Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by hawg_427, Dec 28, 2007.
Has anybody watched to Les Feldick teach the Bible on TV? If so what is your impression?
I have enjoyed his program. Also check out his website. His view of how sin did not come from Mary's nature, but through Adam's was a bit odd for me.
That might make a good thread.
What is odd in your eyes about sin coming from Adam instead of Mary?
He may have meant to type "Eve", rather than "Mary".
It's been a long time since I read this, so I had to do some research to find it.
Here is an excerpt:
Here is the link
Aarrrrggggh! That is pure hogwash.
Preachers ought to preach truth from the word.
They shouldn't force science into supporting their points.
Physiologically speaking an infants blood is all its own.
However an infants blood is formed from genetic material from both the father and the mother.
I've never heard of Les Feldick but if this is his stuff I'd have to wonder.
Like I said, I thought it was odd. :laugh:
Maybe he's right, I don't know, but it sounds rather "out there".
I've never read anything in the Bible to support it.
//Physiologically speaking again, there is none of the mother's blood
that ever becomes part and parcel of that little baby.
The blood comes from the father. Always remember that!//
Amen, Brother Deacon Rob -- Preach it! :thumbs:
This statement: "blood comes from the father"
is the determining factor of Caste in Hindu
Doctrine. Those who teach "blood comes
from the father" are teaching Hindu Doctrine
NOT Christian Doctrine.
I've read the Holy Bible several times since i've
been a Christian the past 55 years.
I never found even a hint that the
"blood comes from the father".
It's a fairly old and common view. It's originator may be M. R. DeHaan, a medical doctor turned well known Bible teacher, in his book The Chemistry of the Blood (1943). His view actually was that blood does not appear until after fertilization, so in that sense the baby receives no blood from its mother. He connects this (p. 31 ff) with the federal headship view of how Adam's sin is imputed to us, and thus the creationist view of how the soul is formed--that is, directly by God each time rather than being imparted from the parents. Thus, Christ was humanly without a sin nature because his blood, as received through the Holy Spirit's action in the virgin birth, was untainted.
Interesting. Martin DeHaan certainly has a stellar reputation in the evangelical world.
Whether Felick is correct or not about this particular topic, I would recommend him to anyone. I used to watch his TV broadcast and have resourced his web-site many times. An excellant teacher of the scriptures, imo.
Right! So DeHaan is not an off-the-wall guy doing the theorizing. (I don't know about Felick--until he comes to Japan and I have to know!) I vaguely remember this view being taught growing up in the 1950's & 1960's, and no one thought it was weird. In fact, much of what he wrote in this book was based on the fact that "the life of the flesh is in the blood," so we need to study that more deeply.
I think this may be one place where feminism and its drive for perfect equality has an influence on our thinking. Not that I am saying anyone on this thread is a feminist, but our society does influence our theology sometimes. In this case, though, DeHaan is saying that the sin nature comes through the male. Seems like feminists would like that! :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:
Les Feldick is a good teacher and like alot of good teachers, they are sometimes faulty on some things. That doesn't make them a bad teacher on one bad thought. I'm not saying Les's view of the blood is right or wrong. I've saw flaws in several very good teachers, yet they have good teachings also. We have to use a Bible and a diserning mind sometimes to sort through some stuff. I will venture out and say Luther,Spurgeon, Calvin and Arminus(sp?) had flawed teachings mixed with good.