hebrews.htm

3 By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is appearing.

(Note I had to add a space after www because this forum won't accept my links. Remove it before pasting in browser).

and you can compare with interlinear greek via
www .scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb11.pdf

The difficulty seems to come from translation of the word "eons" which sometimes translated as world and sometimes as age as in "eonian" (everlasting) life.

Why do you say eons is the issue? In Greek aion (αἰῶνας) simply means "an age" and sometimes it is implied to mean "the world." The word aionios (αἰώνιον), which derives from aion, means perpetual, eternal, and is used throughout the NT in combination with zoe (ζωὴν) -- life -- for "everlasting life." (Don't pull aionios (eonian) into Heb 11:3, though, it is a different word.)

Many times, such as Matt 6:13 it gets translated as "forever." (see also Luke 1:33, Romans 1:25, 9:5, 11:36, etc. (there's dozens and dozens) -- forever, ever and ever)

In Hebrews 11:3 what is being talked about it God's formation of the universe. It is less clear, although perfectly accurate, to say that He formed the eons (or ages), for that certainly would include everything "in" those eons (all the stuff). A little more understandable to use "worlds."

But in this thread I think we are all in agreement that "God formed the worlds (eons)."

 

[torcot]

Wasn't it rather obvious to all the purpose/intent behind torcot posting this thread. Yet you guys had to fall right into his trap and start disagreeing among yourselves. Do you think your many lengthy replies in any way changed the opinion of torcot . He possibly see the lengthy expository of disagreement as unsettling and reminiscence of his own church.

I have been away and didn't know this thread reached the point where it is today. The original intention of posting my thread was to alert men to what I clearly see as a problem, I still see it as a problem. To me Copeland is changing the context of the verse in order to support his theology. I have left churches over this issue. God's word is exactly that, God's word, and altering it in any way to fit my way of thinking I think is comparable to heresy. These men, though disagreeing with one another, have been trying to explain Copeland's reasoning behind his actions. They are attempting to answer my question "Can someone explain why he would leave out those two words?"