My Journal

It was Abe Cho. Scripture lesson was from 2 Peter 1:12-21.

Cho connected the "cleverly devicsed stories (mythology)" in 16th verse to Christ's transfiguration (v. 17-18), instead of resurrection. But I see it unnecessary to compare that with resurrection. Cho's 3 points: What is the Bible. Why do we need the Bible. What does the Bible do. I see no clarity in referencing those points.

When he touched on the subject of extra-biblical word revelation (which is the specialty of the Charismatics, of course he didn't say that), he did not come outright to disagree with it but instead, he described HOW one should read the Bible as how to fit into God's world instead of trying to look for how to live from the Bible.

I therefore observed that the Young Restless and Reformed pastors love to approach controversies not by changing the topics (that's the evangelicals' specialty), but "mutate" the subject in a subtle way to get the reformed "message" (not correction) across, but so subtle that the opponents of the message almost certainly cannot discern what has been said. Therefore, nobody was convicted, nothing has changed except that the "preachers" were convinced that they had preached what they were called for.

Son of a pastor (John Chang - who also said martial arts is evil), from the Siloam Reformed Church in Flushing, Queens, once said, don't think about the world, no politics, no borders, just think about the Kingdom of God.

Miroslav Volf would refute his statement:

Christians can never be first of all Asians or Americans, Russians or Tutsis, and then Christians. At the very core of Christian identity lies an all-encompassing change of loyalty, from a given culture with its gods to the God of all cultures... When they respond to the call of the gospel they have stepped, as it were, with one foot outside their culture while the other remains firmly planted in it. They are distant, yet they belong.

(Taken from Redeemer Presbyterian Church West Side service Reflection on May 11 2014)

Lev 25:1-7

The concept of a Sabbath Year is not a rest for oneself, but for the land. Westerners love to take this wrongly as a holiday for themselves, calling the opponents of this workaholics.

This signify letting others rest, considering others, not a selfish rest. Not to write a book or go on a research tour. If they really want to keep arguing, then they must not take wages during their sabbatical.

Chapter 1-8

Briefly read.

Note of interest:

Philistines were from the Island of Crete (disputed by some, but Britannica gave Crete more credit), Aegean people. (Remnants of the coast of Caphtor - Jeremiah 47:4) They were not native to Canaan.

Through young Samuel, God warned Eli of his fatherhood, but his response: "...let him do what is good in his eyes" (3:18). This is seen in today's churches where the seniors deal with issues in a liberal manner and pastors allow this to happen.

After first defeat, the Israelite brought out the Ark, and the Philistines were afraid at first, but they had no other choice, so they manned up and fought to victory, taking the Ark.

Phinehas' wife had a son, Ichabod, named by the mother while dying, to lament the lost of the Ark. (4:21)

The Ark was troubling the Philistines, so they sent it on cows to Beth Shemesh, of the Israelites. To see if the omen was of God's or of chance. On it, were guilt offerings of 5 gold tumors (as they were plagued by God in such) and 5 gold rats, according to 5 of their cities: Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron.

I supposed 6:19 is what influenced the Indiana Jones movie. There are debates whether God struck 50,070 or only 70, even though the Levites were there to handle the Ark. They number 50k is perhaps too great for Beth Shemesh, as some believe. 50,070 could have included the Philistines, or the Israelites who died in battles. I could accept either only 70 or more to include the Philistines, as long as it has to do with the Ark, not the battles. Whether there were Philistines touching the Ark as Uzzah, I see it matters not if God would strike them or not for they were not the law bearers.

Kiriath Jearim took the Ark eventually due to fear of it in Beth Shemesh. A levite Eleazar was consecrated to guard it.

During Samuel's burnt offering of a suckling lamb at Mizpah, the Philistines attacked. Israelites did not react but kept praying Samuel to continue the sacrifice. God came to their aid (7:10) with loud thunder, causing them panic. Then, the Israelites slaughtered them.

It appears that the Israelites even took back Ekron and Gath (7:14). Samuel led a good defense, contrasting with King David, against the Philistines. Israel also became friends with the Amorites after they help rescuing their territories from the Philistines.

Samuel traveled like Pak Tong, from Bethel to Gilgal to Mizpah to Ramah (his home). The late Eli was in Shiloh.

Because his sons were wicked, Samuel was not trusted with his natural successors. But ultimately, it was up to God (8:7): it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. This reminds me of Michael Liu's case, when many sought against him and Pak Tong. They did not care for God's will, only their logic of who Pak Tong's successor should be. Whether Michael Liu would be successor or not, it matters not, because it was not what Rev. Stephen Tong intented. His intention was to take care of Michael Liu (Matthew 18:10, Matthew 25:40) while other pastor/elder "kick" him out. In other words, Pak Tong was doing the job of some of those who criticize him for taking too much care of Michael Liu. I am doing some of their job of teaching their younglings as well. May God have mercy on us all. All they care about is to judge who is not suitable to be leader, because they think they know better, even than God, they want a human king, they praise men that they like, they scorn at those they like not. They liked Pak Tong then, they like him not now. They are the king, not God.

The warning against wanting a king discredits anti-civ.'s claim that Christianity (religion) brought elements of civilization that they frowned upon: control power, centralized government power, taxes, etc.