I have a problem with an article Kenneth Copeland wrote

[CindyisHis]

God's word is exactly that, God's word, and altering it in any way to fit my way of thinking I think is ........

I love this!

 

[CindyisHis]

"Can someone explain why he would leave out those two words?"

Well, I don't know. I guess you would just have to ask him!

I can empathize with you about not understanding why someone said or didn't say something. But also found that I sat with a troubled mind the whole time. Why waste your energy on something you may never find the answer to? Sometimes in life wisdom lies in asking the right questions.

I know that doesn't help you at all for the moment. Just tuck it away and maybe one day it will be useful to you.

As for Copeland, ask the Lord who He wants you to listen to, and then hook up with them. If it is him, then set that aside for now. The answer may come in time. If you ask the Lord to talk to you about it He certainly will. But you had better want to hear from Him.

I have heard Copeland say things I don't agree with entirely, or at the least am unsure of and yet I am one of his partners, for hey, it's 30 years now! Wow! Where has the time gone? Yeah, I am a partner, and I can say this ministry has blessed me countless times, daily, over all these years. I don't get uptight over every little thing. Gee, if I did then I would have a miserable marriage, hate my job, worry about my kids, and be nit-picking at everybody!

Copeland is genuine. He is a great teacher, and I am built up because he brings the Word to the table. And lets not forget Gloria. She's just as wonderful.

We are called to listen and join with different people. Some here really like Andrew Wommack. I have the dearest of friends at church who is partnering with him. I can't seem to listen to him. I know he preaching the Word and I am all for him. I'm just not called to listen to him. Hagee is another. Great teacher, not my cup of tea. Yet, I honor these men. I have the greatest respect for them, I really do.

I doubt you're going to find anyone to who can tell you why he left out two words.

And don't even try to come in here to the WoF section and bash him. Don't think about going there. Not that you would..........

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Gee, if I did then I would have a miserable marriage, hate my job, worry about my kids, and be nit-picking at everybody!

Boy, and where would I be in your book. Thank God for your patience!!

Copeland is genuine. He is a great teacher, and I am built up because he brings the Word to the table. And lets not forget Gloria. She's just as wonderful.

Amen and amen!

And don't even try to come in here to the WoF section and bash him. Don't think about going there. Not that you would..........

Is that a rolling pin in your hands?? Duck!!!!

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

To me Copeland is changing the context of the verse in order to support his theology. I have left churches over this issue.

As I've said I agree that writing it the way he did changes the focus of the word "faith." But to be fair, Copeland is teaching not strictly about this verse, but about the Blessing. In this section you point out he is talking about how the whole universe was created through His Word by the faith of God.

While I agree that he changed the focus of the word "faith" he did nothing heretical. The teaching still stands as is. God's faith produced this universe through the Word of God. He said light be and light was -- by faith. He spoke the world into existence -- by faith. His faith-filled Word brought all this into the visible from the invisible.

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.

So, I think that you are being a bit meladramatic here. Have you read the discussion between Dan and myself. If so, you can see I have gone to great lengths to push just what you say in the first part of your statement here: God's word is exacting and we need to read it for what it says. Yes, I agree. And I wish Cope would have simply left out the "through faith" part of his quote and we wouldn't be here in this discussion.

But to call it heresy is going a few yards too far down the road.

Besides, like Cindy said. If you get this critical about too many things, and dismiss them or leave them -- you'll be out of everything with no friends to boot, and your dog will hate your and your cat won't come home.

This is an article in a magazine (albeit adapted from a new book). The writer (cope) is focused on telling you about the faith of God in creation. Perhaps he missed the nuance that you caught here. It happens. Perhaps his editor put it back in thinking that it would be more explanatory. Don't know. Again, like Cindy said: ask him!

As far as the discussion, I don't know it is any longer about explaining the missing words as it is about how we are reading the Word, with both of us explaining our reasons for reading it the way we do. Rightly dividing. Learning from each other. Growing in knowledge.

Praise God for this forum. And praise God for teachers like Copeland for all he teaches us from his God blessed ministry. Don't let one or two words (missing as they are) be a splinter in your eye ... or worse.

 

[torcot]

To be perfectly honest I am not a fan of Copeland. I went to his Southwest Believers Convention last year and got a bad vibe from him. I grew up in churches where you could go up to the pastor and talk to him like he was your grandpa. I watched as Copeland took the stage day after day with his own personal body guard surround the stage. Even the large churches in my area (there are some pretty big ones) the pastor doesn't have his own body guards. The churches I grew up in, even the big one, the pastor was happy to meet with you on your level, my family even went to lunch with him a couple of times and his church now has in the vicinity of 2600 people going to it every sunday (at the time it was more like 1500) and we were just ordinary members. He knew our names and everything.

I admit this very well may make me quite biased when I read his articles but that doesn't change the point of my post. It appears to me that he purposely changed the meaning of the text in order to support his theological conclusion. Even if his theological conclusion is correct, to me changing a verse (or its intended meaning) is VERY dangerous.

 

[dkbwarrior]

To be perfectly honest I am not a fan of Copeland. I went to his Southwest Believers Convention last year and got a bad vibe from him. I grew up in churches where you could go up to the pastor and talk to him like he was your grandpa. I watched as Copeland took the stage day after day with his own personal body guard surround the stage. Even the large churches in my area (there are some pretty big ones) the pastor doesn't have his own body guards. The churches I grew up in, even the big one, the pastor was happy to meet with you on your level, my family even went to lunch with him a couple of times and his church now has in the vicinity of 2600 people going to it every sunday (at the time it was more like 1500) and we were just ordinary members. He knew our names and everything.

I understand what you are saying. However, just because their is a large church in a particular geographic area, doesn't mean that they are known world wide, or that many people outside of that area have ever heard of them. You have to keep in mind that Kenneth Copeland is on TBN, Daystar and God TV daily, (plus many others). These networks combined cover nearly every square inch of the world with their satallite signals, and their are few poeple on the planet that have not heard of him. This level of fame brings it own dangers for anyone, but ESPECIALLY those that are in the ministry preaching the gospel. There is more than one person on this planet that would like to see him dead, of that you can be sure. Think of those that wanted Jesus dead, and then wanted the apostles dead. This desire among those that are lost has not dissapated in our generation.

Keep in mind that even Jesus used his disciples as a type of bodygaurd. And the more famous He bacame, the more He depended on them to perform that function. Remember the disciples trying to keep people with children from bothering Jesus? They obviously had a role to play in protecting His ability to have solitude. And it was not just children that they ran interference from (which Jesus later chastised them for). Rmember those trying to see Jesus on his entrance into Jerusalam before the final passover:

20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.
-John 12:20-22

This is something that becomes neccesary because of a persons postion of fame, nothing else. If Jesus had to do it, is it unreasonable to think that others may have to also?

I admit this very well may make me quite biased when I read his articles but that doesn't change the point of my post. It appears to me that he purposely changed the meaning of the text in order to support his theological conclusion. Even if his theological conclusion is correct, to me changing a verse (or its intended meaning) is VERY dangerous.

Well, let me say first off that the New Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek. Therefore changing the english translation isn't neccesarily trying to change the scripture.

Secondly, leaving out a portion of scripture can sometimes be helpful. For instance, if I were making the point that God sent Jesus to die for whosoever, that whosoever could have eternal life, I may quote a partial of John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever....may have eternal life.
-John 3:16

Am I trying to change the scripture? Not at all. Did I leave the words "...believeth in Him should not perish..." out because I don't think that one needs to believe? Or because I do not believe that people will perish if they don't believe? Not at all. It is just that those are not the issues I am focusing on in my lesson. So I only quoted the part of the verse that sheds light on what I am teaching. This is hardly nefarious, nor is it trying to change the scripture. It is just trying to focus on the point that I am teaching on.

But then also I would add, like Cindy alluded to earlier, not all of us can receive from everyone else. Mabey Kenneth Copeland is not the person that God has for you to receive from. There are plenty of us that teach the same (or very similar) things that Copeland teaches, that are not know world wide, and that you can eat dinner with, and that you can shake hands with after service, and that don't have body gaurds at our services. Mabey one of them is a better fit?

You would do much better from a spiritual standpoint to search out someone that you can recieve from, rather than keep studying from someone that you already admittedly have a bias against, and find yourself looking for things to disagree with them on. That is not a good place to be, spiritually. There are alot of men that I don't listen to that others receive from. I am careful not to judge them though, or to be critical of them. Because we are called to be believers, not judgers. Now, if someone is way off in left field, and preaching obvious heresy, that is different. But if it is a matter of personality, or presentation, or charisma, etc, just move on to someone that you fell more comfortable with.

Peace...

 

[Wayaok]

To be perfectly honest I am not a fan of Copeland. I went to his Southwest Believers Convention last year and got a bad vibe from him. I grew up in churches where you could go up to the pastor and talk to him like he was your grandpa. I watched as Copeland took the stage day after day with his own personal body guard surround the stage. Even the large churches in my area (there are some pretty big ones) the pastor doesn't have his own body guards. The churches I grew up in, even the big one, the pastor was happy to meet with you on your level, my family even went to lunch with him a couple of times and his church now has in the vicinity of 2600 people going to it every sunday (at the time it was more like 1500) and we were just ordinary members. He knew our names and everything.

I admit this very well may make me quite biased when I read his articles but that doesn't change the point of my post. It appears to me that he purposely changed the meaning of the text in order to support his theological conclusion. Even if his theological conclusion is correct, to me changing a verse (or its intended meaning) is VERY dangerous.

When I was a Baptist and baptized in my 20s, I always wondered why the pastor or adult Sunday School teacher hardly ever preached or taught from the Book of Acts. When I read through Acts I always got the vibes that the Power of God was just as relevant and necessary for spreading the Good News for every generation going on nearly 2000 years. The same with the Good News in Paul's epistles. Then I learned the vast majority of Baptist believers as well as many evangelicals are cessationists.

It wasn't that many years ago that Billy Graham is supposed to have commented that he was saddened that his denomination didn't believe in speaking in 'tongues' for intercessory prayer as led by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with some of what you say above. Kenneth E. Hagin never had a body guard when I absorbed all ten sessions of his teaching/preaching just a few years before he went to be with the Lord. I've been getting the WOF magazine (from Rhema-Kenneth E. Hagin's Bible School) since 2002, and never to my knowledge have they ever once made mention of Kenneth Copeland as being a speaker at any of their conferences or listing any of his books for purchase. In the latest August WOF issue they listed all their affilliated churches in America and worldwide. I'll have to check again, but I couldn't find that they listed the churches associated with the most prominent/notable men now associated with today's WOF movement.

I had considered myself more WOF than any other so-called denomination when I first started posting at CF. However, since coming aboard I've learned that some of the current WOF theology is different from that of Kenneth E. Hagin. That is what is so great about the internet and these Christian forums is that you can find out what's going on in Christiandom and what changes may be taking place within certain denominations.

 

[CindyisHis]

Is that a rolling pin in your hands?? Duck!!!!

No, it's an iron skillet!

Honestly, I'd contact a mod.

 

[Wayaok]

No, it's an iron skillet!

Honestly, I'd contact a mod.

I haven't read the post yet from whence came your post ... it sounds like some mockery. I have not made any mocking comments in any of my posts. If I misread your above intent please accept my apology.

As I said before ... "I believe that WOF is for all believers."

If you and others disagree with some of brother Hagin's theology it should not result in belittling a fellow WOF believer. Bob and dkdwarrior had some very lengthy disagreements on this thread. For all the discussion, torcot still believes the same ... even though I agree with you and others that torcot is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

My post above is the truth ... there is no mockery. If you and others believe Rhema's WOF beliefs and their disconnection with today's WOF leaders should not be mentioned just say so. We all are WOF so we should be able to get along on this forum even if we agree to disagree as do dkd and Bob.

I love you as a sister in Christ and hold no animosity toward you or Bob or anyone else here. If anything it just gives me more reason to love you all that much more.

 

[CindyisHis]

Oh dear.

Way, I wasn't talking to you at all, I was having fun with Bob, to lighten things up. Please don't take me seriously. It originated from a point I was making - to NOT bash Copeland here.

I stand with Bob, Dan, Harry, and you.

 

[hhodgson]

Bob and dkdwarrior had some very lengthy disagreements on this thread. For all the discussion, torcot still believes the same ... even though I agree with you and others that torcot is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Yes, Wayaok... Bob and Dan "have had" some disagreements on some issues, we all do, however... the end result is that they are actually closer in their thinking then you are giving them credit for... and as for torcot, if he continues to believe the way he does, that will be his "choice.." He admitted he was "quite bias" in his opinion, and he had that coming in here... He needs to renew his mind, as we all have to do to rightly divide the word of truth as we are all learning... This thread by torcot may very well be interpreted by "some" as a mountain out of a mole hill... However, there is almost 1,000 viewers that have a great interest in all of our answers that were presented "long or short." This forum is not about proving who is right or wrong, it is about others who are "behind the scenes" seeking the truth themselves, (including me), and we are all gleaning through the responses, and yes... not all of the answers from our teachers will be "agreeable" to everyones liking, that's obvious, but after we "sift and glean" through them, then we can make our choice in what we choose to believe...

Yes, torcot may continue to believe the same, but let's remember that this is not all about him, but let's ask the 1,000 vewers that are behind the scenes, if they are learning anything to enhance what they believe...


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

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

I haven't read the post yet from whence came your post ...

Perhaps you should, bro. It wasn't from nor about you.

We all are WOF so we should be able to get along on this forum even if we agree to disagree as do dkd and Bob.

Just a note: it would be dkb

Second, and I don't wish to continue to sound gritty here (I really just want to move forward in discussion with you involved), but what exactly do you mean by WOF quoted here? You confuse me. In one post you sound so antagonistic toward Word/Faith and then in this post you talk of Hagin and Rhema and use WOF inclusive of yourself.... Could you define what WOF is to you?

 

[Wayaok]

removed previous quote from a precious sister in Christ as unnecessary​

 

[Wayaok]

deleted again due to my own righteous stupidity again ... hopefully I've learned my lesson ​

 

[Wayaok]

This 8 page thread reminds us all (YES, me too) of Job and his friends each putting forth their own righteousness with some of the posts in this thread being quite lengthy. Maybe we all need to learn from Optimax's brevity and even knowing what threads not to even entertain. We all know of instances when there is a slipup by a proofreader/publisher. To err is human so don't be too quick to pin this on Kenneth. Let's look at the scripture.

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. Heb 11:3

Through faith ... the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

If for some reason three dots were inserted (which I highly doubt was the case) in the article scripture then torcot has a valid point. If this was the case I still wouldn't be too quick to jump/judge all over Kenneth Copeland as no faith group is exempt from making a mistake. Rather see if you can possibly get some insight into this error. Maybe, there's actually something to be learned here. It got me to thinking that our own understanding (Prov. 3:5-6) can sometimes be a determent to achieving the real God-kind of mountain moving faith.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths."​

This takes understanding of the Word with the help of His Living Word in us to grow our faith; whereas our own understanding or we might say, the world's understanding can actually diminish and even corrupt the measure of faith we may have in His Word (BIBLE) ... if we aren't abiding in Christ and Christ in us.

 

[Shepherd1]

deleted again due to my own righteous stupidity again ... hopefully I've learned my lesson ​

Hi Wayaok

There are many ways to post in a forum, one such way is to post a topic, and then allow the conversation to transpire, without any interferences with those whom are posting - especially when they are members of the particular forum you are posting in. It is when you start to criticise the members of that forum, that you are walking on shaky ground. Let's try to keep it all friendly and respectful, because you will never ever meet another human being who has exactly the same viewpoints as you. God created us all differently, to be the unique individuals that we are, so that He in His great wisdom can direct us, use us and inspire us in any way that He chooses - to fit His purposes and not ours. Please keep this in mind when you are posting and we'll all get along famously... Remember, brotherly (and sisterly) love at all times...

Thanks and God bless...

Shep

 

[dkbwarrior]

I personally still have some issues that I want to thresh out in this thread. They are:

1. The definition of unseen things;
2. The need for two or three witnesses when interpreting scripture;
3. Whether Hope comes from man or God.

I don't have the time right now to address all three. But I wanted to state these before I forgot.

Peace...

 

[dkbwarrior]

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.

This is kinda the crux of the point. You actually said it yourself in the above statement, then went one to explain it differently. Our hope (noun) is "our desire". The manifestation of our hope (noun) that we are hoping (verb) for is not the invisible thing, in the sense that it exists like wonder womans invisible plane, we just cant see it or touch it. The thing that we are hoping for is an invisible thing in the sense that it exists only as a hope; that is, as a picture in our mind, a concept, an idea, a blueprint; or, as you said, desire. And that is the definition of hope. In fact, usually the manifestation of what we are hoping for already exists in the natural world, we simply do not yet have possession or ownership of it, therefore it cannot be invisible.

Let me give an example to clarify what I mean. If we are believing God for finances, there are not invisible dollar bills floating around that we are trying to use our faith to manifest. I'm sure we have all heard the analogy that God is not a counterfeiter. He is not printing faith dollars for us. If He did, what serial numbers would He put on them? Would that be like the Fed printing money? Can we blame Him then for the devaluation of the dollar? (I know that you don't believe that, just having some fun!) No, faith isn't the substance of some invisible dollars bills. Faith is the substance of our HOPE; that is, the idea, concept, picture or desire to have enough money to pay our bills.

If we are believing God for our daily bread, are their invisible loaves of bread floating around, that we cannot see, just waiting for our faith to manifest? No, faith isn't the substance of some invisible loaves of bread floating around. Faith is the substance of our HOPE; that is, the idea, concept, picture or desire that we have of our hunger being filled.

No, these things that we are believing God for are invisible because they exist only in thought form. They exist in our mind, in the form of ideas, concepts, pictures, or blueprints; what we call hope. These invisible things are our HOPE. (The Bible also calls this light. Light and Hope are synonyms in the Bible, because it is light that gives us direction, shows us where we are going.) Now, the term things not seen is used in Hebrews 11:1 as a synonym for what HOPE does:

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

Let me break it down this way so that you can get a clearer idea of what I am saying:

1. Faith is the substance..........of things..........hoped for...
2. Faith is the evidence............of things..........not seen...

Here, the phrase not seen, or invisible (I think we are in agreement that what is not seen is invisible) is used as a synonym for the phrase hoped for.

Of course hoped is a verb. A verb describes the action of a noun. The noun that hoped for describes is HOPE itself, which is a noun, that is, a thing. The thing that is hoped for is our HOPE. We could say it this way, (though it wouldn't be proper English) that Hope hopes. That is what hope (the noun) does, it hopes (the verb). It sounds odd because in this case both the verb and the noun are essentially the same word.

With the word Faith it is clearer, because Faith is the noun, and Believe (the verb) is what we do with our Faith. Faith Believes. But Hope Hopes, if you follow my logic.

In other words it is hope itself that is the things we cannot see. What the writer is referring to as invisible here is not the manifestation itself, which may or may not already exist, (and therefore may well not be invisible); but the picture, the concept, idea or blueprint that we have in our mind; that is, our HOPE.

Therefore HOPE itself is the invisible things that are being referred to here.

This also makes perfect sense when combined with Pauls statement:

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?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
-Romans 8:24-25

Here Paul uses hope as a noun in verse 24, and then as a verb in verse 25. Essentially he is saying that 'Hope (noun) that is unseen is what we hope (verb) for, and patiently wait for...', because 'Hope that is seen is not hope'. It can sound confusing because the word HOPE is again being used both as a noun and a verb in the sentence. We have to determine from the sentence structure itself which is which. It might be easier to use a synonym for the noun here to clarify the meaning. Like this: "The picture in our mind that is unseen is what we hope for...".

Therefore, HOPE itself is the unseen thing that is being referred to here.

Peace...

 

[now faith]

This is kinda the crux of the point. You actually said it yourself in the above statement, then went one to explain it differently. Our hope (noun) is "our desire". The manifestation of our hope (noun) that we are hoping (verb) for is not the invisible thing, in the sense that it exists like wonder womans invisible plane, we just cant see it or touch it. The thing that we are hoping for is an invisible thing in the sense that it exists only as a hope; that is, as a picture in our mind, a concept, an idea, a blueprint; or, as you said, desire. And that is the definition of hope. In fact, usually the manifestation of what we are hoping for already exists in the natural world, we simply do not yet have possession or ownership of it, therefore it cannot be invisible.

Let me give an example to clarify what I mean. If we are believing God for finances, there are not invisible dollar bills floating around that we are trying to use our faith to manifest. I'm sure we have all heard the analogy that God is not a counterfeiter. He is not printing faith dollars for us. If He did, what serial numbers would He put on them? Would that be like the Fed printing money? Can we blame Him then for the devaluation of the dollar? (I know that you don't believe that, just having some fun!) No, faith isn't the substance of some invisible dollars bills. Faith is the substance of our HOPE; that is, the idea, concept, picture or desire to have enough money to pay our bills.

If we are believing God for our daily bread, are their invisible loaves of bread floating around, that we cannot see, just waiting for our faith to manifest? No, faith isn't the substance of some invisible loaves of bread floating around. Faith is the substance of our HOPE; that is, the idea, concept, picture or desire that we have of our hunger being filled.

No, these things that we are believing God for are invisible because they exist only in thought form. They exist in our mind, in the form of ideas, concepts, pictures, or blueprints; what we call hope. These invisible things are our HOPE. (The Bible also calls this light. Light and Hope are synonyms in the Bible, because it is light that gives us direction, shows us where we are going.) Now, the term things not seen is used in Hebrews 11:1 as a synonym for what HOPE does:

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

Let me break it down this way so that you can get a clearer idea of what I am saying:

1. Faith is the substance..........of things..........hoped for...
2. Faith is the evidence............of things..........not seen...

Here, the phrase not seen, or invisible (I think we are in agreement that what is not seen is invisible) is used as a synonym for the phrase hoped for.

Of course hoped is a verb. A verb describes the action of a noun. The noun that hoped for describes is HOPE itself, which is a noun, that is, a thing. The thing that is hoped for is our HOPE. We could say it this way, (though it wouldn't be proper English) that Hope hopes. That is what hope (the noun) does, it hopes (the verb). It sounds odd because in this case both the verb and the noun are essentially the same word.

With the word Faith it is clearer, because Faith is the noun, and Believe (the verb) is what we do with our Faith. Faith Believes. But Hope Hopes, if you follow my logic.

In other words it is hope itself that is the things we cannot see. What the writer is referring to as invisible here is not the manifestation itself, which may or may not already exist, (and therefore may well not be invisible); but the picture, the concept, idea or blueprint that we have in our mind; that is, our HOPE.

Therefore HOPE itself is the invisible things that are being referred to here.

This also makes perfect sense when combined with Pauls statement:

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?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
-Romans 8:24-25

Here Paul uses hope as a noun in verse 24, and then as a verb in verse 25. Essentially he is saying that 'Hope (noun) that is unseen is what we hope (verb) for, and patiently wait for...', because 'Hope that is seen is not hope'. It can sound confusing because the word HOPE is again being used both as a noun and a verb in the sentence. We have to determine from the sentence structure itself which is which. It might be easier to use a synonym for the noun here to clarify the meaning. Like this: "The picture in our mind that is unseen is what we hope for...".

Therefore, HOPE itself is the unseen thing that is being referred to here.

Peace...

I believe this is the most over debated verse in the Bible. Yet it is the most simple. Substance, what you need want ,desire. Hope believing God. Evidence of things not seen. The two confirm each other, it teaches that faith in its self is absolute truth.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

I believe this is the most over debated verse in the Bible. Yet it is the most simple. Substance, what you need want ,desire. Hope believing God. Evidence of things not seen. The two confirm each other, it teaches that faith in its self is absolute truth.

But it is soooooo fun!!!

Honestly, I believe that if we leave the "word" level of this study and step back up a level, Dan and I know the truth and agree for this set of verses.

And that is to manifest what God has promised and already given into our visible world through faith. Whether this be salvation, health, wealth, joy, peace....

Here we are playing at the word level to disect what this verse is actually saying. I always like to say that God's Word is like an onion. You look at it and it says something to you. Then peel back a layer and discover something more subtle. Then peel back another layer....and another... and another.... God has placed so many truths in the simplest of verses.