Most Bible Scholars will
agree that the Bible contains future
events and they will be revealed to God fearing people doing His will. Most Bible
Scholars will agree that the light of truth gets brighter as the end gets nearer.
Rev 1.1-3 1 Reads--A
revelation that God gave to Jesus
the Anointed
One
to show His slaves the things that must quickly take place. He sent it by His Messenger
to His slave John,_the_Apostle in signs. 2 And [John] testifies that everything he saw was the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus the Anointed One. 3 Those who read it aloud, as well as those who listen to the words of this prophecy and obey the things that are written in it are blest, because the time is near.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) http://bible.cc/micah/4-3.htm
Reads
Then he will judge disputes between many people and settle arguments between
many nations far and wide. They will hammer their swords into plowblades and
their spears into pruning shears. Nations will never fight against each other,
and they will never train for war again. http://bible.cc/micah/4-3.htm
Use the Best
Bibles Why?
Make No Mistake about It--The Best Bibles Give YOU a Better Chance at Gaining Salvation—
If you believe something that is printed wrong YOU are being mislead and will not gain Salvation 1-Peter-3-15.htm
Preview GodtheSon & GODorgod--and also see Foot-Notes and 70-John-1-1-Truths --LiesIfYouBelieveTheologiclalLiesYouDieLikeAdam
Contact Us BBP by Writing to The librarian@simplebibletruths.net--70-John-1-1-Truths-- Open Satan Has Conquered The Churches Of Christendom How So.htm Best Bibles ByThe Newest Dates Are For more Bibles open http://www.bestbiblesplus.com/
(1) 2001 Translation 2001/2006+ E-Mail Contact jimwheeler@ij.net
But 5% makes a big difference (2) New Simplified Bible (NSB) 2003 Online Open http://biblephone.net/www/en17
in Biblical Theology (3) Nazarene 2000- 2000+ Bible Commentary
BiblePublishingDiscussionsPlus (4) New World Translation--NWT is 1950/1984 open e/contact or WT Experts at 33.htm
Compare BiblePunctuationMarksPLUS.
Compare TrinitarianBiasTestPLUSmore
and YOU can also Write The Librarian at SBT for what else we
have on the subject that you are interested in librarian@simplebibletruths.net.
Open 120 Years
Allah the Moon God (contributed)
Animals Our Wards (a contributed poem)
Arrangement of the First Christian Churches
Christians, Jews, Moslems, and the Bible
Church, Congregation, Synagogue, or Called Ones?
Coming, Presence, or Nearness?
Does the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?
God’s Promise of an Inheritance
Isaiah 24 - Is It Speaking of Armageddon?
Jerusalem and ‘the Israel of God’
Jerusalem's Destruction – 587 or 607 (contributed)
Similarities between the Exodus and the Events of Revelation
The Bible’s Internal Proof of its Authentic History
The Dark Ages (contributed)
The Faithful and Sensible Slave
The Importance of Being the Firstborn
The Passover and the Lord’s Evening Meal
The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit
The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates
The Trinity (contributed)
Who Are ‘The Other Sheep’ of John 10:16?
You’ll find three similar periods mentioned in the Revelation, yet they all represent 3-1/2 years according to the Hebrew calendar.
We
find the same prophetic periods mentioned in the book of Daniel (
What does all of this signify?
Well, 3-1/2 days is exactly half of a week, so it indicates something that is started but hasn’t been completed… or it can be the rest of a period until completion (the second half of the week). Take for example, the ministry of Jesus. It lasted for exactly three-and-a-half years, and thereafter, it appears that there were three-and-a-half years between his death and the conversion of the first gentiles. So in this case, the periods seem to indicate the time of offering the kingdom to the Jews exclusively, and how long it would be thereafter before the opportunity would be offered to others.
Of
course, the three-and-a-half years of Jesus’ ministry were also the last
appeals to the people of
Of
course, Daniel seemed to be speaking of our time, when the last great world
empire would ‘change times and laws’ for 3-1/2 years. And since the Revelation
appears to have been written after the destruction of
Will we try to tell you what all of this means? No, we’ll leave this in the hands of speculators. Just recognize that there is a 3-1/2 year beginning, followed by a later 3-1/2 year conclusion. So if we identify an ending, we must also find what 3-1/2 year period started it.
In other translations, 1 John 5:7, 8 reads, ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.’ However, Bible manuscripts that were written prior to the Eleventh Century C.E (A.D.) read quite differently. So, it appears as though someone who wanted to provide scriptural backing to the Trinity doctrine changed this verse about 1,000 years after John penned it.
As you can see from the context of John the Fifth Chapter, the three witness-bearers are the water (baptism), the Breath (Gr. pneuma – the Breath of God), and the (shed) blood (of Jesus). Changing the water, the Breath, and the blood to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost would make the rest of what John wrote illogical; so that rendering is obviously spurious.
It appears as though the writer of this verse wasn’t speaking of the land fulfilling its Sabbaths, as is stated in the Greek. The Hebrew word that is used there is shavta. So in Hebrew it reads, ‘to fulfill Jehovah’s Word by Jeremiah until the ground pays off all its days of desolation, the ground will rest (heb. shavta) until seventy years are fulfilled.’
There is a special expression in the Hebrew, which means to observe or keep the Sabbath; it is ‘lishmor shabat,’ and this is not found in the Hebrew text here.
Why is this small detail important? It appears as though some have tried to twist Bible words, in order to create some compromise between it and secular chronology, which chronology is far from being 100% accurate. They are trying to convince us that the land was actually desolated for 49/50 years and not for 70 years, yet this contradictions the Bible. For, Daniel 9:2 reads: ‘I DaniEl came to understand the number of the years from the words that Jehovah had given to the Prophet JeremiJah, for there he prophesied that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years.’
The
word ‘desolate’ here, is translated from the Hebrew
word horvot (plural), which means ‘in ruins.’ So
The precise wording and meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a bit difficult to determine, and we have chosen to deviate from the thoughts expressed in other Bibles for the following reason: In Greek, the verse reads, ‘oitenes diken tisousin holethron aionion apo prosopou tou kyriou kai apo tes doxes tes iskous autou,’ or, ‘which/ones justice will/pay destruction (or ruin) ages from face of/the Lord and from the glory of/the strength of/him.’
In the New American Standard Bible (for example) this is rendered as: ‘These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.’ And this, as you can see, is an obvious mistranslation. For, not only does the word aionion not mean eternal, but being eternally destroyed is inconsistent with the thought of being sent away from the face of the Lord and from his glory and strength. In other words, the sentence just doesn’t make sense.
What Paul appears to have meant is that those who are persecuting faithful Christians will suffer the ruin of being sent away from the face of the Lord and his glory and strength for ages of time, not that they would be eternally destroyed. So, we have rendered this verse as reading: ‘[His] justice will repay them with ages of ruin away from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his strength.’
Also, notice how the proper translation of the Greek word ourano (sky, not heaven) better indicates when this justice will happen (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8): ‘And it’s a righteous thing for God to repay those who are persecuting you by crushing them, while providing relief to you who are suffering this persecution (and to us also) when the Lord Jesus is revealed in the sky with his powerful messengers in a flaming fire. Then he’ll bring vengeance upon all those who don’t know God and those who aren’t obeying the good news about our Lord Jesus.’
In
Ezekiel the Fourth Chapter, the Prophet was told to lie on his left side for
390 days to show the number of years (a day per year) from the time that the
10-tribe nation of
Our
Bible-based calculations (below) do appear to show the critic’s dates of
But,
doesn’t moving the date of
KINGS
OF ISRAEL:
JeroBoam 970-948 22-yrs (1 Kings 14:20)
Nadab 948-946 2-yrs (1 Kings 15:25)
BaAsha 946-922 24-yrs (1 Kings 15:33)
ElAh 922-920 2-yrs (1 Kings 16:8)
Zimri 920 7 days (1 Kings 16:15)
Tibni 920
Omri 920-908 12-yrs (1 Kings 16:23)
Ahab 908-886 22-yrs (1 Kings 16:29)
AhaziJah 2-yrs (1 Kings 22:52)
JehoRam 884-872 12-yrs (2 Kings 3:1)
Jehu 872-844 28-yrs (2 Kings 10:36)
JehoAhaz 844-827 17-yrs (2 Kings 13:1)
JehoAsh 827-811 16-yrs (2 Kings 13:10)
JeroBoam II 811-770 41-yrs (2 Kings 14:23)
ZechariJah 770 .5-yrs (2 Kings 15:8)
ShalLum 770 .12-yrs (2 Kings 15:13)
Menahem 770-760 10-yrs (2 Kings 15:17)
PekahJah 760-758 2-yrs (2 Kings 15:23)
Pekah 758-738 20-yrs (2 Kings 15:27)
HosheA 738-729 9-yrs (2 Kings 17:1)
KINGS
OF JUDAH:
Ahaz 753-734 16-yrs. Hoshea starts rule in 12th year (in 741) (2 Kings 17:1)
and rules 9 years until Israel’s destruction (741-12=729)
HezekiJah 734-705 29-yrs (2 Kings 18:2)
ManasSeh 705-650 55-yrs (2 Kings 21:1)
Amon 650-648 2-yrs (2 Kings 21:19)
JosiJah 648-617 31-yrs (2 Kings 22:1)
JehoAhaz 617 3 months (2 Kings 23:31)
JehoiAkim 617-606 11-yrs (2 Kings 23:36)
JehoiAchin 606-598 8-yrs (2 Kings 24:12)
ZedekiJah 598-587 11-yrs (2 Kings 24:18)
However,
notice that there are differences between the lengths of rule in the Septuagint
and the Masoretic texts, and neither of the texts reflects the 40-years of
prophesied judgment on
Here
in Second Corinthians, we read how the first recorded case of official
congregational discipline of a member who was guilty of serious wrongdoing,
worked out. This had to do with a man in the congregation at
Now, in Second Corinthians, we read a follow-up letter that was likely written just a few months later, which indicates there were some positive results. So, Paul gave these recommendations (Second Corinthians 2:6, 7): ‘For, the discipline that the majority of you gave this man was sufficient. So now, kindly forgive and comfort him, that he won’t somehow be swallowed by his deep sadness.’
Notice that:
· The punishment (gr. epitimia – on/value) that was given (and which was approved by Paul) only lasted a few months
· This action apparently wasn’t supported by the whole congregation – ‘the majority (gr. pleionon – more ones) of you reached’ – but no action was recommended against those who didn’t agree with the measures
· Paul was especially concerned about the individual and wanted him to be forgiven, comforted, and shown love.
The fact is, imperfect men tend to be harsh and unloving when dealing with others who they consider to have ‘broken the rules.’ However, Paul really believed in the type of love that he wrote about at 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (in his previous letter). So, he recommended no further restrictions and he didn’t warn against any expressions of joy when the man was welcomed back into the congregation. Yet, the offense was particularly grievous and notorious.
Notice
that Paul makes no further mention of this matter thereafter. He simply
concludes by saying (at 2 Corinthians
So, Paul’s primary concern in this second letter was not about how to continue with correction and discipline, but with consoling the person, so he would remain steadfast in the congregation and he wouldn’t be lost to the Opposer.
Throughout the Christian Era Scriptures, we read of the hope that some have of being adopted as sons of God and ruling with Jesus. When does this ‘choosing’ actually happen; what are its results; and how does one know that he/she has been so adopted by God?
Well, notice Paul’s words at Romans 8:15, ‘You didn’t receive His Breath to make you slaves to fear again, for when you received it, it adopted you as His sons… so by this Breath we can call out, Papa! Father!’ From this, we can see that such individuals first receive God’s Breath, and then it ‘adopts’ them as God’s sons. And, as was true in the days of the Apostles, receiving God’s Breath appears to have manifested itself in some visible way.
Also,
this adoption appears to impart the value of a spiritual life to the
individual. For, notice that Paul also referred to such
individuals as a ‘new creation’ at Galatians
And,
once a person has received this adoption, he/she is said to become joint
‘heirs’ with Jesus. As Romans
Heirs of what? You will find this discussed in the linked document, God’s Promise of an Inheritance.
Are there any special requirements for receiving spiritual adoption? Notice that Paul adds at Romans 8:17, ‘However, we have to suffer together so we can also be glorified together.’
Now, history tells us that suffering a violent death or being greatly persecuted for their faith was true of all the Apostles, and many (if not all) the rest of the adopted sons from the First Century through the middle ages. So, is such violent physical suffering required for all who have this hope? Well, consider what Revelation 6:11 says, ‘Then they were each given a white robe and they were told to take it easy just a little while longer, until the full number of their fellow slaves and brothers was filled (who were going to be killed, as they were).’
However, nobody can say for sure that all who are adopted as sons must suffer greatly, for the ‘choosing’ and its qualifications are in the hands of God.
It appears as though the choosing and adoption of sons of God doesn’t necessarily happen at the time of their baptism. For example, in the case of the first gentile converts to Christianity (Cornelius and his family), such selection happened even before baptism, because, that’s when God’s Breath manifested itself. So, ‘baptism in the Holy Breath’ happens whenever God selects such individuals, which doesn’t necessarily come at baptism. This was also true of those baptized individuals who received God’s Breath on Pentecost of 33-C.E.
However,
Galatians
So, it appears as though ‘becoming one’ with Jesus and becoming ‘sons of God,’ occurs to all who demonstrate their faith when they are baptized. However, whether this refers to water baptism or baptism by God’s Breath, isn’t made clear here.
And although the sons of God receive the value of spiritual life when God selects them, their actual adoption comes upon the death of their fleshly bodies. Paul points this out at Romans 8:23, 24, ‘And it isn’t alone, since even we who have received the first fruitage of [God’s] Breath groan within ourselves as we anticipate being accepted as [His] sons… awaiting the ransom release of our bodies. Yes, this is the hope that’s saving us!’
According to The Complete WordStudy Dictionary, the true meaning of Matthew 5:32 (as well as similar verses in Mark and Luke) is often misconstrued due to poor translating. For, most Bibles render the words there as reading, ‘But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.’
As you can see, the implication is that any divorced woman, regardless of whether she is actually innocent of committing adultery, is deemed an adulteress when she is divorced. And anyone who thereafter marries her is then termed an adulterer. However, the dictionary mentioned above points out that these conclusions are incorrect, for they fail to recognize the subject of the sentence, which is the need to provide a rejected wife with a certificate of divorce. And when such a certificate is not given upon dismissal, it implies that she has been an adulteress. And thereafter, anyone who marries her is assumed to be an adulterer.
Notice that the Greek word often translated as divorcing, is apoluon, which simply means to loose or unbind, and it doesn't necessarily imply a legal (certificated) divorce.
Please note the following definitions:
* Fornication (gr. porneia, pronounced Por-neh-ee-ah) means, ‘that which is sold,’ and it refers to the types of illicit services that are sold by (male and female) prostitutes. So, it covers a wide range of lewd acts that one may engage in outside the marriage arrangement (but not masturbation).
* Adultery (gr. moicheia, pronounced moh-ee-keh-ee-ah) refers to an act of unfaithfulness or betrayal (not necessarily fornication).
Moicheia is a Greek word, not a Christian word. And in a male-dominated society, it was generally used to describe an unfaithful wife. However, Jesus expanded the term to include husbands who were unfaithful to their wives, and to those men who would marry someone else’s unfaithful wife.
So,
what Jesus appears to be saying at Matthew
While admitting that our view of these scriptures may be wrong (and we don't wish to mislead), the problem we have with the customary translation of these verses (and the reason why we have done further research on the meanings of these words) is that such an apparent law is the only one that we are aware of in the Bible, which identifies the victim (a faithful wife who has been unfairly released) as a sinner.
The Greek word ParaCletos (pronounced: para-clay-toss), as found at John 16:7, has been translated many ways, and we aren’t implying that these translations are wrong. However, the two words that make up this combined word are para (next to) and cletos (caller), so this combination of words appears to refer to an entity that stands next to us and calls out to God on our behalf. An online search for other meanings of ParaCletos turned up the word Lawyer, which implies someone who represents us legally, but that doesn’t seem to be what is implied in this case, so we have chosen to translate it as Advocate here, as we did at 1 John 2:1, 2.
Another view of the meaning of ParaCletos comes from an Aramaic translator, who claims that the word is of Aramaic origin, and means Savior, or, Another Savior. And we will allow that this quite different translation could be correct, because we know that Jesus didn’t actually speak the Greek word ParaCletos, since he is known to have spoken Aramaic to his Jewish disciples.
One argument that we found online, presented Jesus as being the ParaCletos, because he was called the paraclete at 1 John 2:1, 2. However, the words of Jesus himself at John 16:7 seem to dispel that theory, for he said: ‘For, if I didn’t go away, the Advocate wouldn’t come to you. But if I go, I’ll send him to you.’ In Greek this reads: ‘εαν γαρ μη απελθω ο παρακλητος ου μη ελθη προς υμας εαν δε πορευθω πεμψω αυτον προς υμας,’ or (literally), ‘if/ever for not I/should/go/off the ParaCletos not not would/come toward you. If/ever but I/should/go I/shall/send him toward you.’ And if Jesus was the ParaCletos, he would simply have said, ‘I will come to you.’
Therefore, we have assumed that the reference to Jesus being the paralete in First John was not saying that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, but this is a simple reference to the fact that Jesus is also our representative before God.
Of course, much has been made of Jesus’ use of the personal pronoun him, when speaking of the ParaCletos or God’s Holy Breath. This is because Trinitarians, in an attempt to tie him (or it) into a triune relationship with God and Jesus, like to speak of the ParaCletos as a person. So, the use of the word him here is a hotly-debated topic.
Then, what is the ParaCletos? It appears to be the Breath (or Spirit) of Jesus, and the power that makes faithful Christian one with him. We have concluded this from Paul’s words at Romans 8:9, 10, where he wrote: ‘However, if God’s Breath lives in us, we aren’t fleshly but spiritual… and whoever doesn’t have the Spirit of the Anointed One doesn’t belong to him. So, if the Anointed One is in you, your body is indeed dead through sin, but the spirit is alive through righteousness.’
So, since Jesus’ Apostles already had God’s Spirit or Breath, as did many other ancient faithful Prophets and leaders, we must assume that this Advocate (ParaCletos), which arrived on Pentecost of 33-C.E. was the Spirit of Jesus, and that it performed in an even more powerful way on behalf of early Christians, literally calling out to God on their behalf, and making them one with Jesus. However, at Acts 1:4, this Spirit or Breath was said to have come from the Father.
But then, Jesus gave a further description of this special Spirit at John 14:16, where he called it the Spirit of Truth. And at Acts 1:5, Jesus said that his disciples would be baptized in it. So, similar to the visible outpouring of God’s Spirit or Breath on Jesus at his baptism (which appears to be the point of his anointing and receiving special powers), the outpouring of Holy Spirit on Pentecost appears to be the point where the disciples were anointed, given special powers, and it is when they were born from above (John 3:3).
Two words imply infinite states in the Bible; one is the Greek word athanasia (undying), which is only found in two places, 1 Corinthians 15:53, where it mentions resurrected ones as clothing themselves with immortality, and at 1 Timothy 6:16, where Paul speaks of Jesus as having received it. The other Greek word is aidios, which is used at Romans 1:20 to describe God’s Power and Might as eternal, and at Jude 6 when speaking of the perpetual state of gloomy darkness that rebellious angels have been confined to.
However, the Greek word aionos (pronounced ai-on-oss), which is used throughout the Bible and is often translated as forever and everlasting, is what the English word eon is derived from. It means an indefinite period, and there is no exact English word to translate it. The best equivalents are age(s) or era(s).
Where
the plural form of the word (aionion) is used, it refers to a long time…
at least multiple generations. However, where the singular form is used (aionos),
this appears to mean a much shorter period, such as a lifetime, generation, or
era. And where the term ages of the ages is used (such as at Ephesians
It is noteworthy that aionos is the word that is used in the Greek Septuagint in place of the Hebrew word ohlam, which is also translated as forever and time indefinite in popular versions of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel. So, this one word (aionos) is translated as forever, everlasting, eternal, system of things, time indefinite, [end of] the world, long ago, from of old, etc. Obviously, something is very wrong here, because the word can’t mean a period having a definite end in one place and infinity in another.
Take
for example, the unique way that aionos is used in the question that Jesus’
Apostles asked him, which is found at Matthew 24:3: ‘Tell us; When will these
things happen… what will be the signs when you are to arrive and this age will
come to its conclusion?’ You can see that the word aionos obviously
doesn’t mean forever, everlasting, or eternal in this case, nor did it mean
world or system of things. It simply meant the age or, the time
before the end would come. And for them, that meant the age when God’s
The word aionos (which we have translated as age here) is also translated as world (KJ) and as system of things (NW) in other Bibles. However, if the Apostles had meant any of those words, they would have used the Greek word cosmos (world or system of things), not aionos.
The ancient Hebrews viewed everything (and rightly so) as having a beginning and an end. For that reason, you will only find three places in the Bible where words are used that imply no end, and none that imply no beginning. An interesting possible insight on the reason for this can be found at Hebrews 1:10-12, which says: ‘Long ago, O Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth and your hands made the heavens. They will destroy themselves, but you will remain. They will grow old just like clothes do. Then, as [you would do to] a robe, you will wrap them up and repair them like clothes. Yes, you are the one, and your years will never expire.’
So, notice; The Bible shows that even our universe will eventually end and need to be ‘wrapped up and repaired,’ which agrees with the conclusions of modern science.
The problem with most Bible translations is that; when they encounter the word aionos in all its different tenses, they interpret it according to accepted doctrine, not according to the way that Jesus and his disciples used it. So, the common renderings forever, eternal, and everlasting are used even when the word is in its singular forms (aioni, aiona, aionos, aionion, aionian, aionios, aioniou), and this totally distorts the meaning of the text.
Take
for example, the scripture at John
Most Bibles translate Jesus as saying that those who believe in the One who sent him will have everlasting life (or the equivalent). However, the words that Jesus used there were, zoe aionos (life age – singular), not zoe aionion (life ages – plural).
Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of these words with his next statement, ‘He won’t have to be judged, for has crossed over from death to life.’
So,
what Jesus was saying here, wasn’t that they would have everlasting life,
but that they in their current lifetime would be considered among the
living, not among the dead (see Revelation
This doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t live forever… it’s just that Jesus wasn’t really saying that. What we find (from consideration of the evidence found in the bulk of Jesus’ words about life) is that he never taught the hope of ‘life eternal,’ ‘everlasting life,’ or ‘immortality,’ in those specific words. However, the concept is still there. What he taught was that righteous people will receive ‘life in the age,’ or be considered worthy of (possibly everlasting) life by God during their current lifetimes… that their names would be written in ‘the scroll of life,’ and that they would not have to be judged, but will have already ‘crossed over from death to life,’ as Jesus said at John 5:24.
Yes, we know that this is a difficult concept to understand, but it’s what Jesus actually said.
For more information, select the linked documents, The Hereafter and Does the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?
Amen is a Hebrew word that was never really translated into English; it was just Anglicized. In Greek it is pronounced, ah-main. The reason why it was never translated is that ancient scholars were afraid to change this supposed ‘magical’ word that ensures God will listen to the prayer. However, there is no record in the Bible of anyone ending prayers with amen, although it was likely said. And the fact that others who were present said amen at the end of prayers to show that they agree, is indicated by Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 14:6.
In addition, amen isn’t said in the Bible just at the end of a prayer. Paul used the word frequently in his writings to affirm that what he was writing was, or would be, true. And that’s the literal meaning of amen as it is rendered here, ‘may it be.’
So, should Christians end their prayers with the word amen, or with the phrase, may it be? It really makes no difference. In fact, neither really has to be said for God to hear the prayer, or for Him to understand that it is concluded.
The problem with saying amen is that most people really don’t know what it means today. They think of it as just a word that you end prayers with. However, saying amen (or may it be) at the conclusion of a prayer indicates that the one praying assumes the things that were asked are as good as done… and he or she should also believe that.
In several places, we have left the word amen unchanged, for example, at Revelation 3:14, where Jesus was referred to symbolically as ‘the Amen,’ or, the ‘he who causes things to be.’
Many religious teachers have tried to draw a line between Jehovah, who they refer to as the vengeful, warring ‘God of the Old Testament,’ and the ‘God of the New Testament,’ as represented by the loving, kind actions and words of Jesus. However, if you pay close attention to the details, you’ll find the same kind, loving God in both portions of the Bible. And part of this can be seen in His requirement for animal sacrifices.
Now, for confirmed vegetarians, the thought of offering the lives of animals to God may sound repulsive. However, these sacrifices pictured something much more important; the need to bring an end to all human (and perhaps most animal) suffering and death.
Notice that the first animal sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is the one offered by Adam’s second son Abel. And although he and his brother Cain both offered sacrifices, Abel’s was the one that God found to be satisfactory. Was this because God liked Abel better than He liked Cain? That doesn’t appear to be the case. Apparently, Abel’s sacrifice was more pleasing to God because he offered a living thing, which better represented the sacrifice that God Himself would make when He offered His son’s life for mankind.
Of
interest though, are God’s kind instructions about how such sacrifices were to
be offered. For example, to show that they were being offered to God, some type
of Altar had to be constructed. What kind? Notice that God said (at Exodus
Of course, shortly thereafter, God gave the instruction to build the Sacred Tent, and it was to have an Altar. And while the Tent must have been beautiful in all its gold, the Altar was short and quite small, and made of wood and brass… because it was to be portable. So, the fires were kept small, and only animal fat and small organs, plus bread and wine, and tiny amounts of animal blood, were offered there.
Then a ‘clean’ and ‘perfect’ animal was to be slaughtered, and the rest of its flesh was usually to be roasted or boiled nearby – except where it was a ‘whole burnt offering.’ ‘Clean’ of course, meant that it was to be an edible animal, such as a calf, sheep, pigeon, or dove. And what was to happen to the meat? It was to be eaten by those who offered it, and by the priests. In other words, this was just a community barbecue with one’s neighbors and God. And what portion would God take on his Altar? The fat, the liver, the kidneys, etc. They were mostly offered as a form of incense or pleasing odor to Him. No angry and vengeful (or hungry) God here.
Notice that in this Bible translation, 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22 (for example) says, ‘The One who guarantees that we all belong to the Anointed One, and He who anointed us, is God.’
So, why didn’t these translators just go ahead and render the word (Anointed) as Christ – as countless other translators have done? For two reasons:
· Because Christ has almost totally lost its meaning to most Bible readers today, and most have come to believe that ‘Christ’ was part of Jesus’ name. It wasn’t.
· Because Christ is a word that was made up by early Bible translators and is only used in that form when they think that the Bible was speaking of Jesus. In other places it is correctly translated as anointed.
If you look at the above verse in Greek, you’ll see that it reads, ‘Ho de bebaion hemas syn hymin eis Christon kai chrisas hemas Theos,’ or, ‘The of stabilizing us with you into Anointed and anointing us God.’
You
will notice here that Christon (Christ or Anointed) and chrisas
(anointed) are both derived from the same root word, which by the way, is Greek
for olive oil. Why olive oil? Because, that substance was traditionally poured
over the heads of those who God chose to be kings over
So, the word means anointed. But if you prefer the word Christ, then Saul, David, and Solomon were Christs, for you can’t have it both ways. As an example, look at the words that David spoke about Saul, as found at 1 Samuel 24:6 LXX): ‘Kai eipin David pros tous andras autou: Medamos moi para kiriou ei poieso to hrema touto to kyrio mou to christo kyriou epenegkai cheira mou ep auton hoti christos kyriou estin autos,’ or ‘Said David to the men of/his: By/no/means of/me from the/Lord if I/should/do this thing to my/Lord to/the Christ (Anointed) of/the/Lord to/raise my/hand against him, for the/Christ (Anointed) of/the/Lord this is.’ So as you can see; if Christos should be translated as Christ, then unrighteous King Saul was also Christ. However, almost all Bibles translate christos as anointed in this case (one of many instances).
Such
a physical anointing with oil appeared to picture receiving God’s Holy Breath,
which happened to Jesus at his baptism, to 120 of Jesus’ disciples at Pentecost
of 33-C.E., and to other First-century Christians. So Jesus didn’t really
become the Christon (Christ, Anointed, or
If
you understand this nuance, you get the true meaning of the word Christ
(Anointed) as it applies to Jesus; it means that he was the one who God chose
to be king over His people. Also, Paul was telling the Christians in
Notice what can be learned from a proper understanding of the Greek words by looking at Matthew 24:24. For there, many Bibles say that Jesus foretold the coming of false Christs and false prophets. But what he actually said was, ‘Because false anointed ones and false prophets (gr. pseudo christon kai pseudo prophetai) will arise and they will perform great signs and omens to mislead (if possible) even the elected.’
So, Jesus wasn't necessarily saying that people would come claiming to be him, but people would come falsely claiming to be the anointed and prophets.
Another example of the poor use of the title Christ (implying Jesus) by Bible translators can be found at First Peter 1:10, 11, which reads in this Bible: ‘When it comes to salvation, the Prophets looked and searched for this loving-care that’s being shown to you. They tried, through the spirit of anointing that was in them, to determine the exact time and circumstances of the sufferings of the Anointed One and of his being glorified, which they knew about even back then.’ Other Bible say that it was the Spirit of Christ that was in the ancient Prophets. However, as we pointed out above, Jesus didn't become the Christ or the Anointed until after his baptism.
So, what Peter was saying in those verses, is that those ancient Prophets tried through the power of God’s Breath which had anointed them to be Prophets, to determine the time and circumstances of the glorification of Jesus. For, if you check the wording of those verses in Greek, you’ll see that there is no definite article preceding the first christou (anointed), which would be required if it was saying that the Spirit of Jesus was in them.
At Exodus 29:29 we find that Aaron and his sons were to be ‘anointed’ as Priests to Jehovah, and that this action would make them ‘holy’ or clean. It also signified that they had been chosen to this office by God. And in Leviticus, when we read of the ‘anointed’ Priest, the reference seems to be to one of the Priests who has been chosen for the special office of what later became known as the High Priest.
The Greek word that we have translated as anointed here, is chriseis, which can also be translated as Christ (it’s just a conjugation of Christos), since christ and anointed both come from the same root, which is Greek for olive oil (it may also mean Judged, since the words are similar). So, Jesus wasn’t the first or the only one to be correctly referred to as a christ.
Why
olive oil? Because, that substance was traditionally poured over the heads of
those whom God chose to be Priests and kings over
The physical anointing with oil also appears to have pictured their receiving of God’s Holy Breath, making them ‘holy,’ which was an appropriate description for Jesus years later. And remember that both the ‘anointed’ priests and the kings pictured Jesus. So, the term christ is apropos.
Who
are the antichrists? As John said (at 1 John
Apparently,
by the turn of the Second Century C.E., there were people in the Christian
congregation (probably more Judaizers) who were denying that there ever was a
Jesus, or possibly denying that he was the Chosen One of God. And as John said
(at 1 John
Such denial of Jesus amounted to an unforgivable sin against God’s Holy Breath, because it was God’s Breath that had testified to just who Jesus was. So, this was a very serious matter. In fact, it was so serious that John told Christians not to even talk to such people – to treat them as though they were dead – because, what they were saying truly condemned them.
Popular modern tradition has it that the antichrist is a single person, group, or entity that will come in the last days. However, notice how this idea is proven false by the words of 1 John 2:18, which reads: ‘Young children; It’s the last hour. And just as you’ve heard, the Antichrist is coming. Why, right now there are many Antichrists; and that’s how we know it’s the last hour. They left us, because they weren’t like us; for if they had been like us, they would still be with us.’
Then John again gave the same identification at 2 John 1:7, where he wrote: ‘Many have strayed [back] into the world and won’t admit that Jesus the Anointed One came in the flesh. And these who have strayed are the AntiChrists.’
So, modern beliefs about the antichrist reflect a lack of Bible reading.
The Greek word apostasis (in its various conjugated forms) is used several times in the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (OT), and we find it used at 2 Chronicles 28:19, where we’ve rendered it as ‘turned away,’ because that’s what the term really means. It refers to a turning away from a righteous God-fearing way of life. For, the Greek word (which we pronounce as apostasy in English) literally means ‘turn away from (apo)’ a ‘standing or state (stasis).’ So, it doesn’t refer to a disagreement over the way some doctrine is viewed, as the word is misapplied by some religious groups.
Almost all Bible references to apostasy are speaking of a turning away from the way of Israelite life that is outlined in the Law. However, in the book of Job, the word apostate refers to being unfaithful to God, since Job lived before the Law.
There
are just two places where this term (apostasy) is used to indicate
someone’s unfaithfulness in the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), at Acts
At Acts 21:21 we read (concerning the Apostle Paul): ‘But they have heard the rumor that you’ve been teaching Judeans who live among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the traditions.’
Notice that Paul’s teaching wasn’t being called an apostasy; rather, the apostasy was their not following the traditional Jewish way of life.
Actually, the proper word to use when speaking of teaching something that deviates from established doctrine is heresy, which is the word that the Catholic Church used extensively to accuse faithful Christians (and others) of during their ‘Inquisition’ of 1400s and 1500s. Notice that they didn’t accuse anyone of apostasy (turning from a Christian way of life), but of heresy (disagreeing with their established doctrines). So, they understood the difference.
There was at least one instance where Paul himself seemed to accuse and impose sanctions against other Christians for heresy. We find this account at 2 Timothy 2:17, 18, where he wrote: ‘That was the problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus; they got away from the truth and started teaching that the resurrection has already happened, which misdirected the faith of some.’
So, deviating from teaching the truth of the Bible was a serious matter among First-Century Christians. However, in view of what Jesus said at Matthew 5:22 and what was said about Jesus at Jude 9, calling anyone such a thing such a thing as ‘an apostate’ or a ‘heretic,’ when there might be some question as to who is right, would be an even more serious matter.
The only other places in the Christian-Era Scriptures (NT) where the Greek word for apostasy is found, is where Jesus spoke of the Pharisees as giving their wives a ‘certificate of dismissal’ to divorce them (see Mark 10:4). The words that are translated certificate of dismissal are biblion apostasiu, which literally mean ‘scroll of apostasy (or sending away).’
What
is an ark? Why, everyone knows of Noah’s ark, and of the Ark of the Covenant…
don’t they? Yes, most people do. But, just what is an ark?
An ark is simply a box or chest. If you carefully examine the description of the measurements that God gave to Noah, you will see that He told Noah to build a three-story wooden box that was about ‘five-hundred feet long, eighty feet wide, and fifty feet tall.’ It was rectangular (not boat shaped); it had a roof, at least one window, and a door. It didn’t have to be a ‘boat’ that could navigate, because, all it had to do was float. Nor did the animals look out the window(s); they were kept in stalls.
Throughout the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (OT), you will read of Gods, people, and places with names that start with Baal, Beel, and Bel. These terms mean the Lord, the Master, or the Owner, and they refer to various gods of nations, not necessarily to a particular god. The word was just a title for a god, and the God’s name (or the place that he/it represented) follows the title, such as Beel Phegor (as found at Numbers 25:3). And where people called their god just Baal (or Beel), they were referring to their particular lord or god of that city or land. Also, where a person’s name includes one of these terms (such as BelShazzar), it usually means that they were named after a local god (in this case, Shazzar).
Of course, having the title Baal or Beel in a name doesn’t necessarily imply that a person is a worshiper of a pagan god, for several faithful worshipers of Jehovah also had that title as part of their names. For example, the faithful Judge Gideon came to be known as JeroBaal (meaning ‘May Baal Defend Himself’), because of his action in cutting down an altar to Baal. Also, one of King Saul’s grandsons (through faithful JoNathan) was named MeriBaal (meaning ‘Opposer of Baal’); one of King David’s faithful warriors was named BaalJah (meaning ‘Lord Jehovah’); and David named one of his sons BaalJada (meaning ‘Lord Knows’).
By the way, Baal is pronounced Bah-ahl and Beel is pronounced beh-el, not Bayel or Beel.
Also,
in places where we find the letters El in a name or place, this is usually just
a shortened version of the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning God. So, whereas
many Bibles translate the Greek word ‘Baithelbereth’ (found at Judges
The ‘whore’ that is identified in Revelation the Eighteenth Chapter (the Great Babylon) has been identified by some as a composite of all religions that have shared in having a ‘throne over the kings of the earth.’ And this could be true, for, what other group has wielded such an influence over the governments through the ages, as she identified as doing in the Revelation?
However,
although we once felt that the above conclusion was true, in the process of
translating the words of the Hebrew Prophets and in reading the things that
ancient
What
are these ‘questionable details?’ Well, the Bible shows us that God sent the
It still could be apostate religion, for, notice that the ‘whore’ of Revelation was guilty of doing what James mentioned as being wrong for Christians (at James 4:4), where he wrote: ‘Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world, you’re an enemy of God? So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself down as God’s enemy.’
As you can see, the description by James labels ‘worldly Christians’ as immoral adulteresses. And for a fact; many Christian religions are deeply involved in supporting politics and nationalism. And this lines up with the description of ‘the Great Babylon’ in Revelation.
However,
ancient
In the past, some have identified The Great Babylon as being the Catholic Church (see the book The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hyslop). Yet, there is no single religion that can be pointed to as standing alone in its involvement in corruption and political entanglements, for almost all are guilty of this today.
The most common unit for measuring length, height, and depth in the Bible is a cubit, which is the length of a man’s forearm. And of course, the lengths of forearms vary depending on the size of the person, so a cubit may be anywhere between eighteen and twenty-two inches. However, to give you a better idea of the size and proportions of things in the Bible, we have converted the units of measure to more familiar terms, such as feet and inches. And we have roughly averaged the sizes or lengths.
Also, some units of measure, such as a cor (about 32 bushels), hin, or bath (about 6 gallons), have been roughly estimated, since such terms are obsolete.
We have also dropped the obscure names of coins, since most readers have no idea of their value, and simply inserted the type of coin they are (gold, silver, or copper), and sometimes their size, to provide you some frame of reference.
This is a tough one, and we won’t say that our position on the translation of this word can’t be changed. The Greek word that we are struggling with is eulogetos. The first part of the word eu, is Greek for good. The last part of the word, logetos, means words (or expressions). So, a literal translation of eulogetos is good words. And our question is: Is this all that a blessing amounts to?
Yes, we know that this word has been translated as bless, blest, and blessing in other Bibles. So why rock the boat? Because these translators have simply found too many errors in many commonly-accepted renderings. And here, for example, if eulogetos is properly translated as blessing each time (which carries the English nuance, ‘causing good things to happen’), then, how can humans ‘bless God?’ We do know that we can praise God, however.
Eulogetos is the word that we derive the English word eulogy from… that is, the kind words that are said of the deceased at a funeral. Such words are never said as a blessing, (it’s a bit late for that); they are said in praise of the deceased individual. However, there are definitely places where eulogetos can’t be translated as praise or praising.
So, perhaps the real meaning is (or is at least is similar to) praise. And when praises come from God, this means blessings to humans.
This isn’t the same word that we have rendered as blest in other portions of this translation (for an example, see Matthew 5:5). The word in question there is makarios, which is rendered as happy in certain other Bibles. However, we believe that blest is the proper way to translate that Greek word.
There is quite a debate as to whether the Greek word makarios found in many places throughout the Bible should be translated blessed or happy.
Notice that we have chosen to translate it as blest, which is an older spelling of the word blessed, to get rid the affected pronunciation that was likely introduced by early preachers (bless-ed).
According to Zodhiates’ Complete Word Study Dictionary, the word should never translated as happy, because happy is derived from the words happen, happening, or happenstance (luck). His reasoning (which we agree with) is that, when someone suffers for the sake of righteous principles, his/her reward isn’t just happiness (which can come from any source of good luck or fortune), but rather, it is a joy that comes from gaining a better relationship with God.
In other words, there is no exact word in English to use here, but blest seems to be a closer alternative than happy.
It is very difficult to translate Colossians 2:9, 10 into English, and many different conclusions have been reached about what Paul was writing here. In Greek it reads: ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως και εστε εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι ος εστιν η κεφαλη πασης αρχης και εξουσιας,’ or, ‘because in him is/dwelling/down all the fullness of/the divinity bodily and you/are in him having/filled who is the head of/all government and authority.’
The King James Bible renders these verses as: ‘For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.’
GOD’S WORD® Translation says: ‘All of God lives in Christ’s body, and God has made you complete in Christ. Christ is in charge of every ruler and authority.’
The International Standard Version says: ‘because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form. And you have been filled by him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.’
And the New World Translation reads: ‘because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.’
We have rendered these verses as: ‘for in him lives all the fullness of the divine body… and you’re also one with him [in this fullness], and he’s the head of all governments and powers.’
As you can see, the wording of different Bible translations is quite varied, and their choice of words appears to depend on whether the translators believe in the concept of a Holy Trinity or not.
What did Paul actually mean? Well, although we have concluded through independent research that the Trinity concept is poorly supported (see the linked document Who Was Jesus?), we have no one’s doctrines to support. So, hopefully we can be more objective.
As you can see; whatever the fullness of the divine body may be, it is something that is shared in by the Christian congregation. So the wording of Colossians 2:9, 10 doesn’t appear to support the Trinitarian Godhead concept, or the idea that God lives in Jesus’ body, since many share in the fullness of that body, as the Greek text clearly shows. Rather, the wording seems to closely reflect the words of John as found at John 14:20, which reads: ‘εν εκεινη τη ημερα υμεις γνωσεσθε οτι εγω εν τω πατρι μου και υ μεις εν εμοι καγω εν υμιν,’ or, ‘In that the day you will/know that I in (εν) the Father of/me, and you in (εν) me, and I in (εν) you.’
Here Jesus was speaking of a special relationship between God, himself, and the congregation, and he used the Greek word (εν) (English: in) to reflect their closeness or unity. So for that reason, we have chosen to render εν as one with at Colossians 2:10 (as we have in several other places throughout the Christian-Era Scriptures). And from this description that was given by Jesus himself, we must conclude that the sharing of the divine body refers to a oneness or unity between Jesus, God, and the congregation, which will lead to all having a headship over governments and powers.
Notice how this conclusion is supported by the words of Colossians 3:1-4, which read: ‘So, if you’ve been raised with the Anointed One, search for the things that are above… at the right hand of God, where the Anointed One is sitting. Also, think about the things that are above (not on the earth), because you died and your life has been hidden away in the Anointed One and in God. And then, when the Anointed One (who is our life) shows himself, you will also be seen with him in glory.’
At Jude 1:14, 15, this half-brother of Jesus wrote, ‘The seventh man from Adam, Enoch, prophesied about them when he said, [Look!] Jehovah came with His holy ten-thousands of ten-thousands to condemn them all and to give all the godless what they deserve for the godless things they’re doing in their worldly ways, and for all the shocking things these godless sinners have said against Him.’
This verse has amazed many Christians, for it mentions a writing that is not considered to be part of the Bible canon, the Book of Enoch, which is considered to be an uninspired secular work. Yet, if it truly was written by Enoch (an early man of faith who was so loved that he was ‘transferred’ by God), then why would we consider it uninspired? And if it was a fake, then why would Jude have quoted from it?
If you read the Book of Enoch through (a copy can be found at Sacred-Texts.com), you’ll see that it appears as though Jude’s otherwise unique description of the condition of the fallen messengers of God (as described in verse 6) is based on the information found in this book.
Although
ancient copies of the Book of Enoch were thought to have been lost, more modern
copies have been found in Ethiopia and in some Slavic countries, which have
been translated into English (for more information, see the link Book of Enoch). And after
reading one copy of these texts through, we were surprised to find how much of
this supposedly pre-Christian document is very much in harmony with the words
of Jesus and the book of Revelation, although it has numerous errors that
indicate mistranslation and centuries of added words (as does the Bible, by the
way). In fact, the wording of the entire book heavily reflects the religious
doctrines, views, and words of the Middle Ages; so if
the current available copies were ever inspired, they are totally corrupted
today. And it is possible that the book was so corrupted by the time of the
Jew’s return from captivity in
For example, in Chapter Ten of the Book of Enoch you’ll find a traditional, graphic description of Hell Fire. Yet, by removing just a few words you will see that the description reads much like Revelation 20:10. So, it is apparent that the problem here is more one of twisted translating or copying to reflect the then-current religious views of the Middle Ages, than a text that was originally misleading and incorrect.
You
will also find mention of the City of
So, we urge you to be extremely cautious when reading the Book of Enoch, but it does provide some interesting descriptions of significant events, names, and dates that aren’t found in more accepted Bible texts, and they would be extremely important if they are true.
There are some interesting idiosyncrasies in the book of Judges that would lead us to question who actually wrote it. We receive one clue from the words found at Judges 1:21, where we read, ‘Nor did the children of BenJamin take Jerusalem from the Jebusites as their inheritance, so the Jebusites still live among the children of BenJamin in Jerusalem to this day.’
Then
we read at Judges 18:1, ‘There was no king over
So, whoever did the writing must have lived during the time when a king ruled Israel, but before the kings started ruling in Jerusalem, or during the reign of Saul… and the prophet Samuel seems to be the likely source.
However, notice the apparent contradiction found at Judges 18:30, where we read, ‘And Jonathan (the son of Gerson and grandson of Manasseh) and his sons became the Priests of the tribe of Dan until the time when the nation was captured and carried away [into captivity].’
These
words would then indicate that the book was written sometime after
Well,
we can see from the context that the book of Judges was written close to the
time of the Judges (perhaps by Samuel), then it appears as though a later
copyist (perhaps Ezra) added the comment at Judges
It is interesting that when Matthew spoke of King Herod’s henchmen, he spoke of them as his boys (gr. paisin), as though they were gang members in an old Western movie.
Much has been written about the meaning of Solomon’s words where he wrote (at Ecclesiastes 11:1), ‘aposteilon ton arton epi prosopon tou hydatos oti en plethei ton hemeron heureseis auton,’ or, ‘Send the bread yours on face the waters and in many the days find it.’ And we have often been repulsed by the thought of receiving cold, soggy bread. But, what was Solomon actually talking about?
While the Greek word arton is usually translated as bread, loaf, or loaf of bread, in ancient times, it also referred to just grains of wheat. This was the case where Jesus and his Apostles were walking through wheat field and picking and eating grains along the way, and this was true of the ‘bread’ that Jesse gave his youngest son David to carry to his brothers in battle, which consisted of both roasted grain and loaves (1 Samuel 17:17).
So, the apparent meaning of Solomon’s words, are as we rendered them, ‘Scatter your [seeds] on the surface of the water, and after some time you will find them.’ And while the meaning may still not be apparent to many, realize that birds usually eat seeds that are scattered over dry ground, so the practice was to do the planting after a hard rain or after irrigation. And the seeds were scattered on the top of the water to cause them to germinate and quickly root.
Of course, Solomon wasn’t really giving advice on planting, his words were in the form of a parable or illustration, and they implied that being liberal with the things one has would result in receiving liberally from others.
The Greek word pneuma (as in pneumonia, a breathing disease) means breath or wind – the movement of air. In other Bible translations, this word is often translated as spirit or ghost, as in Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. However, spirit is just a shortened form of the Latin word spiritu, which just means breath in Latin. And ghost conveys another meaning altogether.
The most common use of the word pneuma in the Bible is to imply an unseen force (such as breath or wind). And the problem with translating it as spirit or ghost is that many people have started believing that the unseen force that is called [God’s] Holy Breath herein, is another God-like person and part of a Divine ‘Trinity.’ This can’t be true, because the only scripture that can be used to support this theory (that is, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Breath’ are spoken of together) is found at Matthew 28:19, which appears to be spurious (See the Note in Matthew). All other scriptures that are used to prove the Trinity theory fail to mention the Holy Breath as part of that group. And the King James wording of 1 John 5:7 (which was used for years to attempt to prove the Trinity) is also spurious (something that was added to the Bible). So, there are no actual Bible references that mention God’s Holy Breath along with the Father and the Son.
Therefore, to prevent confusion, the Greek word pneuma is frequently translated as breath herein. However, there are exceptions, as in instances where the Bible refers to demons as ‘spirits.’ Translating pneuma as breath in these cases, although correct, might just be confusing. There are also places where we have left pneuma translated as spirit, when the word implies a person's tendency (or spirit). And, since the nuance implied by the word spirit in the English language (an unseen power) is correct, we recently changed back to translating pneuma as spirit in several places, when referring to God’s Holy Spirit. However, recognize that pneuma is often best defined by calling it [God’s] Holy Breath. For an example, see the Note Worshiping God In Spirit and Truth.
Another important use of the word pneuma is in the phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’ This phrase appears to mean more than just breathing, for it seems to refer to the entire mechanics of life itself. It’s the unseen force of life for all creatures… it’s what makes each cell alive. However, nowhere does the Bible describe the ‘pneuma’ as immortal, nor is it the same as the soul (a breathing thing), so it can (figuratively) ‘return to God’ at death,’ because all hope of future life depends on God and His promise of a resurrection.
Note in particular how the term Breath is used at Job 27:3, where Job spoke of God’s Breath or Spirit. For there he asked, ‘Does the Breath of the Divine One remain in my nose?’ As you can see from his application of this word, pneuma obviously referred to God’s Breath, not to a person or to an unseen force. He was talking about that which comes from God and which caused him (Job) to breathe… the Breath of Life.
It is interesting that at Genesis 6:3 God says, ‘I won’t allow My Breath to stay with these men through the age, for they are fleshly.’ In Greek that reads, ‘Ou me katameine to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutoiseis ton aiona, dia ai einai autous sarka,’ or, ‘Not not should stay the Breath Mine with these men the age through, their being flesh.’
While
the words Breath Mine (pneuma mou) here can refer to God’s Holy
Breath, it seems more likely that He is referring to the breath of life
that He gave to Adam. So it appears as though; what God was saying here is that
the breath of life (of the people of that age) would be removed prematurely.
However, since God referred to it as ‘My Breath,’ there may be a link implied
between God’s Holy Breath and the breath of life.
For more information, see the linked document, ‘The Powers of God’s Holy
Spirit.’
However,
when Jesus died (as the words recorded at John
There are many places in the Scriptures that speak of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, and Acts 1:14 is one of those places. Were these Jesus’ fleshly brothers, or was the writer (Luke) referring to ‘spiritual’ brothers?
The context provides the answer. The fact that Jesus’ brothers are mentioned here in addition to his Apostles, disciples, and his mother (Mary), indicates that these were fleshly brothers (other children of Mary).
While some Bible critics have claimed the Gospel accounts weren’t written for more than a century after Jesus’ death, internal proofs, such as Matthew’s use of this city name, show that this Gospel account had to be written prior to the middle of the First Century. For, archeologists have found that the Romans changed the name of this city, which is located at the northern tip of ‘the Promised Land,’ about 50-C.E. from Caesarea Philippi, to Banas (meaning Baths). Since this fact would have been lost to history just a few years after that date, it proves that the Book of Matthew had to be written shortly after Jesus’ execution and before 50-C.E.
For more information, see the linked document, The Bible’s Internal Proofs of its Authentic History
One of the most commonly asked Bible questions is: Where did Cain get his wife? Yet, the answer is quite simple; he married one of his sisters (Genesis 5:4). Understand that the Bible only lists the births of principal characters, such as Cain, Abel, and Seth (from whom we descended). But Adam and Eve obviously had many children, both sons and daughters.
Does
marrying a sister sound immoral or illogical? Well, it was a common practice in
Bible times. Take for example, the righteous man Abram (Abraham). He married
his half sister Sarah. Their common father was Terah (see Genesis
There
seems to be quite a bit of difference between the Bible’s use
of the words, called, and chosen, and their implications for the
people involved. For, notice what Jesus said (as recorded at Matthew
These words of Jesus seem to put an end to the notion that everyone who is called by God was foreordained to a favored position before his/her specific birth. Rather, what is implied in this parable, is that there would be people in general (not specific individuals) who would be chosen from among a larger number of those who are ‘called.’ Because, as Jesus makes clear here, not all who are among the called (or the nominated) to this hope are thereafter counted among the chosen (elected). For, why would God call people if He already knew that there was no chance of their being chosen?
Notice
how this was stated at Revelation
So, ‘the called’ also have prove faithful in order to become ‘the elected’ who will serve with Jesus.
Yes,
that was the point of Jesus’ parable at Matthew 22:1-14, which (as Jesus said)
was an illustration concerning ‘the
The king then ordered his slaves to go out into the streets and ‘call’ anyone who wishes to come to the banquet. These words obviously refer to the calling of people of the nations, or the gentiles (gr. tas ethne – the ethnics).
So, is this parable talking about being called to heaven to rule there with Jesus… for isn’t the wedding banquet for God’s son to be held in heaven, and aren’t those who are invited to God’s banquet the bride who will be with Jesus in heaven? We have always thought so, but notice that the guests in this parable aren’t referred to as virgins (as was the case of those mentioned in Revelation 14:1-4). Rather, they are called ‘both the wicked and the good,’ which is a strange way to refer to the ‘Saints.’
Next, as the parable continues, the king noticed a guest who wasn’t properly dressed for a wedding feast (he didn’t have the required qualities). This guest was then bound and thrown back outside (but not killed). So, as you can see, he was called but not chosen. Now, if we were to assume that this banquet is held in heaven… since the man was already there at the feast, we must ask: Was he then kicked out of heaven… and if so, we would also have to ask, Then, why was he taken there to begin with?
Now,
we do suspect that there are those who are taken to heaven to rule with Jesus,
but if so, they are likely the bride at the wedding feast, not the
guests (see Revelation 17:7-9). For, notice what Paul said of himself at
Philippians
What
was Paul talking about here? It appears as though; when speaking of ‘the out
resurrection,’ he was saying that although he had been ‘called,’ he may not
have been ‘chosen’ yet for heavenly life. That this is what he was likely
talking about, can be seen from what he said at Philippians
So, notice that the Bible speaks both of a ‘calling’ and of an ‘upward calling,’ which we assume refers to being called to heaven. And how would Paul know that he had been ‘chosen’ for this lofty reward? It appears as though such a person must first endure incredible suffering for his/her beliefs (as did Jesus), for notice what Paul wrote at Romans 8:17, ‘We have to suffer together so we can also be glorified together.’
Such suffering must be much more than what is typical of the suffering and death of mankind. Does this ‘suffering’ require a dying a martyr’s death? That seems to be the gist of the prophecy at Revelation 6:9-11, which says, ‘When he opened the fifth seal, I saw the lives of those who had been slaughtered because of the Word of God and because of the testimony that they gave, underneath the altar… Then they were each given a white robe and they were told to take it easy just a little while longer, until the full number of their fellow slaves and brothers was filled (who were going to be killed, as they were).’
But, in the case of Jesus’ words found Matthew 22:14 (‘Many are called but few are chosen’), we would have to conclude that God calls many people from among mankind to become His faithful slaves and to thereafter attend the wedding banquet of the Lamb (whether in heaven or earth is not stated), but not all who are called are found worthy.
It
has been argued that Jesus’ use of the word camel, at Matthew
So, if the above assumption is true (that Jesus said gâmla in the Aramaic language), what he was really saying is that it would be easier to ‘thread a rope through the eye of a needle.’ In the context, rope does seem to make more sense than camel, and this amusing play on words (camel/rope) would have helped his listeners to remember the idea of his parable.
You have likely noticed that we are putting some of the letters in Bible names in capital letters. For example, we’ve started spelling such names as Jonathan as JoNathan, Isaiah as IsaiJah, and Eliezer as EliEzer. Why? Well, partly to help with the correct pronunciations of the names, and partly to show some translating consistency.
We all know that the common English pronunciation of Jonathan (for example) is Jon-uh-thun. But did you know that the first part of the name (Io in Greek, Ieho in Hebrew) refers to the name Jehovah, and the second part of the Name (Nathan) means Gift? So, the name was originally pronounced closer to Ye-hoh-nuh-thahn.
In the case of names that end with an iah, as in Isaiah, the last part of the name often includes the name of God. Isaiah, for example, means Salvation [of] Jehovah, and it was originally pronounced Ee-sai-Yah. So, why have we substituted a capital ‘J’ for the letters ‘ie’ in both of the above cases? Well, we recognize that there is an inconsistency here, because there was no letter ‘J’ in Hebrew or Greek alphabets. However, we have the choice of changing all names that start with ‘J’ (such as Jesus, John, Jonah, Joshua, Jeremiah, etc.) to start with the letters ‘Ie’, or for consistency, we can change all the ‘Ies’ into ‘Js’, which is what we have done. Realize that several other Hebrew consonants are commonly mispronounced in English, which no one objects to, so this minor deviation should not be objectionable to the thinking.
Does this mean then that we are setting out a new rule for name spelling? Absolutely not, for centuries ago, a Bible translator first established this rule when he spelled the name Eliou (Greek spelling, pronounced ay-lee-ou) and wrote it as EliJah, because this name is regarded as meaning ‘My God is Jehovah.’
Also notice that where a name ends with an iah, as in Jeremiah (Jehovah exalts), we have often spelled it as iJah, because the I would typically be pronounced as a long E, followed by a Y in Hebrew, and writing it without the I (as in JeremJah) misses this nuance. So, we have rendered it as JeremiJah, which is similar to the way it is often pronounced by modern-day Hebrew-speaking Jews, YeremiYah.
Another
important word in names that we usually capitalize is ‘El’ (from the Hebrew Elohe,
or God). So EliEzer (which people commonly pronounce Eelai-eezer and means God
[has] Helped) should actually be pronounced El-ee-eh-zer. The same is true
for the letters Ai, especially in the names of cities, because Ai
in Hebrew refers to the word city. So, AiLam (for example) probably
meant the City of
Similar words, such as Bel (as in BelShazzar), Baal, and Beel, refer to ‘the Lord’ or ‘the God.’ Also, the prefixes ‘Ben’ and ‘Bar’ mean ‘the son of.’ ‘Beth’ means ‘the house of,’ ‘Beer’ refers to a ‘well,’ ‘Is’ or ‘Ish’ means ‘Man,’ etc.
Does this mean that we have put all the capitals in the right places? No, for we make no claim to Hebrew scholarship (all our translating here has been from Greek). So, what we are trying to do is provide a better understanding to how these names were pronounced by First-Century Christians.
At Ephesians 4:8, Paul (quoting the words of Psalm 68:18), wrote: ‘He stepped up into the highest place, and carried off captivity as a captive; then he gave gifts to the men.’
This has been a very difficult verse to translate in both places (Ephesians and Psalms), for neither the OT nor the NT texts agree with each other, and neither appears to make any sense in the original language. The Greek text of Ephesians 4:8 literally reads: ‘anabas eis hypsos echmaloteusen aichmalosian kai edokendomata tois anthropois,’ or, ‘through/which he/is/saying Having/stepped/up into height he/led/captive captivity and gave gifts to/the men.’
Whereas the Septuagint shows Psalm 68:18 as saying, ‘You/ascended into the/height you/captured captivity you/received gifts by (or in) men.’
And the Hebrew text at Psalm 68:19 reads literally, ‘you/ascended to/the/height you/led captive you/received gifts from/the man.’
So, you can see that the meanings differ widely, for the NT text says that Jesus GAVE the gifts, while both OT texts say that he RECEIVED the gifts. So it is obvious that there are errors in at least two of the texts, and perhaps in all three. Which is the correct rendering?
Since he had God’s Holy Breath, and because he was using older OT texts than we have today, we are going to trust that Paul came the closest to quoting what the Psalm originally said. And to be sure; when attempting to arrive at the proper translation of a scripture, it helps to take a look at what the preceding and following verses have to say, to see if the words being translated harmonize with the context.
Notice the context of Ephesians 4:8 from the preceding verse (7). There is says: ‘Now, the amount of caring that was shown to each of us depends on how much of the Gift the Anointed One measured out to us.’ So, the scripture Paul quotes in the following verse was used to show that the Gifts were being measured out to men in the congregation. Therefore, from the context, we must assume that the words of Paul are correct, and that Jesus gives Gifts (of the Spirit) to righteous men.
But, what about the words of verse eleven where Paul said, ‘kai autos edoken tous men apostolous tous de prophetas,’ or, ‘and to/them he/gave those indeed apostles, those but prophets,’ or as we rendered it, ‘Then he gave them those who are Apostles, those who are Prophets (etc.)?’ Whereas some Bible translators have assumed that men with special gifts were being given as gifts to the congregations, the rest of the context shows that all in the congregation were given (at least one) of these Gifts, and together they make up one body. Therefore, it appears as though the reference at Ephesians 4:8 is to the Gifts of the Spirit that Jesus gave to the men, which made them Apostles, Prophets, etc. So we have translated the verses as shown above.
We
are sorry to use such an unfamiliar term, but Ark of the Covenant may
not accurately describe the sacred box that eventually held the tablets of the
Ten Commandments, the writings of Moses and Joshua, the manna, and the walking
stick of Aaron. First, the meaning of the ancient English word ‘ark’ has been
lost in history. And the second word, ‘covenant’ (meaning, sacred agreement)
isn’t always used as part of the name in the Greek text. In some places it is
called the kiboton marturion, which literally means Box [of]
Testimony. So, although it may have been built to illustrate the Sacred
Agreement (Covenant) between God and the Israelites, it was also built to hold
the Proofs of the things that God did for
Unfortunately
(during the time of Samuel and the High-Priest Eli), the Philistines captured
the Chest, emptied its contents, and then returned it to
Just
where was the Prophet Ezekiel when he received his many visions and words from
God? He says that he was along the ChoBar (pronounced kuh-bar) River, in the
A
likely location for their resettlement, is west of
This
location seems far more likely, for Ezekiel’s prophecies were primarily against
Much has been made of the fact (by a few) that, although this Bible translates the Greek word Christon (Christ) as Anointed One, we have left the words Christian and Antichrist unchanged. Why is this?
Under the Note heading ‘Who are God’s Anointed?’ we pointed out that Christon means Anointed or Chosen One, and using the Anglicized corruption of the Greek word (Christ) doesn’t really convey the proper meaning to most Bible readers today. This is why, rather than speaking of Jesus as the Christ, we have chosen to speak of him as the Anointed One.
However, this isn’t the case with the word Christian (which literally means Followers of the Anointed), because, nothing is commonly misunderstood about that term. Rendering it as ‘Anointed One-ians,’ or anything similar, would simply be confusing, since the term Christian has been the name that has universally applied to Jesus’ followers since the time of the Apostles, and it doesn’t lead to a misunderstanding, as does the word Christ. This is also the reason why we have left the word Antichrist unchanged.
Please note that the purpose here is not to use obscure terms for consistency, but rather, to help readers understand the true meanings of the words that are used in the Bible.
For more information, see the linked document, Christians, Jews, and Moslems.
In Jesus’ discussion about the sheep and goats found at Matthew 25:34, he said, ‘Then the king will tell those on his right, Come, you who’ve been praised by my Father, inherit the Kingdom that’s been prepared for you from the founding of the world.’
In Greek, the words we have translated as founding of the world are katabole cosmou, or down-throw arrangement. You may recognize that the English word cosmos is a derivative of cosmou. And cosmos (which we pronounce as cas-mose, but the Greeks pronounces as caus-moss) is the word that modern peoples usually use when referring to the universe today (thank you Mr. Sagan). So, why have we translated it as world, and what is meant by the term, founding of the world?
Actually, cosmos is used many times in the Bible and in many different ways. For example, when Paul urged Christian women to dress modestly, he used the word cosmos to describe well-arranged clothing; and arrangement is probably the closest English equivalent of the word. So, it isn’t always translated as world in any Bible.
And although it has been said that the word world doesn’t appear at all in the Hebrew texts of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (Old Testament), it really does appear there several times in the Greek Septuagint. And the reason why they say that world doesn’t appear there, is because the equivalent Hebrew word is translated (in different Bibles and in different places) as arrangement, ornamentation, honor, delight, universe, earth, army, etc.
Yet, in the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), where cosmos appears several times, it is usually translated as world… such as the world of Noah, the light of the world, the field is the world, etc. So, the term doesn’t seem to apply to the earth, but rather to the arrangement of human society on the earth.
Actually, two different Greek words are often translated as world in the Septuagint, cosmos and oichonomeo; and oichonomeo does appear to refer to the earth, because it means the habitation, or, the place where [man] dwells. So the Septuagint (OT) clearly delineates these two words (that are both commonly translated as world).
But
notice how the word cosmos was used by Paul at Romans
Thus, it seems likely that the arrangement we call ‘the world’ started around the time of Adam’s sin in Paradise, when man created for himself and all life on earth a new arrangement or set of circumstances (which was something other than what God had planned). We have come to this conclusion based on the many scriptures that refer to the world in a negative context, and the fact that it (the current set of negative circumstances) will soon be done away with.
Yet, the Scriptures also indicate that the present world (arrangement) began after the Downpour of Noah’s day, and Noah inherited the world prior to that time. For, notice what we are told at Hebrews 11:7 ‘Because of his faith, Noah (after being given a divine warning of things he hadn’t seen yet) trusted in God and built a large chest to save his family. And due to this righteous faith, he condemned the world and became its heir.’
Also notice what was said at 2 Peter 2:4, 5, ‘Why, God didn’t spare the messengers who sinned, but by threw them into the dark pits of Tartarus, where they are awaiting His justice. And He didn’t spare the first world. Yet, He guarded Noah (who was a preacher of righteousness) along with seven others, when He brought a downpour on a world of godless people.’
So,
apparently there have been two different worlds or arrangements; the one that
Noah inherited that started before the Downpour, and the second one that we are
now living in, and which the righteous will inherit at its destruction. For, we
read at 1 John
Thus (from the above), we have concluded that: What Jesus said about the Kingdom having been prepared for the sheep since the founding of the world, must mean that the Kingdom was God’s plan for the righteous since at least the time of the Downpour, and possibly since the time of Adam’s sin in Paradise.
The Greek word stauros simply means pole. So, regardless of popular tradition and doctrine, there is no mention of a pole with a cross piece (cross) in the original Bible. Also, the Greek word staurotheto (which is translated crucified or hung on a cross) is translated as impaled (put on a pole or stake) here, because that’s what it means.
Does this mean that Jesus didn’t die on a cross? Not necessarily, for there is a lot of historical evidence, which indicates that he did. Yet, whether the Romans used just an upright pole or one with a cross beam as a means of torture and execution is really unimportant. However, if one views such a thing as an object of worship (which many do), then this is condemned in the Bible as idolatry… and they are also missing the point. For, what should be held as sacred to us is the one who gave his life on our behalf, not the disgusting object of his execution.
In
the Bible, we read of two different types of royal headgear that was worn by
Kings… crowns (gr. stephanos) and turbans (gr. diademas). Which
did the kings of
A
study of history shows that most kings wore some sort of hat on official
occasions, which varied by time and by country. The gold headpiece that was
worn by the pharaohs of
The
first mention of a crown being worn by a king of Israel is found at 1 Samuel
12:30, where King David took the gold crown from the head of the Ammonite king
of RabBath, named Malchom, and placed it on his own head. However, it doesn’t
appear as though this was the custom of kings of
If you study uses of the word crown in the Bible, you’ll see that most instances are talking about the top portion of the head, not a hat. However, there are notable exceptions to this.
At Revelation 12:3, the dragon is shown as having seven heads and ten horns, and ‘on its heads were seven royal turbans.’ We have translated this verse as saying that they were ‘turbans,’ because the Greek word used there was diadema, or through wraps, indicating that he was seen wearing turbans (although many religious depictions incorrectly show him wearing crowns).
However, there appear to be good uses in the Bible for the word crown as a symbol of athletic victory, not necessarily of kingship. Take for example, the following occurrences:
· ‘A crown that rots away. However, we receive one that doesn’t rot.’
· ‘He will receive the crown of life that the Lord promised to all those who love him.’
· ‘You will walk away with the enduring crown of glory.’
· ‘But be faithful to death and I’ll give you the crown of life.’
So, if it is true that the crown is more a sign of victory (a garland) in the Bible than of kingship, this gives us a better understanding of verses such as the following:
· ‘A crown of twelve stars.’
· ‘He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.’
It has been brought to our attention that there is a major discrepancy between the wording of Daniel 12:4 in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Greek text reads: ‘And you, O DaniEl; cover the words and seal the scroll until the time of the end when many will be taught and the earth will be filled with unrighteousness.’
However, the Hebrew text reads (NAS): ‘But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.’
Which is correct? Well, it has been suggested that: ‘The Greek translators apparently misread one letter in the word, for the only difference in the Hebrew words for knowledge and evil is one letter. And the only difference in the two letters (for knowledge or evil) is one little tail.’
So, some have assumed that the Greek translators missed seeing the small tail on the letter, and misread the Hebrew word, resulting in a mistranslation.
However, things are not always as simple as that, for a more modern Hebrew scribe may well have misread the letter and mis-written the word. We say this because we have found many obvious errors in the modern Hebrew texts (as we have found in the Greek texts).
Notice that there are other notable variations in the texts, for the Hebrew text says that ‘many will go back and forth,’ while the Greek text says that ‘many will be taught.’ And it is our opinion that the Greek text is correct here.
It is interesting that another Bible translation (The Bible in Basic English) reads: ‘But as for you, O Daniel, let the words be kept secret and the book rolled up and kept shut till the time of the end: numbers will be going out of the way and troubles will be increased.’
Anyhow, we’ll allow that either translation may be correct. That’s why we have added this linked Note.
The
account at 2 Samuel 6:14 well illustrates the reason
why we have come to trust the Greek text over the Hebrew text. For in the Septuagint, King David is described as wearing a fine
robe (στολην
εξαλλον) while he danced in the parade
leading Jehovah’s Sacred Chest into
So, did David actually expose his sexual parts? Well, apparently the ancient Israelites wore no underpants beneath their robes, so lively dancing could have theoretically exposed their under parts, but the rest of Michal’s and David’s words seem to indicate that she was more concerned by his dancing than with the idea that he had truly exposed himself.
Many people have said that it is futile to try to determine when ‘the Day of the lord’ will arrive, because of Jesus’ words that are found at Matthew 24:36, which say, ‘No one knows the day and hour – no, not the messengers of heaven or the Son, but only the Father.’
However, notice what Paul wrote at 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 4, ‘And whenever they’re saying Peace and security, destruction will come on them instantly like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they won’t escape! However, brothers, you aren’t in the dark… so that Day shouldn’t sneak up on you like thieves! Why, you’re all sons of light and sons of the day… and we don’t belong to night or to darkness!’
From Paul’s words, we can conclude that; although the ‘day and hour’ wasn’t known when Jesus was on the earth, world conditions (and specifically a world-wide cry of ‘peace and security’) would give clear indications of an impending end to this old worldly age, so that true Christians who are awake won’t be surprised at its coming.
You might also notice that Jesus spoke these words in connection with his return and his rewarding of his faithful slaves or doorkeepers. For more information, see the linked document The Faithful and Sensible Slave.
Throughout the Bible, we find references to ‘the Day of Jehovah,’ and ‘the Day of the Lord.’ Are both of these references to the same time, and if so, how do we know?
There
is no conflict between the two Days; in fact, they appear to be the same.
Notice what we are told in the Revelation, when it is speaking of the beginning
of that Day (at Revelation
As you can see, the purposes of that Day are tied together. For, the establishment of God’s Kingdom (with the battle in heaven and the ouster of the Opposer and his messengers) and the authorization for Jesus (the Lord) to rule appear to begin at the same time.
So,
does the Lord’s Day begin when the things spoken of in the Revelation start to
happen? It appears to be so, because it starts out with John’s words (at
Revelation
What are some of the features of that Day? Well, they appear to start with the ouster of the Opposer and his messengers from heaven (See Revelation 12), which is followed by the destruction of ‘The Great Babylon’ (See Revelation 17, 18). Then in rapid succession there comes the ‘marriage of the Lamb’ (acceptance of the rest of the Anointed ones to heaven?), the Battle of Armageddon, the abyssing of the Opposer and his messengers, and the resurrection (see Revelation 19, 20). And finally, the Opposer is released for a short time, which precipitates the battle against Gog of Magog , and which is thereafter followed by the descent of ‘New Jerusalem’ to the earth, and the making of the ‘new earth and sky’ (see Revelation 21).
Also,
in the prophecy found at Joel
2:1-12, ‘the Day of the Lord’ appears to start with the destruction of
Jerusalem by worldly armies (the destruction of The Great Babylon?), and this
is followed by the destruction of the worldly armies (see Joel Chapter Three).
And in between these two events, we read of the marvelous outpouring of God’s
Breath upon His faithful servants (Joel
Peter wrote in length about this period, and at 2 Peter 3:7 he wrote: ‘What’s [now] in store for the earth and skies is fire, which [will come] during the Judgment Day, when godless men will be destroyed.’ And although many misinterpret these words as describing just the destruction of the wicked at Armageddon, the context shows that he was looking at a much longer period of time, the total ‘Lord’s Day’ or ‘Judgment Day’… the ‘thousand-year’ period spoken of at Revelation Chapter Twenty. For, what he said about the burning of the earth and sky and of the ‘new earth and sky’ corresponds exactly with the end of the thousand years and the promises found at Revelation 21:1.
So, from the periods described in the Revelation; near the end of Jesus’ thousand-year reign, there will be a judgment of the wicked (those who join with Gog of Magog) and they will be destroyed. Then there will be a ‘new earth and a new sky.’ What does that really mean? Perhaps we’ll all have to live to see it to be sure.
The instruction that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai, as found at Leviticus 27:28, 29, has long confused Bible scholars. These verses appear to imply that any human who was dedicated to God should be put to death as some sort of a human sacrifice. For earlier (in verses one through seven), we read of people offering themselves and their families to Him. Was this indicating that they were the ones to be put to death?
No, for the verses are talking about two different sets of circumstances. However, much has been written about these verses, and there still seems to be some confusion.
The specific words found at Leviticus 27:29 read (in Greek), ‘Kai pan ho ean anathete opo ton anthropon ou lytrothesetai alla thanato thanatothesetai,’ or, ‘And all those who/are cursed of the men not ransomed but die the/death.’
So,
as you can see, these verses refer to those who have been cursed (anathema),
and it implies a vow to dedicate vile persons or nations to death. There is no
indication (or record of) people being offered for sacrifice at Jehovah’s
An
example of the outworking of such an oath can be found at Numbers 21:2, 3,
where the Israelites swore an oath to God to dedicate a particular group of
Canaanites to Him if He would give them the victory over these enemies. The
account says, ‘That was when
In the account found at Luke 8:26-39, Jesus encountered a man who was possessed by many demons, which Jesus drove from him and sent into a nearby herd of pigs. And as Jesus was leaving, the man asked Jesus if he could come with him, or if he could become one of Jesus’ disciples. However, Jesus told him no, and to just return to his town and tell people what had happened. These actions of Jesus may seem strange, because he had never declined an offer for someone to become a disciple, nor did he want people spreading the news about his miracles. Why did he react so differently in this case?
Well,
notice that this land was outside the borders of
2 Peter 2:4 speaks of ‘messengers’ or ‘angels’ who were put into ‘Tartarus’ for bad acts they committed during the time of Noah. Genesis 6:3 speaks of these as ‘sons of God’ (gr. uioi tou Theou) and it tells of their coming to earth to marry ‘the daughters of men’ (gr. thygateras ton anthropon). However, these ‘sons of God’ don’t appear to be quite the same as the ‘messengers’ who are to be thrown out of heaven during ‘the Lord’s Day,’ mentioned at Revelation 12:7-9. Since the ‘sons of God’ who came to earth and assumed human bodies in Noah’s day couldn’t be destroyed by the downpour (flood) and they had forsaken heaven, they were apparently put into a prison-like state here on the earth, where they are no longer able to roam. This group is specifically referred to as the demons in the Bible.
It is interesting that; except among modern materialistic and scientific societies, demons are recognized as real throughout the world by almost all of its religions. And such universal acknowledgement by diverse peoples with no cultural ties, is one of the strongest arguments for their existence.
Demon is a Greek word that seems to be derived from diameno, which means fixed in one place. From other Bible accounts about demons, it appears as though this ‘fixing in one place’ means that they must be associated with either living or non-living things, which is referred to as ‘possession.’
At
Acts
The reason why this term was used is obvious: The many pagan idols and Gods of Athens, although made of metal and stone, had the backing of demons. And the people recognized the power that was given to these lifeless objects through ‘possession’ by their gods.
Although the Bible text of the creation of the gold calf in the desert seems to indicate that this was the personal handiwork of Aaron, the next verse indicates that he had likely authorized someone else (skilled craftsmen) to do the actual work, because, he didn’t build an Altar to it until after he saw the idol. So, the reason why he was spoken of as ‘making’ the calf, was because he was responsible for building it… and that’s why we have rendered these texts as we have… to clarify that point. He likely didn’t have the necessary craftsmanship skills to do the work.
Also,
notice that the calf was supposed to represent Jehovah, so the people didn’t
really think of themselves as worshiping another god. They just wanted
something they could
Why wasn’t Aaron held more to blame for his part in building the idol? Apparently, God still saw something good in Aaron. Remember that the previous few Chapters told of what God was saying to Moses while he was on the mountain, and He knew what was going on down below. Yet, God still spoke of the honor and position that was to be shown to Aaron and his sons.
This
situation may be very difficult for many to understand, because of the history
of knowledge that we have accumulated about God today. However, what most
people don’t realize is how rudimentary the knowledge and ideas about God were
at the time… even for Aaron. Because, prior to the previous few months (during
which they had been delivered from
Notice too that when Moses asked, ‘Who is on Jehovah’s side?’ and assembled a small army to slaughter the unfaithful, ‘the Sons of Levi,’ which could have included Aaron and his family, came to Moses and took their stand for Jehovah as their God.
The
words of Exodus
The fact that a specific person isn’t mentioned in this text, allows that the ‘him’ spoken of here, wasn’t Moses. Frequently, this portion of the Bible uses personal pronouns such as ‘him’ without disclosing who it is referring to. And that’s why you will often find names in brackets [ ] in this Bible, to clarify the name of the individual who is being spoken of by the use of a personal pronoun.
Note
in this case, that the person who was spoken of in the following paragraph (in
connection with this event) is Moses’ son. And his mother apparently saved his
life by circumcising him right there on the spot. Why was this important?
Because God’s instructions to Abraham were that every Hebrew male was to be
circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. And if that wasn’t done, he was
to be put to death (see Genesis
So, the ‘him’ that was in danger of being killed by God’s messenger, was Moses’ son, since God’s Law had been violated by his not being circumcised.
Why hadn’t Moses circumcised his son? We don’t know, but the fact that his mother circumcised him, likely indicates that she was the one to blame… and she knew it. Remember that her father, Jethro, is described as being ‘the priest of Midian.’ Thus, he could have been a priest to a pagan god. And if so, this may have been the reason why she opposed the circumcision of her son.
The wording of Isaiah 45:7 has created quite a debate among some, for they have drawn the conclusion from this text that God is responsible for everything, including good and evil. So, they have concluded that man has no choice in his destiny. And for a fact, the wording of this verse could be construed to mean that, for it says in Greek: ‘εγω ο κατασκευασας φως και ποιησας σκοτος ο ποιων ειρηνην και κτιζων κακα.’ Or: ‘I prepared light and made darkness; the/One who/made peace and created bad.’
As translators, our understanding of this scripture is simply that God created all things, which includes good things and the bad things (mosquitoes?). He wasn’t saying that He instituted badness; but whether something is good or bad, it is He who created it, for nothing came into existence except from God.
So, it was with this thought in mind, and in an attempt to maintain the poetry of the text that we translated the verse as, ‘It is I who prepared light and I who made the darkness. It is I who made the good and the bad.’ (Notice that we chose the word from the Hebrew text, good, rather than the word from the Greek text, peace, because that appears to be the correct choice for the text).
Recognize that; almost all of the book of Isaiah was written as Hebrew poetry, and if you understand that style, you will realize that the phrase ‘I created bad’ is the natural following of the words ‘I made the peace (or the good),’ just as the previous stanza, ‘I formed the darkness’ follows ‘It is I who prepared the light.’
Notice that the word often translated by others as evil in the Septuagint (but which we usually translate as bad) is kaka. However, the better choice of Greek words to translate as evil is ponerou. An example of the common English translation of kaka as bad, is found in combined words, such as cacophony (meaning bad sound, not evil sound). And translating this word as evil (although a synonym for bad) gives the misleading nuance in English, of God creating what is wrong. However, the point of the text is simply that He created all things, not the bad motivations behind them.
A good way to illustrate the meaning of God’s words in Isaiah, is to take a look at His creation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (spoken of at Genesis 2:9). There the Septuagint does speak of ‘το ξυλον του ειδεναι γνωστον καλου και πονηρου (kalou kai ponerou, or, good and evil).’
In this case, God clearly created the tree that delineated the difference between good and evil (ponerou). However, He didn’t create the results and force a wrong outcome upon man. Rather, He allowed man the freedom of choice to do good or to do evil. So, God’s words in Isaiah don’t prove that man has no choice of whether to do good or evil, as some are now saying. Rather, in the light of Genesis 2:9, it appears to prove the opposite.
The Bible tells us that Jesus and his Apostles ate yeast-free bread during his Last Supper, and that they dipped the bread into something that was in a bowl (or bowels) that ancient Bibles referred to as a sop. Exactly what was this sop… was it a gravy?
Actually, it was likely a mixture of olive oil, herbs, and salt, which has been a favorite dipping sauce for bread through countless generations (try it sometime if you are unfamiliar with it). We know that it likely wasn’t gravy or meat sauce, because the lamb was to be sacrificed and eaten on the following night (see the link, The Passover and the Lord’s Evening Meal), and meat wasn’t normally eaten with every meal in ancient times. However, the Bible does tell us that part of the Passover celebration involved the eating of bitter herbs and bread (along with the wine), and surely salt and olive oil were used to add flavor and to soften the hard bread.
History
shows us that ‘the disgusting destroyer’ (gr. bdelugma tes eremoseos),
which Jesus spoke of at Matthew 24:15, proved to be the armies of Rome (with
their pagan standards or flags) when they camped around Jerusalem’s walls in
66-C.E. Christians in the city recognized this as the fulfillment of Jesus’
prophecy about its imminent destruction, and fled Jerusalem into the nearby
mountains. Then, in the year 70-C.E., ‘all these things’ ended when the Romans
destroyed
Since
this prophecy of Jesus was compound (it appears to have more that one
fulfillment), there must also be a modern ‘disgusting destroyer,’ which will be
‘standing in the
It
appears as though (as with the armies of
There are several places throughout the Bible where the Greek word naos is used, which is commonly translated as temple, and that could in fact be the correct translation. However, the Greek word for temple is ierou, so it would be presumptuous to translate both words as meaning the same thing. As the result, we have often translated naos into other words, such as Divine Habitation, which is what naos actually means, for the Greeks used that word to describe the heavenly dwelling place of their gods.
The first mention of dogs as human companions in the Bible is found at Exodus 11:7, where Moses was promised that in Egypt, ‘not even a dog will snarl at a man or an animal’ among the Hebrews. So, we must conclude that dogs were kept as companions among them, and were likely used to herd their cattle.
The next mention of dogs was when God was giving them commandments as to what the Israelites could and couldn’t eat. We find this at Exodus 22:31: ‘And you must be holy [people] to Me. You must not eat the flesh of wild animals. You should throw it to the dogs.’
So, we know from this account that dogs also traveled with the Hebrews into the desert during their forty-year trek, and, since they weren’t allowed to eat them, into the Promised Land.
According to historians, the people who lived in the land of Canaan (such as the Israelites) were possibly the first to domesticate dogs and keep them as pets, for the Latin name for dogs, canis appears to have come from the term Canaanite.
The Greek word that is used throughout the Bible to describe the great flood of Noah’s Day is cataclysmos (it’s where we get the English word cataclysm). However, cataclysmos doesn’t mean flood. Cata means down and clysmos means pour, so the word is correctly translated as Downpour here.
That the Bible speaks about what is translated as dragons several times, raises some interesting questions. The dragon (although supposedly a mythical animal) is one of the world’s most widely recognized creatures. It is highly regarded in the Buddhist religion and is seen in ancient religious carvings from around the world. This testifies that people have believed in the existence of dragons for as far back as human records go. Why?
Note that dragons are thought of as animals with the bodies of snakes (gr. orphis), but they also have feet and legs. However, other Bible references seem to imply that the ancient use of the term dragon (gr. drakonta) and its apparent Hebrew counterparts, leviathan or behemoth, were used to describe any sort of fearsome wild beasts.
What was the dragon? Revelation 12:9 tells us, when it says, ‘So, the huge dragon was thrown out. He is the first snake, the one who is called the Slanderer and Opposer, who is misleading the whole earth.’
So from the above, we see that this vision in Revelation identifies the dragon as ‘the Opposer’ and ‘the Slanderer,’ and it says that he was the first snake, the one who seduced Eve in the ‘Paradise of Delights’ (see Genesis 3:2).
The fact that the dragon is viewed as a snake with legs in religious legends throughout the world, testifies to the fact that people everywhere once believed in the Bible account in Genesis, and they also believed that when God cursed the snake to ‘travel on its chest and belly,’ it lost its legs.
It
is interesting that dragons are also part of the folklore of
Notice
that faithful Job asked God (at Job
However, notice how vividly Job described the Slanderer as the dragon at Job 26:12, 13, where we read, ‘By His strength He has settled the sea in its bed, and in His wisdom He’s filled it with whales. The bolts from the skies stand in awe of Him, and He’s ordered the death of the dragon that rebelled.’
We find a whole Chapter in Job (Chapter 41) that is obviously a description of the evil one, but has gone mistranslated for centuries, simply because its meaning has been misunderstood. Other Bibles speak of a leviathan or a behemoth here, and some of a crocodile. However, in the Septuagint, we find no name at all or any explanation, leaving us to guess what is being described.
It
is unusual that some translators have thought that this creature was a
crocodile, for crocodile is a Greek word that is easily recognized, since it is
spelled almost the same as in English. There is one place where that word is
found in the Law of Moses, at Leviticus
Yet, if you read the text of Job 41, you’ll see an obvious reference to a fire-breathing dragon. For notice how verses 18-21 describe it: ‘His sneezing brings about brightness, and his eyes are like the morning star. From out of his mouth comes burning lamps, like the scattered grates of a fire. From out of his nostrils comes the smoke of a furnace, burning with the fire from coals. His life is much like live coals, and flames shoot from his mouth.’
At this point, critics could say the Bible was talking about a mythical dragon, and others would say that God is describing a wild ox. Yet, notice the further description in verses 31, 32: ‘He breaks from the abyss as though a brass cauldron; he thinks of the sea as his own ointment jar, and the abyss of Tartarus as his captive. For, to him the abyss just a promenade.’
If you examine these verses, you’ll see that God is using cryptic text to explain to Job just who is to blame for his problems. Yet, the word Tartarus (the place where evil gods are sent) isn’t found again in the Bible until the reference at 2 Peter 2:4, and the only mention of his coming out of his prison (pit or abyss) is found at Revelation 20:7.
Clearly, this second-to-the-last Chapter in Job, as in any good writing, brings back into play all the characters that the book started with.
Then, why did Jewish scribes and translators have so much trouble understanding this Chapter, that there are obvious deletions? There are four likely reasons:
· They didn’t believe in fire-breathing dragons
· They didn’t know that the Slanderer was the dragon
· They didn’t know of the Slanderer’s position in Tartarus or the pit
· A correct understanding would have linked the Book of Job to the Scriptures of the Christian era.
It is interesting that we again find mention of a dragon at Isaiah 27:1, where we read: ‘In that day, God will bring His great, holy, and strong sword against the dragon – the crooked and fleeing snake – and He will do away with the dragon, the one in the sea.’ This is an obvious reference to the destruction of the same dragon mentioned at Revelation 12:9 above, but it goes unnoticed in Hebrew texts, where the word leviathan is once more misunderstood. Of course, the word dragon is of Greek origin, so its use came after the Hebrew text was written; and regardless of popular (mis)conceptions, leviathan is probably its Hebrew equivalent.
What
is particularly interesting about this scripture, is
that it speaks of the dragon from the sea in the same words as found at
Ezekiel 32:2, where the reference is obviously to the
‘We
will not fall, though others will fall,
But the dead will be raised from their tombs.
Then all on the earth will be joyful,
For, as dew You’ll send them a cure,
While the lands of the godless will fall.
‘Proceed,
O my people, to enter your bedrooms…
Go inside and lock your doors,
Then hide in there for a while!
Because this will happen, then that;
And the rage of Jehovah will pass.
‘{Look!}
From His Holy Place Jehovah sends rage,
Upon those who live in the land.
Then the ground won’t cover all of the blood,
Nor [the bodies] of those He destroys.’
So,
At Revelation 12:9 we read, ‘He (the dragon) was thrown down to the earth along with his messengers. In Greek, the word that is translated as messengers is aggeloi (angels). So, God and Jesus have their ‘messengers,’ and the Slanderer and Opposer has his. How many? Revelation 12:4 says that ‘he drags a third of the stars of heaven.’ So it looks like the dragon has great (but limited) success.
Are these messengers ‘demons?’ No, for demon (gr. diameno) appears to mean fixed in one place, which describes the ‘sons of God’ who came to earth and assumed human bodies in Noah’s day. Because they had forsaken heaven, they were put into a prison-like state here on the earth during ‘the (Great) Downpour. From other Bible accounts about demons, it appears that this ‘fixing in one place’ means that they must be associated with either living or non-living things, which is referred to as ‘possession.’
However, notice that the ‘messengers’ in John’s vision still had access to the heavens until they lose the battle there in ‘the Lord’s Day.’ At that time, they are thrown to the earth, but there is no indication that they become fixed to objects or people. So, this may be the reason why the Revelation refers to them as ‘messengers,’ not as demons.
Why would ‘a third’ of God’s heavenly messengers choose to follow the dragon in rebellion? While the Bible deals with the extent of the earthly rebellion against God, one can only imagine the full extent of the heavenly rebellion.
A glimpse into the type of offer that the Slanderer might have made can be seen by the offer that he made Jesus after his 40-day trek in the desert. Luke 4:6 tells us, ‘Then the Slanderer said, I’ll give you power over all of these and the glory of them, because they have been given to me and I can give them to whoever I wish.’
So, the Slanderer has power over all the governments of the world, as the above statement shows (also see Revelation 13:7). And offering heavenly messengers their own worldly governments, empires, and possibly even religions, must have been the enticing lure… POWER!
At 2 Corinthians 2:17, Paul wrote, ‘We aren’t like others who are peddlers of the word of God (gr. kapeleuontes ton logon tou Theou). Rather, we speak sincerely through the Anointed One.’
Obviously, Paul is making the assertion here that he didn’t believe in making a comfortable living by preaching God’s Word. In fact, Paul bragged of his working as a tent maker, so he could provide God’s Word without cost to the congregations. And as he says here, he often did without, simply because he refused to ask for help.
However, it must be admitted that on other occasions, Paul spoke of his ‘authority’ to be supported in his preaching. So such material support isn’t necessarily wrong. But, let’s examine why Paul chose not to depend on others to support him in his service to God. Notice his reasoning, ‘Rather, we speak sincerely through the Anointed One.’
Now, the problem with trying to teach those who pay us to do so, is this matter of sincerity. If your livelihood depends on their goodwill, will you truly tell them what needs to be said? The answer is obvious.
At Jesus’ ‘Last Supper,’ which fell on the first day of the Jewish celebration of the Passover, he instituted a ritual that he told his Apostles to continue to do in memory of him and of his death. At Luke 22:19, 20, we read: ‘Then he took a loaf [of bread], gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them saying, This is my body, which is being handed over for you. Keep doing this in memory of me. And he did the same thing with the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new Sacred Agreement of my blood, which is being poured out for you.’
Notice that he didn’t say this means; he said this is (gr. tauto estin). However, contrary to the beliefs of some (that these emblems actually become flesh and blood), they were appear to be just symbols. So, partaking of Jesus’ ‘flesh and blood’ likely symbolizes that those who do so are expressing their desire to become a party to the ‘New Sacred Agreement.’
Speaking
ahead of time of this ritual, Jesus said (at John
It is interesting that these words of Jesus were considered disgusting to most Jews that he was speaking to, for their dietary regulations (from the Law) forbade drinking any blood or eating unclean (human?) flesh. As the result, many of Jesus’ disciples stopped following him at that time. So surely, Jesus said this to test and cull out those who believed in his miracles, but wouldn’t understand his death and resurrection. However, Jesus’ Apostles stayed, because, as Peter said, ‘Lord, who should we go off to? You say the words of life in the age, and we have known and believed that you’re the Holy One of God!’
When
should this Memorial of Jesus’ Death be observed? The fact that it was
instituted on the Passover, gives us a clue. This Jewish Observance was held
annually on the night of the new moon closest to the Spring Equinox in
Who should partake of the symbolic bread and wine at that time? The Scriptures say, those who want ‘life in the age’ and who wish to be resurrected ‘on the Last Day.’
For more information, see the linked document, ‘The New Covenant.’
(NOTE: Two views are offered here, to represent the differing opinions of our advisors and staff.)
View 1: It would be foolish to attempt to draw conclusions as to whether animals killed and ate meat before the time of Adam. If they did, that apparently wasn’t God’s purpose thereafter, because, notice what He said, as recorded at Genesis 1:30, ‘[I have given] greenish-yellow plants as food to all the earth’s wild animals, all the winged creatures of the sky, and all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground and have life’s breath.’
So, with the commission that was given to Adam (at Genesis 1:28), the state of all animals was to change; for notice what God told him: ‘Rule over the fish of the seas, the winged creatures of the skies, all the herding animals of the ground, all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground, and the whole earth.’
Thus,
men were given total responsibility over all the animals and the whole earth.
And God’s instructions (that animals were just to eat vegetation) may have been
what Adam and his descendants were to enforce as part of their responsibility
of rulership. However, this perfect purpose ended (at least for the time being)
with the rebellion in the
Notice that; from the start, men were also just to eat vegetation. For, Genesis 1:29 says, ‘Look, I have given you all the seed-bearing plants for planting that are on the entire earth, as well as all the seed-bearing trees for planting, as your food.’ So, men were apparently supposed to be vegetarians.
We don’t know for sure what men actually did prior to the downpour… but they likely did eat animals after they were expelled from the paradise. The fact that Abel was a herder of animals would suggest that they did. Remember; Cain was the farmer.
However, after the downpour, God’s instructions to men changed (likely in recognition of what men were actually doing). From that point on, men could eat any sort of animal. For, the dietary restrictions (to eat just ‘clean’ animals) were only given to the Israelites. But, notice that men had apparently already drawn some line for themselves as to what was clean (edible) and what was unclean (inedible), since God’s instructions to Noah about the types of animals that were to be brought into the Chest mentioned both types; the ‘clean’ (such as cattle) and the ‘unclean.’ And all of this was probably based on each animal’s diets and habits.
That this arrangement of eating animals didn’t really please God, appears to be indicated by the tone of His words to Noah, when He told him that men could eat the animals. Notice what He said at Genesis 9:3, ‘All living and slithering animals can serve as meat for you. I’ve given them all to you as though they were green vegetation.’
There was just one restriction that God gave when it came to eating meat (something that is commonly disregarded by many people today): they were not to eat the blood, which God indicated is the source of the animal’s life. Pouring the animal’s lifeblood out (as a symbolic sacrifice) seems to indicate that the permission for men to eat animals was something temporary, and pouring out the blood is our way of acknowledging the sacredness of all life.
But, what about God’s requirements to offer animal sacrifices to
Him on a daily basis in
‘Gather all your whole burnt-offerings,
Along with all your sacrifices,
And then just eat all the meats!
For, I didn’t tell your fathers to do this,
Nor did I give them such instructions,
On the day that I led them from Egypt's land,
[To bring me] whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
The only instructions I gave them,
Is to pay attention to My voice! [I said],
I will be a God to you,
And you will be a people to Me,
If you will walk in My ways,
And do whatever I tell you is good.’
View
2: From the words of Genesis
Does this mean that eating animals was wrong in God’s eyes and that men were supposed to be vegetarians? Not necessarily, for remember; the only rule God gave to humans was the prohibition of eating of one tree. Perhaps a better understanding can be had if we compare the next verse and see what God gave the animals for food. Genesis 1:30 reads, ‘[I have given] greenish-yellow plants as food to all the earth’s wild animals, all the winged creatures of the sky, and all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground and have life’s breath.’
At this verse, the animals were likewise given plants for food. Does that mean that the animals did not kill and eat other animals before and during the time of Adam? Surviving on plants alone would be extremely difficult for many animals, and downright impossible for some. Consider sharks, whales, and almost every fish, members of the cat family, birds of prey like eagles and falcons, and odd animals like anteaters; all of them are designed to eat other animals. Therefore, their designer obviously meant for them to do just that.
With that in mind, it is quite likely that humans were likewise intended to be omnivores. Perhaps that is what is implied by the words recorded just prior to this at Genesis 1:28, where God told Adam: ‘Rule over the fish of the seas, the winged creatures of the skies, all the herding animals of the ground, all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground, and the whole earth.’
If Adam and Eve did not eat meat, the fact that Abel was a herder of animals would suggest that their children did. Abel’s killing and offering an animal to Jehovah even garnered him favor; while Cain (the farmer), living mostly or entirely on plants, did not have Jehovah’s favor (Genesis 4:3-5).
It
is also interesting that throughout the Bible there is a definite distinction
between wild animals and domestic animals. We tend to divide land animals as
reptiles, insects, mammals, etc., but the text of the Bible originally divides
them as wild and domestic, and later as clean and unclean. Remembering
that this division helps us to understand scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6-9, as
well as understanding what conditions were like in the
Men were apparently already aware that some animals were clean (edible) and others were unclean (inedible), since God’s instructions to Noah about the types of animals that were to be brought into the Chest mentioned this division (Genesis 7:8).
Then after the downpour, God’s instructions to men changed. From that point on, men could eat any sort of animal. There was just one restriction that God gave when it comes to eating meat (something that is commonly disregarded by many people today): they were not to eat the blood, which God indicated is the source of the animal’s life (Genesis 9:3-6).
Although man was given all the animals for food, this does not mean he could wantonly kill them without drawing Jehovah’s anger. The scriptures show us that animals are alive, the same as humans, and that life is precious to God. Pouring the animal’s lifeblood out (as a symbolic sacrifice) is a way of acknowledging the sacredness of life, and that the position man holds over the animals is only due to Jehovah, the source of all life.
The Greek word (found at Matthew 15:2, 20) aniptois means unwashed or common, so, the account there tells of how the Apostles had simply failed to wash their hands before eating, and the Pharisees were objecting to this. It is often said that the Pharisees were objecting because the Apostles hadn’t performed a ‘ritual washing’ (to the elbows). However, the words clearly indicate that isn’t what the Pharisees had accused them of here.
The
people of the southern
Of course, Jesus wasn’t really condoning or promoting eating without washing hands. As the Son of God, he knew that disease and infection could be spread that way. What he was concerned with is a far more important matter. For, what the Pharisees were doing was taking Bible principles (such as cleanliness) and turning them into laws (which the Pharisees were also doing to promote disregard for parents).
For more information, see the linked document God’s Laws and Principles.
Don’t
confuse this name (Ed-em) with
Notice that, different from the Hebrew text which refers to the Garden as Eden, the Greek text says the garden was called the Paradise of Delights, and that it was located on the east side of the land of Edem. This description, which is more involved than what is found in the Hebrew text, is one of several that give these translators the opinion that the Greek texts are likely more accurate than the existing Hebrew texts.
Some
think that the Greek text is in error when it describes one of the rivers of
Edem as flowing around the
Notice that; it appears as though, when Moses was writing the early Genesis account, he gave the location of pre-Downpour lands by using locations and peoples post-Downpour names. So, describing the ‘Paradise of Delights’ as being located on the east side of the land of Edem provides us a physical location, which was a place that was known after the Downpour. And where is Edem?
A
people called the Sons of Edem are mentioned in other scriptures, such
as 2 Kings
Since
this conquest of Edem is mentioned along with the conquests of Golan,
Notice
that the Bible account does speak of these rivers all coming together in Edem
(or Eden, which most people think of as being the garden). And if this was near
Obviously,
the present country of
Was
there a man named Edem, from whom the land in
By
the way; There may also be another mention of the
However; although the Hebrew texts somewhat agree by describing the people there as the House of Eden, other Septuagint versions speak of them as being the men of Charran, or likely the land of Abraham’s brother, Haran.
For more information, see the attached document, ‘The Bible’ s Internal Proof of Its Authentic History.’
The term overseer implies a misleading nuance in American English… but it’s still the best word to use. The Greek word that overseer is translated from is epi-scopos, which literally means on-looker (not as a person who is ‘over’ anyone). So, the term doesn’t imply a higher position, but that of a caretaker.
A synonym that is used in the Bible for ‘overseer’ is ‘elder’ (presbyterios – older man). Christian elders were always males, and their job was to shepherd and teach the congregation. Another common English word for overseer is bishop.
The
early Christian congregations may have been governed by bodies of elders who
were appointed by the Apostles and their representatives. For, this arrangement
is similar to the way the cities of
The Scriptures show that such men were to meet high standards of conduct and reputation. And although Paul doesn’t mention it specifically, such individuals were expected to be able to make wise decisions and to show signs of having God’s Breath. Notice that these were the first qualifications for all Servants in the Christian Congregation, for Acts 6:3 (where the first ‘servants’ were appointed) says; ‘So, brothers, find seven qualified men among you who are filled with wisdom and the Breath [of God].’
So,
should such an appointment be given to a man who isn’t known for his wisdom? If
you read the Proverb you’ll repeatedly see the need to appoint just those who
have proven themselves wise as judges and councilors. As Solomon wrote (at
Proverbs
Were the qualifications for elder appointments that are listed at 1 Timothy 3:2-7 also to be used as the standard for removing elders? Paul gave no such instructions and there are no examples of this happening in the Bible. It appears as though the position of elder (older man, mayor, alderman, bishop, etc.) was a permanent appointment that would only be lost when the man dies, if he is found guilty of scandalous behavior, or if he should leave the primary doctrines of the faith.
Notice the list of qualifications that Paul gave Timothy to look for. The candidate must be someone who is:
· Free from accusations
· A husband of one wife
· Moderate in his habits
· Sensible (wise)
· Friendly to strangers (hospitable)
· A (qualified) teacher
· Not addicted to alcohol
· Not headstrong
· Not quarrelsome
· Not a greedy person
· One who takes the lead in his family
· Has children who obey him seriously
· Not a newly converted man
· Someone who is spoken well of by those outside the congregation.
For more information, see the linked document Arrangement of the First Christian Churches.
At Exodus 28:37 we read: ‘Then you must dress your brother Aaron and his sons, and anoint them [with oil]. Empower them and make them holy, so they can serve Me as Priests.’
However, this entire verse reads quite differently in the Hebrew text. There is no mention of anointing or empowerment. So, we wonder which is correct, and we have no frame of reference to determine what was meant here (if the Septuagint is the correct rendering).
In Greek, the words that we are concerned with are kai empleseis auton tas cheiras, or, and fill of them the hands.
Since Aaron and his sons are being spoken of in the previous part of the sentence as being anointed with oil, the natural assumption is that the oil was to be allowed to run into their hands. However, we find the same pair of instructions at Exodus 29:7-9, and there the Hebrew text agrees with the Greek. So, as one Bible translation puts it, their hands must be filled with power. In this case, the Greek text reads, kai teleioseis Aaron tas cheiras autou kai tas cheiras ton uion autou, or, and finish Aaron the hands of him and the hands of the sons of him.
So, since both instructions seem to follow the same sequence and both speak of a similar act, we have concluded that both verses are saying that Aaron and his sons were to undergo some sort of empowerment ceremony following their anointing.
While men self-righteously proclaim rules of proper sexual thoughts and conduct between men and women, the Song of Solomon is filled with words that openly describe sexual desires and actions, and with many other words that appear to have a double entendre, and which appear to have no other purpose or meaning.
There
seems to be a contradiction between the Hebrew and Greek texts over the name of
the first woman. In fact, there is even an apparent contradiction between the
Greek texts, because she is referred to as Life (Greek: Zoe – pronounced
zoe-ay) at Genesis
It may be hard for some to understand how H'hawah came to be pronounced as Eve in English, but this probably comes from a later corruption of the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Eue, because the Greek letter u looks like a v (ευαν). So her English name should be Life, but Eve has become the common mispronunciation.
When
we hear the word eunuch, we usually think of a man that has been
castrated, because that’s what the term has come to mean through the years.
However, when someone is described as a eunuch in the Bible, it doesn’t
necessarily mean that he was sexually mutilated. In fact, during the reigns of
faithful kings of
Does this mean then, that God dislikes men whose testicles have been forcibly or accidentally removed? No, surely the reasons for this law involved His knowledge that some men, in their desire to better serve Him, may have considered castration to remove any carnal desires; and He clearly didn’t want that to happen. So, God provided a law to disallow any who were castrated from serving Him in these special ways.
Now, the Greek word eunuch doesn’t really carry the meaning of castration. Rather, it means bed keeper. However, most bed keepers (or harem watchers) for kings were in fact castrated to keep them from temptation. Yet, notice that eunuchs are frequently mentioned in the Bible as holding other offices (such as the Ethiopian Eunuch), which didn’t necessarily require castration. So, why were they then referred to as bed keepers? Because the term had come under common use to apply to all trusted servants of kings.
Was Daniel (who served under the chief Babylonian eunuch) a eunuch? His position as a special servant to the king would indicate that he held the title of eunuch. But is it possible that he had also been castrated? Well, as an early captive from Jerusalem, he was likely a member of the nobility or royalty, and notice the prophecy that God gave to King HezekiJah (at Isaiah 39:7), where we read, ‘They will take your children – those who you have fathered – and make them eunuchs in the houses of the Babylonians.’
In
the above case, the Greek word that we have translated as eunuch (which
is also a Greek word) is castrati, or one who has been sexually
mutilated. And the fact that there is no mention of Daniel having a wife or
children, and that none of his descendants are listed among those who returned
to
The term, Expression of Judgment (gr. logeion ton kriseon) is what the Greek text tells us that God used to describe the special jeweled chest covering of gold cloth that the Israelite High Priest wore when he served on special occasions. It had twelve different types of gems, each of which had the name of one of the Sons of Israel engraved upon it. The different types of stones likely signified different qualities of these individuals and/or their tribes.
It is interesting that the names were to be of the Sons of Israel, not the names of the tribes, so it is likely that Joseph would supplant the tribal names of his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and the Priestly tribe of Levi would have had its own stone.
The account at Acts 16:30-32 tells the story of a jailer who had just witnessed a miracle. And he asked Paul and Silas, ‘Lords; What must I do to get saved?’
And their reply was: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.’ And the account continues, ‘Then they spoke to him and all those in his house about the Word of God.’
After reading this account, many have concluded that faith in Jesus is all that a person requires to be ‘saved.’ But, those who do so overlook the reasoning and the rest of the Bible’s instructions. For example, an accurate understanding of God’s ways and laws are also required, otherwise, Paul and Silas wouldn’t have bothered to go on and teach this man and his household ‘about the Word of God.’
Jesus’
half brother James wrote and felt strongly about this matter. For example,
consider what he said at James 2:14, ‘What good does it do, my brothers, if
someone says he has faith, but isn’t moved to do anything about it? Can such
faith save him?’ He answers this question at James
What
type of faithful action was James saying was necessary to make our faith alive?
He spoke of the need to be willing to help our brothers when they lack the
necessities of life; to be just and forgiving of our brothers; and to live
clean, honest lives. Then he concluded (at James
At
Galatians 2:4, Paul wrote about problems that he had with ‘false brothers’ (gr.
pseudo adelphoi) that he had to deal with on his first visit to
That such men were likely considered to be in good standing by others, is substantiated by the fact that they met Paul in the presence of what appeared to be the heads of the congregation in Jerusalem, specifically James, Peter, and John.
What was so treacherous about these men that Paul would list this encounter along with being stoned, beaten, and left for dead? He wrote that they ‘looked down on the freedom we have in the Anointed Jesus. And they wanted to make us their slaves…’
In other words, they were accusing Paul and trying to override the commission that he had directly received from Jesus in a vision. So, they were in fact, resisting and opposing God’s Holy Breath.
Apparently, some in the First Century congregation in Jerusalem didn’t care much for Paul and the work he was doing, and they were giving him orders on how he should conduct himself, to whom he should preach, how he should preach, and what he should say. They would have loved to have ended Paul’s commission to preach to people of the nations. So, their obvious lack of love for Paul and their high regard for their own opinions (which were likely pro-Judaism) came close to disqualifying them as Paul’s ‘brothers,’ although there is no mention of their being corrected by anyone at the time.
Note
that Paul even reproved one of that same august body (Peter) for seeming racism
in his dealings with Gentile converts to Christianity (Galatians
The Greek word for respect (or value) is temer, while the Greek word for fear is phobou (as in phobia). You will often find phobou incorrectly translated as respect in some Bibles, especially when referring to wives in their relationships with their husbands. This is likely an effort on the part of some to make the Bible ‘politically correct,’ because the same word just a few verses away, when applied to slaves, is usually translated as fear.
What type of fear does the Bible mean? The same word (phobou) is used in other places to describe our relationships with God and Jesus, and we are to love them. So, phobou must imply a fear of creating displeasure, in the same way that husbands, wives, or slaves would fear (but love) God and Jesus. So, in several places we have translated phobou as [Godly] fear.
In
Jude (verse seven), we read of how the people of
The
problem with teaching that people don’t die but are tortured eternally for
their sins, is that they must first have an immortal
soul, or something that doesn’t die. However, the Greek word for immortality
(athanasia or undying) only appears in the Bible three times (at 1
Corinthians
Then,
what is the fate of unrepentant sinners? For the answer to that question, we
must return to the words of God when He warned the first human of what would
happen if he should sin. At Genesis
However,
did God later create a Hell Fire and give men immortal souls so they could
thereafter be tortured forever for their sins? No, for God’s warning is
repeated at Romans
So, God gives life (gr. zoe) and (in some case) immortality (gr. athanasia) as a gift to the righteous. But the wages of unrepented sin, is death (gr. thanatos).
Then,
what did Jude mean when he spoke of the people of
So, it appears as though death without the hope of a resurrection was the fate of those gross sinners that were killed by God when He rained fire down on them from the sky. They will be gone forever… burned through the ages, so to speak.
For more information, see the attached link, Is there a Burning Hell?
The Greek word μωραι (pronounced, moe-ra-ai) is often translated foolish or fool in other Bibles. However, μωραι is what the English word moron is derived from. The term moron, as used by Jesus and his Apostles, doesn’t imply to someone who has no comprehension, as the medical term moron does today. Rather, it meant someone who knows right from wrong but just doesn’t care to do what is right.
The ten virgins of Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25 weren’t just ‘foolish’ girls; they knew what to do and didn’t care enough to do it.
Paul
wrote (at Hebrews
Throughout the entire First Chapter of Hebrews, Paul was quoting scriptures that referred to Jesus, which told of his earlier position as a messenger of God in the heavens. There he was emphasizing Jesus’ superiority to the other messengers, because (as Hebrews 1:6 points out), Jesus was God’s ‘firstborn son.’ And in this list of quotations concerning him, Paul cited David’s words from Psalm 110:1 (Psalm 109:1 LXX), where Jehovah said to Jesus (David’s Lord), ‘Sit on my right until I set your enemies as a stool at your feet.’
Just what was God saying here, and when would this prophecy be fulfilled?
The
explanation and fulfillment of this prophecy is vividly described in Revelation
the Twelfth Chapter. The Revelation was (as Revelation
That ‘Day’ is apparently the same period that was described by Jesus (in Matthew 24 and 25), in his reply to the question his disciples asked, ‘Tell us; what will be the signs of when you are near?’ We say this, because there are several similar events mentioned in both prophecies.
Revelation 12:7-9 says, ‘Next, war broke out in heaven. MichaEl and his messengers went to war with the dragon, and the dragon and his messengers fought back; but he lost and could no longer stay in heaven. So, the huge dragon was thrown out. He is the first snake (the one who is called the Slanderer and Opposer) who is misleading the whole habitation [of man]. He was thrown down to the earth along with his messengers.’
Since
this war in heaven was to happen in ‘the Lord’s Day, we must assume that the
Slanderer and many of his heavenly followers still have access to heaven
(they’re not in any ‘Hell’) until the beginning of the Lord’s Day, when they
lose the battle there and are thrown down to the earth. Then, to give us some
reference to the time that this happens, the account goes on to say (at
Revelation
So, according to the prophecy, the period after the heavenly war would be marked by a special time of ‘woe’ for the earth – likely a time of world wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters, as foretold by Jesus at Matthew – and since this is a heavenly war (which results in Jesus’ enemies being thrown down to the earth), it is obviously what the scriptures at Psalm 110:1 and Hebrews 1:13 have reference to. And Isaiah 66:1 quotes God as saying, ‘The heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool.’
Therefore, from the above, we must assume that after Jesus’ resurrection, he went to a position of favor at the right of God’s throne, from which position he has acted as the head of the Christian Congregation since his ascension to heaven. However, when the events of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 start to be fulfilled, his enemies are thrown down from heaven and ‘put at his footstool’ (the earth).
And
notice what the account at Revelation
So, it appears as though this is the time (when his enemies are placed as a stool for his feet), that Jesus starts ruling as king in his Kingdom.
While
Ezra’s commandment for the people of
Also notice that kindness was shown to these wives and children, because time was allowed, so as to not put them out in the cold, and many could well have been given some measure of the family inheritance when they left.
It appears as though God has provided a secret sign, known only to God and a person’s mate, to indicate righteousness or a desire to be righteous; the foreskin of the genitalia. On males, this is the extra fold of skin around the top of the penis; and on females, it is the small piece of skin called the hymen. So, whether this skin remains unbroken or is removed, is something that is quite secret and unseen by others, but known by God and one’s mate.
It seems unusual that both of these small pieces of skin appear to have been made to be broken or cut off without creating any long-term injury or harm; and in the case of the hymen, is exclusive to humans. So, it appears as though man was deliberately created with the extra fold of skin, so that those who wished to remain faithful could choose to indicate this desire before God in a very private way.
We first learned of the meaning and need for males to be circumcised, when God told Abraham that he, his entire household, and all his descendants should have their foreskin removed. Note what He said as found at Genesis 17:10-12, ‘This is the Sacred Agreement between you and your seed (through all its generations) and Me: All of your males must be circumcised. The foreskin of your flesh must be circumcised. This will be the sign of the Sacred Agreement between you and Me. You must circumcise all of your male children when they are eight-days old, throughout all your generations. [This includes all the] servants who are born in your house, those who are bought with money, and it includes the sons of aliens who are not your seed.’
It is also interesting that new-born males were to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth, because that is precisely the best time to perform this delicate operation, since that is the time when the least bleeding will occur. Who would have known this, other than God?
It
was later on, after the death of Jesus, when many gentile converts were coming
into the Christian Congregation, that the question of
circumcision arose, for circumcised Jewish Christians were demanding that
uncircumcised gentile converts should also be circumcised. And when the matter
was brought before ‘the Holy Ones’ in
In
other words, physical circumcision was no longer required. However, notice what
Moses wrote (as recorded at Deuteronomy
As you can see, there is both physical circumcision and a spiritual circumcision, which both amount to a removing of the sign of impurity (for males).
Females, of course, were not to be circumcised, because their foreskin is a sign of their virginity. And although modern people call the practice of surgically removing the clitoris (as is practiced by many peoples on the African continent today) ‘female circumcision,’ that is just mutilation, not a removal of the foreskin.
What
is the purpose of establishing virginity among women? Because God’s view is
that a husband has a right to choose a wife of high moral character who is
clean and untouched. And for this, He provided the sign of the foreskin, which
bleeds when first broken in sexual relations. So in ancient
And, just as one can choose to be circumcised in the heart, one can also choose to be a spiritual virgin, for at Revelation 14:4 we read of such individuals: ‘These didn’t dirty themselves with women. In fact, they are virgins who keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. They were bought from mankind [and offered] as the first fruitage to God and to the Lamb.’
What type of virginity is being spoken of here? This scripture isn’t talking about living the life of a monk or a nun, but of someone who has kept him/herself pure in their worship of God. A contrasting person would be one who the Disciple James spoke of at James 4:4, where he said, ‘Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world, you’re an enemy of God? So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself down as God’s enemy.’
For a graphic description of what a spiritual whore is to God, read His description of the unfaithfulness of Judah and Israel, using the pseudonyms Aholah and Aholibah, as found in Ezekiel the Twenty-Third Chapter.
On the other hand; in the account of the Bride of the Lamb found in Revelation 19:7, 8, we read, ‘Let’s rejoice, shout in joy, and glorify Him, because it’s time for the Lamb’s wedding! His bride has prepared herself, and she was found worthy to be dressed in bright, clean, fine linen. This fine linen represents the righteous actions of the Holy Ones.’
Of
course, according to the Law of God, this bride of Jesus (the Lamb) has to be a
virgin, because of his heavenly position as the High Priest before God. For,
notice what God required of the brides of the entire Priesthood class of
The Greek word porneia means much more than copulation between individuals who aren’t married to each other. The term literally means that which is sold (by prostitutes). So, it includes all the types of services that might be sold by a prostitute, not just copulation. However, this includes such actions between unmarried ‘consenting adults,’ although there may be no exchange of money, because, where porneia is found in the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew Law shows that it involves intimate relations between unmarried persons.
Because the English word fornication carries the nuance of just copulation between unmarried persons, we have used the broader term sexual immorality here to indicate the full range of the term.
Of all the vices that religious people have, one of the most deadly is what James described as being ‘friends of the world.’ For, notice what he wrote at James 4:4, 5, ‘Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world, you’re an enemy of God? So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself down as God’s enemy. Or, did you think that the scripture doesn’t apply that says, [God’s] Breath, which lives in us, tends to be jealous.’
Why did James write this? Well, notice his description of those Christians who are friends of the world. He called then ‘adulteresses.’ Why did he use that term? Well, Paul wrote of Christians at 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3, ‘I personally promised you in marriage to a husband as a chaste virgin, to stand beside the Chosen One. However, I’m afraid that somehow, in the same way that the snake cunningly seduced Eve, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are owed to the Anointed One.’
In what way are Christians to be ‘chaste virgins?’ As James was pointing out, they do this by staying free of this dying and condemned old world and its wicked ways. Notice how those who are found worthy to be kings in heaven were described at Revelation 14:4, 5, ‘These are the ones who didn’t make themselves unclean with women. In fact, they are virgins. They’re the ones who keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. They were bought from among mankind as first fruit to God and to the Lamb. No lies are found in their mouths and they don’t have any defects.’
So, spiritual ‘virginity’ is required to receive an inheritance in the heavens. How is this virginity obtained? Well, notice what was also said of these ‘spiritual virgins,’ at Revelation 20:4, ‘Next, I saw thrones. Those who were executed with axes for testifying about Jesus and telling about God, and those who hadn’t worshiped the wild animal or its image, and who hadn’t received the mark on their forehead and on their hand, sat down on them, and they were appointed judges. They came to life and ruled as kings with the Chosen One for a thousand years.’
What must a person do to avoid worshiping ‘the wild animal and its image’ and having its ‘mark?’ If you look up those scriptures and open the Notes there, you’ll find that these are the people who refuse to support the political goals of nations and men. Otherwise, those who claim to be virgins and to be promised in marriage to ‘the Lamb’ (Jesus) as members of God’s Kingdom, but who support worldly governments that are under the control of the Opposer and his demons, are in reality ‘adulteresses.’
Why, according to Revelation 16:14, these very governments (kings) will soon go to war against God. Notice what we are told there, ‘They were the inspirations of demons and they serve as signs. These [inspirations] went to all the kings of the earth to bring them together for the war of the Great Day of the Almighty God.’
Remember what the Opposer said to Jesus about the control that he had over ‘all the kingdoms of the world,’ at Luke 4:6, 7, ‘I’ll give you power over all of these and the glory of them, because they’ve been given to me and I can give them to whoever I wish. They will all be yours, if you will just bow before me.’
So, how can Christians who are promised in marriage to Jesus get involved in this world, its politics, or its wars, and still remain ‘chaste virgins’ who are worthy of becoming ‘one’ with him? As James concluded, ‘Whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself down as God’s enemy.’
At Ecclesiastes 7:2 we rendered the Greek words ‘Agathon poreuthenai eis oikon penthous’ as ‘It’s better to attend a funeral.’ Yet, a word-for-word translation says ‘Is/good to/go into a/house of/mourning.’ Why have we made this change? Because, modern terminology would refer to this as attending a funeral.
The
fourth plague that God sent to
Unfortunately, both of those terms (dog fly and gadfly) are unfamiliar to most readers. However, when researching the term dog fly, we found that this is just another name for the common stable fly, which bites like a horsefly but is about the size of a housefly. That is why we have settled on this term.
The
Greek word Gehenna is often translated Hell Fire. Yet, the word
simply means the Valley (heb. ga) of Hinnom.
The
As a garbage dump, it was customary to keep the garbage burning to reduce the stench and to limit vermin, so sulfur and brimstone were frequently poured into the dump to keep the fires burning hot. This is why Jesus, when using the term, spoke of the fire as not being put out. Also, because worms (maggots) bred along the edges of the dump, he could say that the worms don’t die there. But there is no indication that he was really talking about humans.
The only cases where humans were actually thrown into Gehenna provides an insight into what Jesus was talking about when he referred to people going there: The dead bodies of particularly vile criminals were thrown into Gehenna’s fires whenever the population felt that they were undeserving of a decent burial.
As you read the Scriptures, you will notice the importance that Hebrews placed on being ‘laid to rest with their ancestors.’ So, when Jesus spoke of people being thrown into Gehenna, he was obviously referring to unrepentant sinners being thrown into the ‘garbage dump.’ In other words, in the eyes of God, they were unworthy of a resurrection. This same fate (of no resurrection) is implied by the death of the wicked Queen JezeBel, whose body was eaten by dogs.
Such an outcome for the willfully wicked is also referred to in Matthew’s account as the fire of the age. Why was that term used? Because fire destroys, and this destruction is for the ages.
For more information, see the linked document, ‘Is there a Burning Hell?’
At 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, Paul profiles the types of people who ‘won’t inherit God’s Kingdom.’ Listed offenders include, as we have translated it herein, ‘gays and men who have sex with men.’
Recognize that the ‘gay’ lifestyle is usually (but not always) sexually promiscuous, so the acts involved in it also constitute porneia. And as with all others who are sexually immoral, they are counted among the rest of the unrighteous whose names have not been written in the Book (or Scroll) of Life.
Notice here, that Paul makes a fine distinction, which covers the full range of male homosexual behavior. The Greek word malakoi (translated ‘gays’ herein), means ‘softies,’ or ‘soft men,’ which is the modern-day equivalent to those who call themselves ‘gay,’ or those who enjoy having other men obtain sexual gratification from them.
The other term, arsenokoitai, which literally translates as, ‘male bed-ers’ and is rendered as ‘men who have sex with men’ herein, refers to amoral men who don’t consider themselves ‘gay,’ but are willing to take sexual advantage of other men, as was the case at Sodom.
Are such individuals ‘eternally damned?’ Not necessarily, for Paul referred to them as just ‘unrighteous,’ and he said that they wouldn’t ‘inherit God’s Kingdom.’ However, Paul wrote (at Acts 24:15) that there would be a resurrection for both ‘the righteous and the unrighteous.’ And the promise at Revelation 21:7 is that all who are resurrected and ‘conquer’ will ‘inherit these things.’
For more information, see the linked document, God’s Promise of an Inheritance, and the Note (from Leviticus) Homosexuality and Bestiality.
When
the Bible speaks of ‘the people of the nations’ or ‘the gentiles’ (gr. tas ethne – or literally, the ethnics),
we think of all those who aren’t referred to as ‘Jews.’ However, in Genesis we
find another definition of the term. Notice what Genesis 10:2-5 says, ‘Japheth’s
sons were Gamer, Magog [the Scythians], Madoi [the Medes], Jovan, Elisa,
Thobel [of Tubal], Mosoch [of Meshech], and Thiras [
From this account we can see that the term, ‘the people of the nations’ or ‘gentiles’ originally referred to just the descendants of Japheth (Aryans) who lived across the Mediterranean Sea from the sons of both Shem and Ham (who lived primarily in the East, Middle East, and Africa).
Also, in the battle that Abraham fought to save his Nephew Lot, one of the kings he fought against was ‘Thargal, the king of Gentiles.’ However, because of the diverse scattering of the gentile nations by the time of Moses (when this portion of Genesis was likely written), Thargal was probably the king of just one gentile nation (not all).
So,
this raises the question of whether the Bible’s references to the gentiles
thereafter indicated only those who lived in
It
is interesting that the Medes and Persians settled in a land that came to be
known as
The
third plague that God sent to
At Psalm 82:1 we read, ‘Our God has stood in the gathering of gods, and in the midst of the gods He judges.’
This verse – in fact, this entire Chapter – is usually not (or is only vaguely) understood. Who are the ‘gods’ that God meets with and judges? Psalm 82:6 tells us, ‘I said You are gods; of the Most High you’re sons.’ So, these words seem to apply to individuals who were created directly by God, His messengers (angels), and what became known as the demons (those who receive God’s adverse judgment).
The usual explanation of Psalm 82:6 is that God was speaking to humans, for Jesus quoted this scripture at John 10:34-36, when he said, ‘Isn’t it written in your Law, I say that you are gods? If He called those who were spoken against in God’s Word gods (and you can’t void the Scriptures), how can you tell me (one who was made holy and sent into the world by the Father) that I blaspheme because I say I’m God’s Son?’
However, notice that Jesus wasn’t saying that his listeners were gods; he was saying that those with whom God met and judged (as mentioned in the Psalms) were called gods. And these were not only God’s sons (direct creations of God), but they lived in ‘dark places’ or Tartarus (see Psalm 82:5).
God has not come and met with gatherings of men, but He has met with all His spirit creation, as Job 1:6 tells us. So from the context, we must assume that God was calling His wicked spirit sons gods, and He was warning them that when the old ‘earth and sky’ pass away (see 2 Peter 3), they too will be destroyed.
Notice that; at Exodus 7:1 God told Moses, ‘Look! I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is your Prophet.’ So, was Moses literally turned into a god? Yes he was, if you understand what that really means.
Now, we recognize that this concept may be a bit difficult to grasp for people who were raised in a monotheistic society where the word god refers to just one individual. However, remember that the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), and to them the word theos (god) referred to a large group of individuals who were more powerful than men. So in Greek, theos just means powerful one, not Creator (which is what the Hebrew name Jehovah implies – He who causes to be).
Also, notice how God again used the word gods at Exodus 22:28 to refer to men. In Greek this verse reads, ‘theous ou logeseis,’ or, ‘You aren’t to speak badly of the gods.’ But if you read the context, you will see that God was telling the Israelites not to speak badly of powerful humans here, not to demon ‘gods.’
Thus, the terms god and gods just refer to the powerful. And even men can be gods… that is, in the truest sense of the word’s meaning (powerful ones). So a word-for-word literal translation of John 1:1 can read, ‘In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was toward the Powerful One; and powerful was the Word.’
Then, why did we use the term God, rather than Powerful One at John 1:1 to describe The God? We’ve left the first term (God) in place, because that’s what people call the Divine One today.
So, is the Logos the God or just god (powerful)? From the context of John 1:1, it appears as though Jesus (the Logos) is theos – powerful – but not The God (gr. ton Theon). For, notice that Jesus described himself as simply God’s son (gr. Uios tou Theou eimi) at John 10:36.
Also, notice that at John 1:1, the words Logos (λογος) and Theon (θεον) are both preceded by the definite article the (ο λογος and τον θεον), except in the case where the Logos is referred to simply as theos (θεος). By employing such wording, John was obviously differentiating Jesus from The God. You can clearly see the differences in the words when you read John 1:1, 2, which says in Greek: ‘Eν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. Oυτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.’
That the early Christians didn’t view Jesus as The God is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in 70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.’
As you can see, Jesus (who is referred to as ‘the Word’ here) was called ‘powerful’ (or godlike), but the following verses show that he wasn’t ‘The powerful one’ (The God). Rather, he was just powerful like (but greater than) Moses. It is the same as in the case of God’s words to Moses at Exodus 7:1, where He said that Moses was to be Pharaoh’s god. Moses was given a position of power over Pharaoh.
For more information, see the document, Who Was Jesus?
The
idea that the Jews are still God’s chosen people and that they will eventually
rule over the earth from the City of
For
instance, notice Jesus’ words to the people of that city as found at Matthew
So, their ‘house’ (the position of special favor with God) was removed from them due to their repeated rejection of God’s ways and His Prophets, and for murdering His Son.
Notice how Jesus pictures this rejection of the Jews as God’s chosen people in his parable of the king who hired laborers to work in his vineyard (at Matthew 21:33-41). The story ends when the cultivators killed the king’s son. And what was the result? Verse 41 says, ‘Then he will hire others to cultivate the vineyard who will give him the fruit when it’s due.’
In Chapter 22 (verses 1-10) Jesus repeats this theme with the parable of the king who invited guests to a grand meal, but none of those who were invited (the Jews) showed up. In fact, they killed his messengers, and then his son. The account says, ‘So, he sent his army to destroy the murderers and burned their city.’ Then he sent his attendants out to invite ‘others’ to this great feast.
Who are these ‘others?’ Well, out of respect for His Sacred Agreement with Abraham, God continued to offer the opportunity to be ‘kings and Priests’ in the Kingdom exclusively to the Jews (and the related Samaritans) for the next 3-1/2 years. Then the opportunity to become ‘Spiritual Jews’ was offered to the first ‘Gentile’ converts, Cornelius and his family. Thereafter, the Bible speaks of growing numbers of Gentile converts, as Paul was appointed the ‘Apostle to the Nations.’
Also, notice Jesus’ words as found at Matthew 8:12, where he foretold, ‘However, the Sons of the Kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There they will cry and grind their teeth.’ Since the Jews were ‘the sons of the kingdom’ or the sons of the Abrahamic promise, the indication here is that they as a nation were being rejected.
Then in the letters of Paul, we read scripture after scripture that shows these Gentiles were thereafter included in the promise to Abraham, and that they comprised a ‘New Jerusalem.’ Notice what Paul wrote at Romans 2:28, ‘So, a Jew isn’t what you are on the outside, nor is circumcision something that’s outside on the flesh.’
In
other words, the faithful Gentiles had become ‘spiritual Jews,’ or the symbolic
‘twelve tribes of
So, the Jews were not only rejected by God, but they verbally rejected God and
asked for the blood of Jesus to be on them and their children (all future
generations). This is why the prophecies regarding
But,
what of Paul’s statement, found at Romans 11:25, 26, ‘
Doesn’t
this mean that the entire nation will eventually be saved? No, for notice what Paul
said at Romans 9:6-8 ‘Now, the word of God didn’t fail, because, not all who
came from
Then
he added at Romans 9:27, ‘Isaiah shouted this, about
So,
it appears as though
And
the fact is; Those who believe that all of
But,
couldn’t ‘all of
So, the Jews (those who practice Judaism) can never be considered righteous as long as they continue to trip over the ‘stumbling stone,’ their promised Messiah, Jesus.
For more information, see the linked document, Jerusalem and the Israel of God.
At Amos 7:1 in the Septuagint, we read about Gog the Grasshopper King, which is mentioned apparently in reference to the king of Assyria (who would attack the northern 10-tribe kingdom of Israel), or possibly in reference to the unseen force behind that great world power. For it says there: ‘Then the Lord [came and] showed me {Look!} a breed of locusts that were coming early in the morning, led by Gog the grasshopper king.’
In Greek he is described as βρουχος εις γωγ ο βασιλευς or, grasshoppers they/are of Gog the king.
This term isn’t found in modern Hebrew texts, which read: ‘This is what the Almighty LORD showed me: He was preparing swarms of locusts when the second crop was being harvested. It was the harvest that followed the harvest for the king.’ (GW)
Which is correct? We simply don’t know.
The account found at Genesis Chapter 47, where Joseph bought the Egyptian people’s land for Pharaoh, provides us an interesting insight into the history of governmental power to tax its residents, and to own the land (imminent domain).
From this unique historical source (the Bible), we can see that governmental power and taxation wasn’t necessarily common in early Egypt, which was in fact, the first great world power, and which became the source of information about how governments are to be subsidized to all future generations and governments.
Apparently, prior to that time, governmental taxation of an entire population was unknown. They may have derived their funds by coercing merchants or rich landowners… or by war. However, under Joseph’s inspired direction (and God’s permitting the famine), this first major government of history could legally claim the right to own the land and to tax the people. And while most archeologists and scholars deny the existence of Joseph (as well as a long line of other major Bible people and events), no one can deny the effect of what he did on world history.
So, can we say that God is responsible for governmental taxation? Yes, for notice what Romans 13:6, 7 tells us, ‘This is why you pay taxes, because as public servants, they are serving God’s purposes. So, pay everyone what they are owed; to the tax assessor, the property tax; to the toll collector, the toll; give the police fear, and honor those [who require] honor.’
It is also interesting that this early decision affected the religious clerics of the time, in that they owned their property and they paid no taxes, which is again similar to modern laws.
So, the conclusion we reach is that governmental power and taxation are things that God created for our benefit. And He also considered it necessary to remove religion from the influence of and the taxation of government.
The
parallels to these ancient laws of God can still be seen in modern governments,
where national taxation is usually about the same as it was in
The Greek word Hades (they pronounced it hah-des) has been translated both as Hell (which is thought of as a place of torture) and as the Grave in other Bible versions (such as the King James). Since one word can’t mean two very different things, which translation is correct?
Hades (like the English word Hell) actually means the place of the dead. However, as pagan Greek philosophy started to develop and creep into Christianity, the later-day Greek view of Hades (a place of torture) was applied to it. Was this a correct application?
An insight into how the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians understood the word can be gained by looking at how it was applied in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (the ‘Old Testament’ Bible of Jesus’ day). There, the Hebrew word Sheol is translated into Greek as Hades in every instance; yet in each case, these are obvious references to the grave (the place of the dead), not to a place of conscious torture (see Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10).
Another revealing application of the word Hades is found at Revelation the 20:13. It says there, ‘The sea (gr. he thalassa) gave up its dead, death and the grave (gr. thanatos kai ho hades) gave up those dead in them, and they were all judged by the things that they did.’
So, notice that those who die at sea are differentiated from those who are buried in graves (Hades) and in other places (thanatos). Therefore, Hades is better translated as grave.
In the book of Job, another word that is used once in the Christian-era Scriptures and often translated as Hell, is found in two places. That Greek word is Tartarus, which refers to the place where evil gods or angels are sent. For more information, see the linked document, Is There a Burning Hell?
The Greek word meso means middle (as in the English term, meso soprano). However, it is often translated as middle, midst, among, and HATE in other Bibles. Obviously, hate (an extreme emotion) isn’t conveyed by the word middle, which simply means less. For that reason, the word is translated as dislike (or the equivalent) herein, when it refers to the emotion.
In both the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (OT) and the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), we find all the realm of creation divided into three entities; the heavens (or sky), the earth (the land or ground), and the seas (the waters). Now, in contemporary English, we understand that there is a difference between the heavens and the sky, the earth and the land (or ground), and the seas and waters. However, in both Hebrew and Greek, these fine distinctions that we accept because of our modern technology, can’t be found. So, Genesis 1:1 could literally be translated as, ‘In the beginning, God created the sky and the ground.’
This is accurate, because it was the view of man from the earth. There was the land that he stood on, the sky above him, and the waters or seas over there. There was no technical understanding of the earth as a planet, because men didn’t view the earth as we do today, as a ball in space… it just wasn’t necessary at the time! However, because of these distinctions that we understand so well today, translators must choose the proper words to provide the right nuances in English, in order for readers to grasp the proper meaning of each text.
This is why you’ll find the Greek word ourano translated as both heaven(s) and sky herein, depending on the context. You’ll also find the Greek words ge and ges translated as earth, ground, or land, depending on the context. So, the symbolic words at 2 Peter 3:5, 6, for example, are translated herein as, ‘The thing that they don’t want to understand is this: That the ancient earth and sky were out of the water, but (in obedience to God’s instructions) they stood together between the waters.’ (For an example of the problems created by the wrong use of the words ge and ges, see the linked document Isaiah 24 - Is It Speaking of Armageddon?).
Notice that the ‘earth and sky’ were located ‘between the water.’ So, although other Bibles translated this verse as speaking of the ‘heavens and earth,’ the reference is to the portion of the heavens that are close to the earth… to the sky. Likewise, at Matthew 5:5, where Jesus spoke of the ‘meek’ as inheriting ‘the earth; since he was talking about people receiving an ‘allotment’ on the earth,’ we have chosen to translate ges as earth, not land or ground. However, the words land and ground are equally correct.
And finally, when it comes to the seas (gr. thalassa), there are already distinctions as to different types of waters in the Greek text. For instance, seas are called thalassa and rivers are called potamos (or ‘flowing’). However, notice (in Revelation 20: 13) how the resurrection of the dead is divided between those who died on land and those who were lost in the water, ‘The sea gave up its dead, death and the grave gave up those dead in them, and they were all judged by the things that they did.’
We again find all three of these realms of creation brought together symbolically at Revelation 21:1, where it says, ‘Then I saw a new earth and sky, because the previous earth and sky had disappeared, as did the sea.’
Also,
in the case of where EliJah was taken in a celestial chariot, most people think
he was taken to (as their Bibles put it) ‘heaven,’ where he went to live with
God. This isn’t true, because King JehoRam later received a letter from
Elijah (see 2
Chronicles
While we as translators claim no in-depth knowledge of the Hebrew language (this is a GREEK Bible translation), we do find its poetry, blessings, and songs interesting and beautiful. For, rather than putting the words together in a rime (as we do in English, where ending words must sound alike), the sentences fit together where the thoughts follow each other, so that they could be easily remembered and sung. Therefore, the actual words didn’t have to be memorized, for, as long as a person understands the thought, the poetry can be correctly repeated using slightly different words.
You’ll notice that each song seemed to have about four verses, for the verses followed in a logical order. However, in our translation we sometimes find only three verses… or sometimes two or six. And this may be due to our misunderstanding of their methods, or due to problems with translation (both ancient and ours).
However, as you go along in the Bible, you will also find entire books written in poetry (such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.), and most prophecies (such as those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were spoken and written in a form that is similar to songs, especially where God and His messengers are speaking. It was probably done this way to be remembered and repeated… perhaps even as songs, for that was an ancient Hebrew means of mass communication.
Why, many of Jesus’ parables were spoken and recorded as poetry, such as that portion called the beatitudes (Matthew 5).
Notice that; where we find the natural poetic rhythm in our translating, we have tried to restore the cadence for your benefit. This requires some rearranging and the addition or removal of extraneous words, but we have zealously worked to maintain the true meaning of the texts. Why is this necessary? Well, not only does it provide pleasant reading, but in places where the lyrics can’t be resolved, this provides a clear indication that something has been lost through the years. Proverbs 25 and 26, for example, by their lack of natural cadence and harmony, indicate questionable inspiration or a corruption of the original text. Also, God must consider the beauty of the text important, because that was the way He inspired it to be written.
You
might notice the two verses of a song that the Israelite women were singing
when Saul and David returned from a battle (1 Samuel 18:7): ‘Saul has cut down
thousands,
And David his ten thousands.’
Although these were just a few words of a much longer victory song, those
particular words offended Saul, for he felt that David was being considered
more important than he was. Yet, if you understand Hebrew poetry, you would see
that the words were part of a natural progression of words and they weren’t
actually chosen to elevate David or to offend Saul. Rather, Saul was being
petty.
We often hear people using the above terms interchangeably, as though they all refer to the same people, and they don’t. Abraham and all his descendants were Hebrews. That is, they all descended through Abram’s (or Abraham’s) great, great, great grandfather, Heber. However, many other lines of descent also came from this man; so, many other races are likely Hebrews also.
The first mention of the word Hebrew, is found at Genesis 14:13, where Abraham was referred to as a Hebrew. And thereafter, Isaac, IshMaEl, and Abraham’s other sons were also called Hebrews, as were Jacob, Esau, and all their descendants.
The
first Israelites (who were also Hebrews) were the twelve sons of Jacob (whom
God renamed
However,
the split between the tribes arose once again after the rule of Solomon, when
the northern ten tribes rebelled, creating their own kingdom called
And
actually, there were many people who came to be called both Jews and
Israelites, which weren’t related to either
The
Anglicized term ‘Jew’ is an English corruption of the word ‘Judean.’ And
although Jesus and many of his disciples were in fact Judeans, they were often
referred to by people who lived in the Roman
The
term ‘Semite’ even predates the term ‘Hebrew,’ because it refers to descendants
of Noah’s son Shem, which likely covers at least one-third of the peoples on
the earth. So, when someone accuses another of being ‘anti-Semitic,’ he or she
is actually accusing the person of being biased against a broad range of
peoples, including many so-called Arab nations. For, many Arab nations
are also Hebrews, and some directly descend from Abraham and even
These words are found at 1 SamuEl 18:1: ‘Well, as Saul was speaking, [the heart of his son] JoNathan became bound to David… he loved him as much as his own life.’
This verse is often referred to by individuals who wish to condone homosexual practices, to prove that King David had a male lover in JoNathan. However, the Greek word (in the Septuagint) that is used for ‘love’ here, agape, disproves that idea, for if there was a physical, sexual love, the word that would have been used is eros, which implies a sexual attraction. However, the love that JoNathan had for David was principled or pure, which is what agape implies. Yes, one man can love another without being sexually attracted to him, as in the case of JoNathan and David.
If
you search the Internet for references to Leviticus
So,
the Law strictly forbade male/male intercourse here, and listed it in the same
way as man/animal intercourse, calling the acts disgusting (gr. bdelugma).
For, in the next verse (Leviticus
However,
remember that this Law was given to, and just applied to, those living among
the people of
Then, may we conclude that God no longer has a law against such things? No, for Paul clarified the matter (of homosexuality) at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, where he listed ‘gays (gr. malakoi) and men who have sex with men (gr. arsenokoitai)’ with adulterers and other sexually immoral people; and he said that such ones wouldn’t ‘inherit God’s Kingdom.’
Also, Paul wrote (at Romans 1:26, 27), ‘And this is why God abandoned them to their dishonorable passions, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into something that’s unnatural, and the same is true of their males; for they left the natural use of females and started burning in their lust toward each other – males with males – doing what is indecent and receiving the type of reward they deserve for such wrongdoing.’
So, does this mean that such people are ‘eternally damned?’ No, it just means that God does not view them as righteous, but they still have a hope of a resurrection. For more information, see the linked documents The Hereafter and The Resurrection.
As
you read the Bible, you will notice that one of the most disgusting things to
God is when people are treated – or when they treat others – unjustly. This
subject is a repeated theme when discussing why God allowed the destruction of
However, despite God’s views on this, men often fail to understand the serious situation they put themselves in whenever they judge others. As Jesus said (at Matthew 7:1), ‘Don’t judge [others] so that you won’t be judged. Because, the things you are judging others over will be the things you are judged by. And the standards you set for them are the standards that will be set for you.’
So, the point is; whenever we judge others, God in turn is judging us. And while our judgment on others may have temporary effect, our lack of thought or poor motivation in passing that judgment may result in the permanent wrath of God… He will judge us as we have judged others.
Notice
Paul’s charge to Timothy (at 1 Timothy
Romans 8:19-21 says, ‘For [all] creation has been eagerly expecting and waiting the revealing of the Sons of God. Why, the things that were created didn’t choose not to have a reason [for living], and it was only because of Him that they had hope. For, creation will be set free from slavery to decay through the glorious liberation of the children of God.’
What is Paul really saying here? One religious authority wrote, ‘Do beasts and plants hope to attain the glorious freedom of the children of God? No. All creation, then, can refer only to mankind.’
Is this conclusion correct? If so, then Paul just didn’t use the right words! For, why would he have said creation (gr. ktisis) when he really meant men (gr. anthropois)? Is it difficult to believe that Paul really knew what he was talking about?
Let’s assume for a moment, that Paul meant the words he wrote – that ‘all creation will be set free from being slaves to decay’ – and see if this promise can come true for something other than just mankind.
First, what is the freedom of the sons of God? From numerous other scriptures, we conclude that this freedom will come as the result of the new heavens or sky – the rulership of Jesus and the called and chosen sons of God. Will such a righteous rule be a blessing to more than mankind? We think so.
For example: Will animals benefit from the rule of God’s Kingdom? At Genesis 1:28, God gave men the following commission, ‘And God blest them, saying, Reproduce, multiply, fill the earth and control it. Rule over the fish of the seas, the winged creatures of the skies, all the herding animals of the ground, all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground, and the whole earth.’
The implications of this scripture are staggering, if you just think about it. However, it appears as though the first humans (Adam and Eve) relinquished this privilege of rulership over the earth and its animals when they sinned and submitted to the Slanderer, effectively handing their commission over to him. The net effect of this, is that for the past six thousand years, men have lost their right to rule over the earth and its creatures in the way that God intended.
This is why Paul wrote (at Hebrews 2:8), ‘So, when [God] puts everything under [his feet], He doesn’t leave anything that [men] aren’t in charge of. However, we don’t see everything obeying us yet.’
No, as Paul said, ‘We don’t see everything obeying us yet.’ Nor do we see this world in general, responding to Jesus’ righteous rule. However, that will all change under the rulership of the sons of God.
Thereafter,
we can scarcely imagine what powers will be returned to mankind, when the
commission that God gave us over this earth and its creatures is fully
restored. With no opposition, and each man endowed with a full measure of the
power of God’s Breath, the blessings to this earth, its creatures, and
See the linked contributed poem, Animals Our Wards .
On
what mountain did Moses meet with God, Sinai or Horeb? Actually, both names
seem to be mentioned interchangeably in most Bibles, for at Exodus 34:2 Moses
was told, ‘So, be ready to climb
Well,
Horeb may not have actually been a name, but a description that was
mistranslated as a name… something that has happened with several other words
in the Bible. Ho’reb is a Hebrew word for dry, which aptly
describes this land in the Sin (pronounced Seen and/or Sheen)
Desert, near the southern tip of
Sinai
may have gotten its name from its prominent place toward the end of the
Most Bible translations render Paul’s words at Acts 20:20 as saying that he had taught ‘publicly and from house to house.’ Yet, that isn't exactly what he said, for the Greek words were actually, ‘demosia kai kat oikous,’ or, ‘in/public and according/to house.’ So, notice that there is no mention of moving between houses. Therefore, The New Living Translation rendered Paul’s words as, ‘publicly or in your homes,’ and The Bible in Basic English renders them as ‘publicly and privately.’ So, which is correct?
Well,
to better understand the actual meaning of the words, it is important to look
at the context. Notice the entire setting as shown in verses seventeen through
twenty-one: ‘However, [while he was] in
As you can see; Paul wasn’t speaking of his preaching from house to house, but rather, he was reminding the elders of how he had preached to them both publicly and in the privacy of their homes.
So, does this mean that Paul didn’t preach from house to house in cities? No, for there is little record of how early Christians preached the Word of Christianity so successfully, so we can’t say for sure. However, the only Bible records show that Paul spoke in public places, such as in synagogues, in auditoriums, in an area of washerwomen, and in market places.
Throughout
the Bible, the Greek word that is used in most places to describe the
There
is a Greek word that might also mean
You can see proof of the Bible’s inspiration by God it and of some of its prophetic significances in the songs of King David, as found in the book of Psalms. For, there are numerous verses in the Psalms that exactly mirror the words and actions of Jesus, as well as of many of the things that happened to him. Take for example, what David wrote at Psalm 22:16-18, ‘Many dogs now have me surrounded, and the wicked now gather around me. They’re cutting into my hands and my feet; they count all my bones, as they watch me and contemplate. They’ve divided my garments among themselves, and thrown dice for the clothes that I wore.’
Also, notice David’s words at Psalm 22:20, where he said, ‘O rescue my life from the broadsword; and from the hands of dogs, save the one son that You fathered.’
The words found here are exactly the same as those found at Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, Hebrews 11:17, and 1 John 4:9. In Greek, the word we have translated as ‘the one son you fathered’ (to maintain the poetic style) is monogenea, or only fathered; and in the Bible it is only used to describe Jesus, who was in fact God’s only fathered (or only generated) son. For more information on the meaning of this word, see the linked Note in John, Only-Generated God, Only-Generated Son.
As you can see, many of the words of this Psalm tell exactly what would happen at the time of Jesus’ death. So, look for the many parallels and prophecies as you read the book of Psalms.
One
Psalm in particular appears to have been written by David under inspiration
with Jesus in mind… Psalm 110. Jesus applied this
scripture to himself at Matthew 22:43-45, as did Peter at Acts
And
did you notice that David referred to himself several times as the Christ?
You may not have, for we translated the Greek word Christon (Christ) as Anointed
in each place where it was found. Yet, David could truly refer to himself as the
Christ, because, he (like Jesus) had been anointed to be the king of
all
Hypocrite is a Greek word that is just spelled a little differently than it is in English (hypocritai). However, we give the English word a nuance that isn’t implied in Greek. The first part of the Greek word, hypo, means under, and the second part, critai, means judge (it’s what we get critical and criticize from). So, in the Bible, a hypocrite is a ‘lesser judge,’ or one who is very judgmental of the actions or conduct and others. This differs from the meaning in English, which is: Someone who doesn’t follow his own advice.
The Scribes and Pharisees were referred to as Hypocrites in the Bible, because they condemned the actions of others. And like anyone who tends to be critical of others, they likely failed in the same ways in which they condemned others, and that would make them also fit the English definition. However, the Bible meaning is ‘judgmental.’
Being too judgmental is a very serious flaw, which is common to those who think they are very righteous. It is reported that the Pharisees especially thought of themselves as being more righteous than others, and it was their opinion that they would be the only ones to be found righteous and worthy of a resurrection by God. Notice what Jesus said would happen to those who are judgmental (Matthew 7:1): ‘Don’t judge [others], so you won’t be judged. For, the [rules] that you use to judge others, are the rules that will be used to judge you; and the standards you are setting for them, are the standards that they’ll set for you.’
In
Daniel Chapter Two, King NebuChadnezzar saw a huge image in a dream that had a
head of gold; hands, chest, and shoulders of silver; belly and thighs of brass;
legs of iron; and feet of iron and baked clay (pottery). Then Daniel explained
that King NebuChadnezzar (or the world empire of
Daniel
described the next empire (the brass) as one that would ‘dominate the whole
earth;’ and that aptly describes the empire of
The
next ‘king’ or empire (the legs of iron) was described by Daniel as being ‘as
strong as iron. For, as iron crushes and tames all things, it will tame and
crush everything.’ That aptly describes
But which empire (king) is represented by the feet of iron and baked clay? We know that it has to be a last empire, since it will be replaced (crushed) by God’s Kingdom.
Now,
there have been several world empires since the time of Roman domination; the
Turks, the Huns, the Norse, the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the British,
and the Americans. However, the Bible only speaks of one empire after
The
first clue comes from the Greek words used in verse 41, where we read (in
part), ‘kai apo tes rizes tes sideras estai en on,’ or, ‘and from the
roots of/the iron is in it.’ So, we must conclude that this ‘king’ is
rooted in the
The next clue comes from the words found in verses 42 and 43, which say, ‘And because the toes of the feet are part iron and part baked clay; part of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be broken. For, as you saw the iron mixed with the baked clay, [this kingdom] will be mixed with the seed of men… they won’t stick to each other, as iron won’t stick to baked clay.’
Notice
that the kingdom will be ‘mixed with the seed of men,’ or made up of many
races. That well describes the vast
The final clue is the fact that these governments (or loose empire) are the last. So, if the prophecy in Daniel pictures them, we would assume that God’s Kingdom will soon ‘hit the image on its feet of iron and baked clay, and completely shatter them.’
Belief in an immediate resurrection into heaven after death is one of the most common beliefs among most of Christendom’s religions today. In fact, religions have even invented rules as to who gets to heaven, when, and through which routes. However, Jesus (and the Revelation) speaks of the resurrection happening in ‘the last day,’ not of people having an ‘immortal soul’ that immediately speeds off to ‘the light’ at death.
The teaching of immediate life in heaven, although never actually promised in the Bible, has been a mainstay of almost all religions throughout history. So, it is not surprising that some early ‘Christians’ would try to adopt this belief into Christianity. And this appears to be the situation that Paul was talking about at 2 Timothy 2:17, 18, where he wrote: ‘That was the problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus. They got away from the truth and started teaching that the resurrection has already happened, which misdirected the faith of some.’
Also, see the document ‘the Resurrection.’
The Greek word εν (en) simply means in. However, it is translated as in, one, in union with, and as other words, depending on the context, in most Bibles.
Especially
in the book of John do we find the question raised, ‘Was Jesus really the same
person as The God?’ This question is raised because the text at John
However, the text above is often translated as, ‘I and my father are one.’ Is this the true sense of what John wrote? Is Jesus ‘one with’ (the same as) the Father?
That
could be a correct translation, but not in the context of the way the book of
John was written. For example, notice how John
So, if John 10:38 means that Jesus is the same person as his Father, then John 14:20 means that all of Jesus’ followers are the same person and that they are also the same persons as Jesus and his Father. Is this a logical conclusion? No, because it doesn’t harmonize with numerous other scriptures that show his followers to be individuals, but one with (or, in unity with) Jesus and God.
Notice that the first laws that God gave forbidding incest are found in Leviticus the Eighteenth Chapter… and that more than just concerns about genetic problems caused by inbreeding are involved. Clearly, it was also a matter of propriety and respect. For, even having sexual relations with close relatives who are not genetically related was forbidden.
This is quite a different view from what faithful servants of God considered right and proper prior to that time. In fact, during the times of Adam and Noah (after the downpour), marrying anyone other than a close relative wasn’t an option. And in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, marriage to anyone other than a close relative was considered unwise, due to the corrupt practices of the nations that lived around them (Abraham married his half sister, and both Isaac and Jacob married first cousins).
The words found at Matthew 28:19, ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,’ are not found in the ancient Shem Tob Hebrew manuscript, so they may be spurious (words that were added to the Bible). So, did Jesus really command that we be baptized in those names?
Many churches use this as a baptismal formula, and it has been called the Trinity Formula, since it contains the three-person Godhead.
At present, we don’t have any complete manuscripts of Matthew prior to the 4th Century, and all existing manuscripts written thereafter contain this phrase. However, there is evidence that this is a later corruption of the original text, for the early Church historian Eusebius appears to quote from a different manuscript than any we presently have. For, eighteen times between the years 300 and 336-C.E., he cited Matthew 28:19, 20 as saying: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’ So, there was no mention of being baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It
is interesting that the traditional Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 does not appear in Eusebius’ writings until after the
Council of
However, this finding may prove to cut both ways for some, because; while it breaks apart the only mention of the Trinity trio, it does seem to prove what many Trinitarians have said all along, that baptisms should only be done in the name of Jesus. So, since there may be no mention of baptism into the Father and Holy Breath (Spirit), the only other instructions in the Bible on how to baptize people say:
The simple answer is yes… if you understand what the word god means. This idea may be a bit difficult to grasp for those of us who were raised in a monotheistic society where God refers to just One. However, remember that the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), and to them the word theos referred to a large group of individuals who were simply more powerful than men. So, theos just meant a powerful one, not the Creator (which is what the Hebrew name Jehovah implies – He who causes to be).
To prove that translating the word theos as powerful is correct, notice how the Bible speaks of other (unfaithful) messengers of God as gods at Psalm 82:6 (which scripture Jesus also quotes at John 10:34-36), where it says, ‘I said, You are gods; of the Most High you’re sons!’
Also, notice that at Exodus 7:1, God told Moses, ‘Look! I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is your Prophet.’
So, the terms god and gods just refer to the powerful. And even men can be gods… that is, in the truest sense of the word’s meaning (powerful ones). Thus, a word-for-word literal translation of John 1:1 can read, ‘In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was toward the Powerful One; and powerful was the Word.’
Then, why did we use the term God rather than Powerful One at John 1:1 to describe The God? We’ve left the first term (God) in place, because that’s what people call the Divine One today.
So, is the Logos The God or just god (powerful)? From the context of John 1:1, it appears as though Jesus (the Logos) is theos – powerful – but not The God (gr. ton theon). For, notice that Jesus described himself as simply God’s son (gr. Uios tou Theou eimi) at John 10:36.
Also notice that at John 1:1 the words Logos (λογος) and Theon (θεον) are both preceded by the definite article the (ο λογος and τον θεον), except in the case where the Logos is referred to simply as theos (θεος). By employing such wording, John was obviously differentiating Jesus from The God. You can clearly see the differences in the words when you read John 1:1, 2 in Greek: ‘Eν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. Oυτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.’
That the early Christians didn’t view Jesus as The God is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in 70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.’
For more information, see the document, Who Was Jesus?
To see how Jesus was described at John 1:1 in the most ancient Coptic texts, see the link http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.
At Isaiah 14:12, we find a word that is often translated as bright (or shining) one. But, what we find in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts are the words heh-lehl eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem yah-lahl ill. And the meaning of ill is howl! So, why has it been translated as bright or shining in almost all modern texts?
It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or used a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. And if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, was shortened to ell, its meaning would be corrupted, which appears to be what happened. For, Kittel’s Hebrew Text reads ah-lahl, or HOWL.
And
notice that the Hebrew verb eill in Isaiah
So,
a correct translation of Isaiah
It’s
unfortunate that people in general seem to look for the worst in everything. As
the result, they often take for granted that everything others complain about
is true. A good example of this principle can be found in Numbers the Eleventh
Chapter. For, if you were to ask people what the Israelites had to eat during
the forty years that they trekked in the desert, most would answer ‘just
manna.’ And for a fact, most tend to sympathize with the Israelites who
complained, because they think that all God gave His people to eat at the time
was just a prison ration of bread (manna) and water… NOT
Notice
their complaint. At Numbers 11:4-8 we read, ‘Who is going to give us meat to
eat? We remember all the fish that we used to eat in
Was
that the true situation? Well, remember that the main occupation of these
people (and the main source of their wealth) was huge flocks and herds of
cattle (see Genesis 46:32 and Exodus
Then,
what were they complaining about? Well, notice who really started the
complaining. Verse four says, ‘It was the [Gentiles] who were mixed among them
that started [complaining].’ So, the instigators were probably Egyptians and
others who weren’t used to a shepherd’s diet. Rather, what they missed was the
markets of
Of
course, the ‘meat’ that the Gentiles among them seemed to be missing was the
large variety of animals that they used to consume in
How did God solve this problem? By sending them the ‘meat’ that they asked for in such an abundance that they virtually became sick of eating it. Yet, the wild game that He provided (quail) was still allowed under His Law.
Another common misunderstanding about this matter, is the answer to the question: ‘Why did God then send a plague on the people for eating the quail?’
We have heard many answers to this in past years, such as, ‘They ate without giving thanks,’ or, ‘They didn’t take time to drain the blood.’ However, neither of these answers are supported by the verses, for actually, the Bible doesn’t give us an answer. All we know is that ‘greed’ was involved. You might notice, for example, the quantity of meat that was slaughtered… and possibly consumed. The account indicates that the slaughter of the birds was wanton, and this may have been followed by gluttony. Also, the plague may have come as the result of God’s anger over the entire situation, which included their dissatisfaction with God’s miraculous provisions, and with their ‘greed’ of wanting things that they weren’t entitled to.
In the Septuagint, Jeremiah 31:37 reads: ‘Tade legei kurion Thus says the/Lord, ean upsothe ho ourano eisto meteoron if should/be/raised/up the heaven in height, kai eantapeinothe to epeinothe tes ges kato and/if lowered the floor of/the earth below, kai ego ouk apodokimo to genos Israel legei Kyrios so I will not reject the race of/Israel says the/Lord, peri panton on epoieson for all the/things that/they/did.’
However, the Hebrew text reads: ‘Thus says the Lord: If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord.’
As
you can see, there is a significant difference between the meanings of the two
different text sources. For, the Septuagint says that
Well,
verse 36 provides the answer to the question, for it says there: ‘If these
Laws before Me cease to be, then the race of
But, does this error prove the Septuagint as the inferior text? Not necessarily, because we continually find obvious errors in both sources of text. And far too often, the Septuagint follows logical reasoning better and it offers details that are not found in modern Hebrew texts; so we tend to trust the Greek text, while keeping an eye out for errors.
According to the Greek text, Jesus’ last words at Matthew 27:46 were, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That is, ‘My God, my God, why have you let me down?’ These words have long bothered many Christians, because they imply that his Father disappointed Jesus. However, a study of ancient Aramaic texts reveals that Jesus may have been saying something quite different, which was lost in translation.
Aramaic scholars say that Matthew didn’t actually translate his gospel into Greek, because he wrote to the people who spoke the language he was writing, Aramaic. And it seems probable that the man who translated Matthew into Greek (they say his name was Zorba) mixed the Hebrew words with Aramaic when he translated them into Greek.
They point out that sabachthani is not the same as the Hebrew word that is used in the prophecy at Psalm 22:1, for there it uses the word sjebaqtani. And if Jesus had said forsaken, he would have said, ‘Eli, Eli, lema azab-thani?’ So they claim that Jesus really said, ‘My God, my God, why have you spared me?’ The point being, that Jesus was willing to suffer even more, but God in His mercy cut short his misery. However, others say that it actually means, ‘My God, my God, for this I was kept,’ or, ‘this was my destiny… for this I was born.’
Did Jesus have fleshly brothers and sisters? Yes he did, for Matthew 12:46-50 makes this very clear. In this case, he was apparently indoors speaking, as his mother (Mary) and his brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas) stood outside waiting to talk to him. But when he was told that his mother and brothers were outside, he pointed out that his disciples were his true mother and brothers.
First,
understand that the word ‘Jew’ is a unique English pronunciation of ‘Judean.’
And when Mark and John spoke of the Judeans, they were usually referring to
people who came from or lived in the Roman Province of Judea. Since Jesus and
eleven of his Apostles (although of the Tribe of Judah) lived in the (northern)
With
the above said, it becomes easier to understand what the scriptures mean when
they speak of the water jars at wedding reception at Cana being there for the
‘Judeans’ to wash in, and that the ‘Judeans’ were looking to kill Jesus, and
that the ‘Judeans’ rejected Jesus. In these cases, he wasn’t referring to the
nation as a whole, but to the people who lived in
While many Bible commentators claim that Job was a contemporary of Moses, because Moses is credited with writing the book, the ancient language used in it appears to date the writing to sometime before Israel’s stay in Egypt, to around the time of Abraham. And it interesting that one ancient (non-inspired) writing says that the man’s full name was Jobab (although he was called Job) and that he was a grandson of Abraham through Isaac’s son Esau. This seems logical, because he was obviously a worshiper of Abraham’s God Jehovah.
Job has often been described as an oriental, giving us the impression that he was Chinese. And the reason for this, is that he was said to have been ‘born to a prosperous family from the sunrise in the east.’ However, saying that he came from the east doesn’t necessarily mean that he came from thousands of miles to the east. So, his family could have settled somewhere just east of the Promised Land.
The
Septuagint says that he was from the land of the Ausitidi, which differs
from the Hebrew text, where we read that he was from the
Another thing to note is that the word Ausitidi appears to be of Greek origin and could mean ‘The People from the Place Without Grain,’ referring to a desert east of the Promised Land. For, the first two letters (Au) are Greek for without, sitos means wheat or grain, and the suffix (idi) refers to a people or race. Also, the young man EliHu, was described as coming from a place called Ausis (Job 32:8), which appears to be the name of that land, so the people who lived there were then likely referred to as the Ausitidi.
It
is also noticeable that some Greek texts render the word Uz as Aus, so Ausitidi
could simply refer to the people from the
The
Further
proof of where Job was from, comes from the lands where his three friends
lived. For all three seem to have been related to Abraham, and each of their
countries or lands is located in the SW part of
Also,
notice the reference to the
Who
later inhabited the
As
we pointed out, the Book of Job was originally a song, and this can be seen in
the poetry of the verses. So one might wonder; if it is a true story, why it
was told in this unusual way. For an answer, it helps to understand how ancient
stories were communicated in the
As
the result, we have concluded that; although Moses may have written the book of
Job, it was actually an inspired story that was sung and handed down through
people of the
Then,
could the book of Job have been just a myth that was handed down in ancient
songs? No, for although the story was transmitted poetically, certain
subtleties appear, which show the motivations of the speakers that go beyond
the normal scope of human imagination. Take for example, the words of EipPhaz
the Temanite. Notice how (as recorded at Job
Yet,
look at how these words of a demon had influenced this man’s thinking about
God, for the next time he spoke (at Job
John (who wrote the Bible books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) was apparently one of Jesus’ earliest followers. And although many Bible critics and commentators have pointed out that John many not have written the books attributed to him because of language and style, remember that; when he did his writing he was almost 100 years old, so like Paul, he likely used others as secretaries to do the actual writing.
John
and his brother James, who were later appointed to be Apostles (or Sent Ones),
were Galileans (considered ‘country bumpkins’ by people in
Although Jesus was particularly fond of John, and some Bible critics often think of John as a laid-back dreamer, Jesus referred to him and his brother as ‘the Sons of Thunder.’ So this common view of John’s passive personality doesn’t seem to be well founded.
It is interesting that John appears to have been known and liked by the Jewish Chief Priest, CaiAphas. For, notice what the account at John 18:15, 16 tells us, ‘Now, Simon Peter (and another disciple) followed Jesus. The Chief Priest was familiar with that disciple, so he went into the High Priest’s courtyard along with Jesus, but Peter stood outside at the door. Then the disciple who knew the High Priest went outside and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in.’
So, many of the things that happened and were said inside the Chief Priest’s house (as well as in the palaces of Pilate and Herod after Jesus’ arrest) seem to have come to us as the result of John being there and serving as an eyewitness. Therefore, Peter wasn’t the only disciple who stayed with Jesus after his arrest.
So, why was John (a disciple of Jesus) allowed into this important meeting? It appears as though John was a relative of the High Priest, for Acts 4:5, 6 tells us: ‘Then the next day, they held a meeting in Jerusalem that included the rulers, elders, and Scribes, as well as AnNas the Chief Priest, CaiAphas, John, Alexander, and all the rest of the Chief Priest’s relatives.’
It’s
a fact that; whenever Peter and John were together, as when they stood before
the Jewish High Court, Peter did most of the talking. However, this doesn’t
appear to have happened because Peter outranked John, or because John was
tongue-tied or shy. Rather, it seems as though John deferred to Peter because
he was older, and a friend and partner of his father. You will notice that
later on, John, Peter, and James (not John’s brother, who was an early
Christian martyr, but James the half-brother of Jesus and the writer of the
book of James) were referred to by Paul as the ‘pillars’ of the early Christian
Congregation in
As Jesus prophesied, John appears to have lived the longest of all the Apostles, dying at around the age of 100, either by execution or as the result of old age, or poor health (from his long stay in an ancient prison). And it was shortly before his death that he did all his writing. So, the book of John is quite different in its format from the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which seem to be more based on and influenced by the book of Matthew.
For this reason, the Gospel of John provides us a far greater insight into who Jesus actually was and the things that he thought and did. John was obviously very impressed with the privilege he had of being ‘the loved Apostle’ of the most important individual who ever walked this earth, and of the privilege that he and others would have of becoming ‘one’ with Jesus and his Father in heaven. So, the opening words of the book of John reflect that awe, as he poetically tried to impress us with the full meaning of who Jesus actually was in his pre-human life as ‘the only generated’ son of God.
John’s three epistles (letters) were written to congregations to warn of the dangers that they were facing from within. This is because ‘the great turning away’ that Paul foretold was already in progress. For, ‘Christians’ were starting to deny that Jesus was the ‘Promised One,’ or perhaps that there ever was a Jesus. So, John labeled them as the ‘Antichrists,’ and told Christians not to have anything to do with such individuals.
The book of Revelation that John wrote, recorded a vision of ‘the Lord’s Day,’ which he received from God through Jesus. And although some critics have concluded that this was some sort of hallucination, Revelation provides a fitting climax to the entire Bible by bringing together the four mysterious characters mentioned in the first prophecy in the Bible (at Genesis 3:16): the snake, its seed, the woman, and her seed. Then if fills in all the gray areas as to who each of these individuals prove to be, and it shows the full meaning of the roles they will play in God’s purposes. Far from a hallucination, the Revelation explains in detail what is really happening to us today, what will soon happen, and what hope there is for all obedient mankind. For more information, see the linked document, The Seed - God’s Kingdom.
We have noted that some ‘Bible scholars’ have concluded that there were actually three Johns who wrote the Bible books; one who wrote the book of John, one who wrote the epistles, and a third one who wrote the Revelation. Part of the reason for this conclusion, is that John didn't identify himself by name in the books bearing his name, but he uses his name frequently in the Revelation. However, certain common words that are used in each of the writings clearly identify John as their author, and they show that each of the works were written at about the same time. The unique description of Jesus as the Word, at John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13, ties both of those writings to the same John. And the number of similar words and phrases between the book of John and his epistles are too numerous to discuss here. So, there was definitely only one Bible writer named John.
The scripture found at 1 Corinthians 6:3 (‘Don’t you know that we are going to judge the messengers?’) is often used to prove that those who are chosen for heavenly life as God’s sons will be elevated above all of God’s messengers (his other heavenly sons, or angels), except Jesus. Is this a correct understanding? Perhaps not. Consider these facts:
So, if they are just equal to God’s messengers and their rulership is to be just on the earth, then why are they described as judging [God’s] messengers in this verse? Well, the Greek word crinoumen can also mean condemn. And since the heavens are to be cleansed of wicked messengers (see Revelation 12:7-9), we must assume that the messengers they are to condemn are the same ones that will be thrown out of heaven and temporarily confined to the earth before their abyssing and destruction (see Revelation 12:9).
At Matthew 19:27, Peter said to Jesus, ‘Why, we have left everything and followed you. What will we really get?’ And in verse 28, Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth; in the rebirth, when the Son of Man sits down on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.’
What was Jesus talking about here?
Following
the lead of other written Bible commentaries, we once assumed that Jesus was
promising his Apostles the same thing that Paul spoke of at 1 Corinthians 6:2,
when he told the congregation at Corinth, Greece, ‘Don’t you know that the
Holy Ones will judge the world?’ So, our conclusion was that judging the
twelve tribes of
It
seems obvious to us that any symbolic use of
But
then, couldn’t Jesus have meant that they were to judge the literal nation
of
So,
judging the twelve tribes of
At Romans 2:1, Paul wrote ‘So you are defenseless, O man, if you’re someone who judges others. Because, when you judge someone else you’re condemning yourself, since you’re doing the very things that you judge [to be wrong in others].’
Then he wrote at Romans 14:10-14, ‘So, why do you judge your brother or why do you look down on him? Why, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God, for it is written: As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bend before me and every tongue will confess before God.’ So, each of us must answer for ourselves before God. Therefore, let’s stop judging each other. Rather, let’s make the decision not to set anything before a brother that will cause him to stumble or fall.’
Therefore, being too judgmental is a very serious flaw, which is common to those who think of themselves as being more righteous than others. It is reported that the Pharisees especially thought of themselves in this way, and it was their opinion that they would be the only ones to be found righteous by God. Notice what Jesus said would happen to those who are judgmental (Matthew 7:1), ‘Don’t judge [others] so that you won’t be judged. Because, the things you are judging others over will be the things you are judged by. And the standards you set for them are the standards that will be set for you.’
We find the same type of warning at James 2:13, which says, ‘Those who aren’t merciful will be judged without mercy, since justice takes a lot of pride in mercy.’
However,
the Bible also shows that it is necessary for Christians to judge their
brothers when they are guilty of flagrant, open sins, as was the case of a
brother in
Now, we don’t know exactly what this sin entailed (whether it was incest or a relationship with a woman who wasn’t his natural mother), but we do know that it was something scandalous. Thus, Paul’s conclusions were that the elders in the congregation should judge the man’s actions. Notice his reasoning, as found at 1 Corinthians 5:12: ‘Why should I judge those on the outside? Don’t you judge those on the inside, while God judges those on the outside? Remove the wicked man from among yourselves!’
So, the conclusion we reach from the Scriptures is that judging the openly-wrong actions of others is the responsibility of Christian elders, to protect the good name of the Congregation. However, it is wrong to judge the motives of others, because we can’t look into their hearts.
So, if we look down on our brothers and consider ourselves to be better Christians than they are, then the high standards that we set for them will be the minimum standards that will be set for our own judgment before God. And if we aren’t merciful in our judgments of others, God won’t be merciful in His judgment of us.
Throughout the Bible, we read of a Judgment Day. Does this refer to some random time in the future when individuals will meet their own judgment, or to a specific ‘day’ (or period) when all will be judged?
At
Matthew 10:15, for example, Jesus spoke of the ‘hemera chriseos’ (Day of
Judgment or Crisis) and each of the succeeding references seems to be talking
about this same ‘day’ or time. When will that period start? Well, it must be
sometime after the ‘great time of difficulty’ (see Matthew 24:21), and
following ‘the war of the great day of the Almighty God’ (see Revelation
However, although Psalm 1:1 tells us that the irreverent, impious, or ungodly (gr. asebe) won’t be raised in the Judgment, Paul said (at Acts 24:15) that both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected. So, how can we resolve this discrepancy?
Remember that the word unrighteous doesn’t necessarily refer to those who are deliberately bad, but to those who simply weren’t righteous. On the other hand, the irreverent are those who know of God and simply choose to disobey Him, and apparently, this is the reason why they are found unworthy of a resurrection. For more information, see the linked document What is Righteousness?
In recent years, the idea of putting murderers to death has become repulsive to many people, and to prove their argument that this is wrong, they often quote the words of God as found at Exodus 20:15, which say (in the King James Bible), ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
So,
was God forbidding putting murders to death? That isn’t likely, for notice His
instructions regarding what should be done to those who stepped on
Also, notice the clear instructions concerning what was to be done to murderers, as found at Exodus 21:12, ‘If any man hits another and kills him, he must absolutely be put to death.’ So, God’s clear instructions were that the Israelites were to kill gross violators of His Laws.
Now,
the Greek word that some Bibles have translated as kill at Exodus
The word Kingdom is translated from the Greek word basileia, which refers to the realm of a king (basil).
A
common misconception about this Kingdom is that it isn’t real… that it’s just a
state of mind. This conclusion is based on Jesus’ words found at Luke
So,
what did Jesus mean? Well, some religions have concluded he was saying that:
He, the king of that Kingdom, was there in their midst, and that the hope of
becoming kings in that Kingdom was being offered to them. But it’s also true
that real Christians ever since that time have believed and acted as members of
that Kingdom in their hearts. So, the
Notice,
for example, Jesus’ own words found at Luke
Also
notice that; Since it appears as though he and his
elected ones will rule from heaven, the place from which they will rule is
appropriately called ‘the
Although those words would seem to confirm the thought that faithful ones such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would rule from heaven; realize that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob weren’t really in heaven at the time when Jesus said that. This is confirmed by what Jesus said (at John 3:13), ‘No one has gone to heaven other than he who came from heaven, the Son of Man.’ And while not being dogmatic on this point, we understand that the ancient patriarchs were never promised life in heaven (for more information, see the linked document The Hereafter)
So, Matthew 8:10-12 must be referring to Abraham and his descendants living under the rule of a heavenly Kingdom government. These faithful ones don’t appear to qualify to be rulers in heaven themselves, because they weren’t ‘born again’ to receive the value of a spiritual life, nor were they part of the ‘Sacred Agreement for a Kingdom’ (Luke 22:29) that Jesus had made with his Apostles just prior to his arrest and execution.
Notice
again, how Jesus showed that the Kingdom of God hadn’t already arrived at the
time he was speaking; for we are told at Luke 19:11, ‘While they were listening
to these things, he told them another illustration, because he was getting
close to Jerusalem, and they all thought that the Kingdom of God was about
to happen instantly.’ So, although the
Then
Jesus told the parable about the Kingdom (in Luke
Therefore, there is a definite time for this Kingdom to start its rule, and this is made clear by the words of Revelation 12:10, where we read: ‘Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say, This is the moment when the salvation, the power, the Kingdom of our God, and the authorization of His Anointed begin. Because, the one who has been accusing our brothers has been thrown down… he who has been complaining about them day and night in front of our God!’
So, when the Opposer and his messengers are expelled from heaven, God’s Kingdom begins there.
Then,
what IS the Kingdom? The term appears to refer to a coming rulership of the
earth from the heavens by Jesus and his elected, who will rule on the earth,
for John wrote at at Revelation 5:9, 10, that a heavenly group sang this song
to him about Jesus:
‘You bought people for God with your blood,
From every tribe, language, ethnicity, and country.
Then you made them rulers and Priests to our God,
And they’ll rule as kings on the earth.’
Then at Revelation 2:26 it’s recorded that Jesus promised: ‘I’ll give he who conquers and obeys whatever I tell him to do down to the end, power over the nations.’ And again (at Revelation 3:21) Jesus promised: ‘Then I’ll allow the one who conquers to sit down with me on my throne, just as my Father has allowed me to sit on His throne, because I have conquered.’
For more information, see the linked document, The ‘Seed’ – God’s Kingdom.
While
many like to scoff at the Bible record and claim that its stories are myths and
fairy tales; much of what is written there has been proven remarkably accurate
and historical by modern archeology. For example, consider the events that are
recorded to have happened in
Also, the mention of HezekiJah’s rerouting the spring of Gihon (found at 2 Chronicles 32:30) can be proven, since the underground diversion project has been uncovered by archeologists and is a famed tourist attraction in Jerusalem today.
However,
did God’s messenger wipe out the Assyrian army in a single night, as the Bible
account says? While there’s no record of this outside the Bible (the Assyrians
surely would have been too proud to record such an amazing defeat); the fact
that
The
This
lake of fire seems to symbolize the same thing as what Jesus called Gehenna,
which is often translated Hell Fire. Yet, the word simply means the
Valley (heb. ga) of Hinnom. The
As a garbage dump, it was customary to keep the garbage burning to reduce the stench and to limit vermin, so sulfur was frequently poured there to keep the fires burning hot. This is why Jesus, when using the term, spoke of the fire as not being put out there. Also, because worms (maggots) bred along the edges of the dump, he could say that the worms don’t die. So, there is no indication that he was talking about torturing humans, as many religions teach.
The only cases where humans were actually thrown into Gehenna provides an insight into what Jesus was talking about when he referred to people going there: The dead bodies of particularly vile condemned criminals were thrown into Gehenna’s fires whenever the population felt that they were undeserving of a decent burial.
As you read the Scriptures, you’ll notice the importance that Hebrews placed on being ‘laid to rest with their ancestors.’ So, when Jesus spoke of people being thrown into Gehenna, he was obviously referring to unrepentant sinners being thrown into the ‘garbage dump.’ In other words, in the eyes of God they were unworthy of a resurrection.
This same condition is also referred to in other places in Matthew’s account as the fire of the age, and as ‘the lake of fire’ in the Revelation. Why was that term used? Because fire destroys, and those who are destroyed there (such as the Slanderer, the wild animals that picture the worldly nations, and The Great Babylon) will be gone forever.
Then, why are those who go there spoken of as being tortured through the ages (such as at Revelation 20:8)? To understand this nuance, you must first understand how ancient peoples used the term that we’ve translated as torture. In Bible times, jailers were called by the same term, not necessarily because they performed physical acts of torture, but because; by locking people up they were creating a form of mental torture.
And
this is the thought that’s implied by being thrown into the ‘lake of fire’ or
the ‘garbage dump.’ Since symbolic things such as governments, churches, the
Slanderer, and even death and the grave are thrown there, the ‘torture’ doesn’t
imply experiencing pain, but it refers to the fact that such things will be
locked away there forever. And as Revelation
For more information, see the linked document, Is there a Burning Hell?
Notice
what was represented by the lamp stands in the Revelation. Revelation
However, where the lamp stand is spoken of as being ‘removed’ (as at Revelation 2:5), this appears to indicate that the congregation will be removed from its position of favor.
Who are the ones that are described (at Revelation 7:6) as ‘a crowd so large that nobody could count them,’ who come from ‘all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages’ and are ‘standing in front of the throne and in front of the Lamb?’
Notice
that they aren’t the same as the 144,000 ‘slaves of our God,’ nor do they seem
to comprise the
So,
notice that (as the text tells us) the 144,000 are chosen from or out
of (gr. ek) Israel, for verse 4 reads in Greek: ‘και
ηκουσα τον
αριθμον των
εσφραγισμενων
εκατον
τεσσερακοντα
τεσσαρες
χιλιαδες
εσφραγισμενοι
εκ πασης φυλης
υιων ισραηλ,’ or, ‘and
I/heard the number of/the/sealed, hundred forty four thousand, sealed from
all tribes of/the/sons of/Israel.’ But, notice that the large crowd
comes from ‘all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages.’ So,
they don’t seem to comprise
Revelation 7:14-17 tells us concerning them: ‘They are the ones who have come out of the great time of difficulty and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they’re before the throne of God and worshiping Him day and night in His Holy Abode. He who is sitting on the throne will then spread His tent over them, and they won’t be hungry or thirsty anymore, nor will the sun beat down on them with blistering heat; because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them. He will guide them to the fountains of waters of life, and God will wipe all the tears from their eyes.’
So, this huge group of people appears to be those who will be baptized and make needed changes in their lives (‘washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’), but they will have specifically lived through the ‘great time of difficulty’ that (according to Revelation) immediately precedes the destruction of The Great Babylon and the Battle of Armageddon.
Revelation Chapter Seven says they are shouting, ‘We owe our salvation to our God who is sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ And, because they are standing ‘in front of the throne’ (not sitting on it with God and Jesus), they have obviously continued to live here on the earth. And being ‘guided to the fountains of waters of life’ indicates that their names have not yet been written in the Book or Scroll of Life.
For more information on who this large crowd could signify, see the linked document, Similarities between the Exodus and the Events of Revelation.
Throughout
the Christian Era Scriptures (New Testament), we read of a time that is
referred to as ‘the last days’ (gr. tas hemera eschata). And in each
case, these words seem to be speaking of the same period or periods; however,
many religious groups prefer to identify them as separate and distinct eras.
Take for example, the prophecy of Joel that Peter quoted on the day of
Pentecost, 33-C.E. There we read (at Acts
‘In the last days
I’ll pour some of my Breath on all flesh,
And your sons and daughters will then prophesy,
Your young men will have visions,
And your old men will dream dreams.
I will pour out some of My Breath in those days,
And My male and female slaves will then prophesy.
And from the skies above I’ll send omens and signs,
And to the earth below, blood, fire, and smoky mist.
Before the great and shining day of the Lord,
The sun will be changed into darkness
And the moon into blood.
And all calling on the Name of the Lord will be saved.’
Peter’s
application of this prophecy clearly indicates its fulfillment as happening
during the time that he was saying this, during and after Pentecost 33-C.E. So,
many religions teach that Joel’s prophecy concerning the last days had its
application just in the last days of ancient Jerusalem… before its destruction
by Roman armies in 70-C.E. On the other hand, where these same words (last
days) are found in other Bible verses, these same religions teach that the
fulfillment comes just during ‘the Lord’s Day.’ For example, notice the words
found at 2 Timothy 3:1-5:
‘Recognize that the last days will bring fierce times. People will love
themselves and money. They will be braggers, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient
to their parents, unthankful and disloyal. They won’t love their families or be
willing to agree on anything. They will be slanderers who don’t have any
self-control. They will be wild and won’t love anything that is good. They will
be betrayers who are headstrong and proud. They will prefer pleasures to caring
about God. They will have some form of religion, but they won’t follow it.’
Obviously, at least in the prophecy of Joel, the last days do refer to the time between Pentecost of 33-C.E. and 70-C.E. However, notice that this prophecy also mentions its fulfillment as happening during ‘the great and shining day of the Lord,’ so it seems to also indicate another fulfillment as coming in some future last days.
That
there would be such a future period of last days (which would come after
It
is noteworthy that John didn’t then go on to explain that the resurrection had
already started with the destruction of
1.
The last days of
2. The Lord’s Day in which we could now be living.
That both last days would see similar fulfillments is indicated by Jesus’ words as found in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. If you read these chapters and reference the linked Notes, it seems clear that both last days would see the fulfillment of many (but not all of the same) prophecies. So, is there to be some future fulfillment of the outpouring of God’s Breath and its gifts as seen at Pentecost in these last days? Although every religion has reached strong but differing opinions and doctrines on this, the answer isn’t totally clear.
That there will be some special outpouring of God’s Breath in the last days, appears to be clearly indicated by Joel’s prophecy. However, while many religions that claim to experience these gifts usually express it through healing, snake handling, and speaking in tongues; notice that Joel’s prophecy speaks specifically of miraculous prophesying. And Paul, when speaking of such gifts at 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14, actually discouraged speaking in tongues, putting prophesying and developing Christian love as foremost. Also, although the early Christians actually did Divine healing, this gift isn’t mentioned in Joel’s prophecy. So, if there is to be some modern fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, it seems to center on prophesying (more so than giving interpretations of Bible doctrines) and on an unusual expression of love.
See also the linked documents, The Last Days, and The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit.
The Twenty-Ninth Chapter of Exodus talks about a calf and two lambs that must be sacrificed as a rite of empowerment for Aaron and his sons to be Priests. And we have referred to the sacrificing of the last lamb as just that; the end of the ceremony, or the last lamb. However, other Bibles refer to this as the Sacrifice of Consecration, the Ram of Installation, etc. So, why have we deviated in our rendering of this term?
In Greek, the words kriou teleioseos simply mean lamb final. And it was for a fact the last lamb or sacrifice offered during that seven-day event. So, we feel that last lamb or the end of the ceremony more accurately reflect the words, as found in the Greek Septuagint.
We
find a very important deviation from the reading of the Hebrew text at 1 Kings
6:1, where the Greek text reads, ‘It was in the four hundred and fortieth
year after the sons Israel left Egypt (in the fourth year and second month
of Solomon’s reign over Israel) that the foundation of the Temple of Jehovah
was laid.’ In Greek, the highlighted portion of this text reads,
‘και εγενηθη εν
τω
τεσσαρακοστω
και
τετρακοσιοστω
ετει της εξοδου
υιων ισραηλ εξ
αιγυπτου,’ or, ‘and began in the
fortieth and four-hundredth year of/the exodus sons of
What
is different? In the Hebrew text and in most Bible translations based on that
text, the foundation of the
Why is this a major deviation? Well, it throws Bible dating and chronology off by forty years if the Septuagint is correct.
It is interesting that the disease we call leprosy today doesn’t seem to be the same as what was called leprosy in the Bible. While modern leprosy may appear to be the same, since the skin turns white and it is extremely debilitating, there are some major differences. For example, ancient leprosy seemed to have been extremely contagious, so people who had it weren’t allowed to come near to those who were healthy, while modern leprosy is listed as only ‘mildly contagious.’
Another
difference is that the white skin coloration for modern leprosy comes from
external skin scaling, while the Bible’s description of leprosy back then, was
of a whiteness (or redness) that was internal or deep into the skin, and that
it caused hollow spots under the skin. Also, notice that; once a person’s skin
was turned completely white from the disease, God’s Law no longer considered
them contagious (Leviticus
Medical descriptions of modern leprosy say that it comes as the result of a bacterial infection. And while this may also have been true of ancient leprosy (in fact, it could have come from a bacteria that people have become largely immune to today), the fact that it could be found in clothing and leather goods, and that it was so hard to kill by washing, suggests that Bible leprosy may have been caused by a mold or fungus.
It
would seem unlikely in the dry climate of
Of interest are the descriptions of where and how leprosy developed in Bible times. Notice that it often started in wounds, sores, or in the hairline. And the fact that it was found on clothing (which was usually damp due to sweating in the arid climate), indicates that the disease was spread by close and prolonged contact with skin or through abrasions. However, modern Bedouins no longer seem to be plagued by this malady.
The
fact that the bacteria, mold, or fungus was carried and transmitted from
clothing and hair seems to be quietly affirmed by the fact that there is no
mention of the disease attacking the genitals, which would be normally expected
today, due the common use of tight-fitting underwear. Why not? Well, the
ancient Israelites apparently didn’t wear them. The fact that underpants had to
be specifically made for those who served in Jehovah’s
Another interesting fact about the leprosy of Bible times, is that people who suffered from it could eventually (or even spontaneously) get over it without a need for modern antibiotics or treatments. The fact that Leviticus Chapter Fourteen gives extensive rules for the cleansing and repatriating of those who became well, indicates that this may have been a common occurrence.
We learn an interesting lesson about humility from the words and actions of MichaEl, God’s highest messenger, at Jude 9. For there it says (when speaking of the battle he waged with the Slanderer over Moses’ [dead] body), ‘he didn’t dare to judge him by blaspheming him.’
Certainly, if anyone was an ‘apostate,’ it was this one, which other translations call the Devil and Satan, because he turned from his righteous position in the heavens. However, MichaEl never used any such disrespectful term. He just said, ‘May Jehovah give you what you deserve.’
This lesson should serve as a warning to all Christians against using such slanderous terms, no matter what the circumstances. If the term ‘Christian’ means being like or following Jesus, true followers should never use abusive terms (such as apostate) to describe others.
In Revelation, we read of four heavenly creatures that picture the major qualities of God (wisdom, justice, love, and power). The Greek word that is used to describe them here is zoo (pronounced Zō-ah), as in the place where people go to see animals today. This word simply means animals, but it is translated in most Bibles as living creatures, which was likely done for ‘politically-correct’ reasons. However, John just wrote animals, so that’s how the word is translated here.
To many, the thought of choosing by lot (possibly by rolling dice) or using some other form of lottery sounds immoral and quite like gambling. However, in the Bible, that was the correct way to select the person who would receive a particular position or reward. In fact, the word for inherit (kleronomesousi), means to receive by lot or lottery.
The reason why this method was used by the ancient faithful was to allow God a hand in the decision, rather than trusting in the viewpoints of men. And the indication is that this method of choosing did in fact result in the manifestation of God’s hand. For example, consider how John the Baptist’s father (ZechariJah) was chosen by lot to serve in the Holy Place at the exact time for him to be told by a messenger of God about the upcoming birth of his son and of his son’s responsibility concerning the Messiah (Luke 1:8, 9).
Also, consider the fact that Matthias was chosen by lottery to replace unfaithful Judas as one of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.
The good sense of letting things be decided by apparent chance can be found in the wise words of Solomon at Proverbs 18:18, where he said, ‘Choosing by lottery ends a dispute, and it defines the boundaries of rulers.’
The Greek word that is translated as brotherly love at 2 Peter 1:7 is philadelphian. The first part of that word, philea, means the type of love or bond that would be shared among close friends. In fact, the Greek word phileo means friend. And although philea is often looked down on as a lesser form of love (rendered as affection in other translations), people are often very impressed by the fact that Abraham was referred to as God’s friend (phileo).
The second part of the word, adelphos, means brothers, so, philadelphian refers to a brotherly love or friendship.
In the scripture found at 1 Peter 1:7, achieving brotherly love is listed as one-step before achieving true love (taken from the Greek word agape).
It is our belief that the meaning of agape is an overstated by many religious groups, because, it is simply translated as love (with no hidden depth of meaning) in most other places in the Bible. However, in this instance (1 Peter 1:7), Peter obviously intends for the word agape to imply the richest sense of its meaning. He likely had Paul’s definition of love (agape) in mind, which is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8: ‘Love is kind and patient. Love isn’t envious, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t conceited, it doesn’t scheme, it doesn’t just watch out for itself, it doesn’t stir things up, it doesn’t hold a grudge, it doesn’t rejoice over unrighteous things, but rejoices over things that are true. It covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, and endures everything. Love never fails.’
Love like that is often spoken of by Christians, but it is truly hard to find.
Notice that the book of Luke starts out by addressing the same man as does the book of Acts, someone with the Greek name of TheoPhilus, who was likely some sort of governor. This gives us a good reason to believe that the person who wrote Acts also wrote Luke (and about the same time), ‘the beloved Physician,’ Luke. Who was Luke?
The Bible doesn’t tell us much about him, other than he was a regular traveling companion of Paul. Notice that; throughout the book of Acts he says that ‘we’ did this or that. So, Luke was likely someone who was also assigned to preach to Gentiles. And although he may have witnessed some of the events of the Life of Jesus, there is no record of it. However, that wasn’t true of the events in the book of Acts, because the account shows that he lived most of it, especially the journeys of Paul.
Luke
was quite a chronicler, since both of his books were
compilations of things he had researched (he probably relied on many sources).
And, because he ended Acts with the imprisonment of Paul in
If you look at writing styles, you can see that Luke likely wrote some of the epistles that are attributed to Paul. Not that Paul didn’t dictate them, but that Luke may on occasion have served as Paul’s secretary. Luke’s writing style is flowery and educated, and his greetings can go on for paragraphs.
Something that only a translator would notice, is that much of Luke’s Gospel account is borrowed from Matthew. There is nothing wrong with that, because it was admittedly a compiled account, and Matthew’s writing was just one of his sources.
The reason why Luke prepared both writings (Luke and Acts) was apparently to set things straight in the hodge-podge of things people were saying by then, and in the stories that they were telling. That’s why he started out his Gospel account with the words (Luke 1:1-3), ‘Since many others have already taken on the job of putting together a statement of the facts of the things we believe as they were given to us by those who were eyewitnesses from long ago, and by caretakers of the message, it seemed good for me to trace everything accurately from the start, then write them to you in the order they happened, mighty Theophilus, so you can feel confident about the things you’ve been taught by word of mouth.’
There
are several important places where Luke’s Gospel disagrees with Matthew’s
Gospel. However, that is simply to be expected when several people tell the
same story from different points of view. An example of this is: Luke said that
Jesus didn’t cleanse God’s
Also, many of the things that Jesus said and did didn’t follow the same order as in Matthew. The reason for this could be; because Jesus said and did similar things on other occasions, or simply because someone remembered them as happening on other occasions.
Is Luke’s Gospel more accurate than Matthew’s Gospel? Well, he did have a second look at what Matthew wrote, which usually provides an edge when it comes to accuracy. However, his Gospel was likely written almost twenty-five years after Jesus’ death, so Matthew’s Gospel was written much closer to when the events actually happened. But the extensive use of the poetry in Jesus’ words in Luke’s account does seem to indicate a better recollection of things exactly as he said them.
The account at Genesis 21:9 speaks of Hagar’s son ‘playfully making fun of’ Sarah’s son Isaac. The Greek word that we have used to translate this phrase is paizonta. It refers to child’s play or a sporting activity or game, but the root comes from the Greek word empaizo, which means to deride or make fun of. As the result, we have concluded (from Sarah’s reaction) that some sort of disrespectful act was implied in the play.
However, the same word is also used to describe Isaac’s actions with his wife Rebecca (at Genesis 26:8), which caused King AbiMelech, the king of Gerara, to recognize that she was Isaac’s wife, not his sister. So, ‘making fun of’ wouldn’t convey the proper implication in this case.
At
2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, Paul wrote, ‘Don’t allow anyone to mislead you in any
way, because [the Lord’s Day] won’t come until after there’s a great turning
away and the lawless man is revealed, the son of destruction. He
opposes and puts himself higher than all that are called gods or things of
worship. He seats himself in the
Notice
that this ‘lawless man’ comes as the result of a ‘great turning away’ from true
Christianity, which proves that it is a religious organization. He also ‘seats
himself in the
The mandrake is a perennial herb that is part of the potato family. The leaves grow almost directly from the taproot, then fan out in a circle and lie close to the ground. Each grows a single white, blue, or purple flower on a stalk, which develops a yellowish-red fruit that is about the size of a plum, and is described as having the sweet, fresh odor of an apple. The thick, often-forked taproot may resemble a man’s lower limbs, and that (like ginseng) has created superstitious beliefs about the mandrake having magical powers.
In
ancient times, mandrake fruit was used as a narcotic. And in some parts of the
What
was manna? All we know is what the Bible tells us. At Exodus
The manna appeared miraculously every morning after the dew dried. The account says it looked like white coriander (cilantro) seeds, which are perfectly round and about a quarter-inch in size. And the description that they tasted like (whole-wheat) crackers and honey provides us a good idea of its flavor. In the Hebrew text, all we read that it looked like (hoar) frost on the ground… and we are sure it did. However, the description of each portion looking like a coriander seed (in the Septuagint) is far more descriptive.
What does manna mean? It is thought that those were the first words they said in Hebrew when the saw it, ‘Man hu?’ or, ‘What is it?’
Was manna the result of some natural phenomenon? That isn’t likely, because there is no other account of anything like it in history. And the fact that no matter how much of it a person gathered, it was always enough. And that it spoiled every night after sundown – except on the night before the Sabbath – is a pretty-good indication that God was its source. However, the mention of the dew drying may indicate that it was gathered by the moisture in the morning air.
Was
manna all that the children of
Mark’s name was actually John Mark, but he was referred to as Mark, to distinguish him from the others named John.
Mark
was an eyewitness to Jesus’ arrest in the