1,260 Days

You'll find three similar periods mentioned in the Revelation, yet they all represent 3-1/2 years according to the Hebrew calendar.

• Revelation 11:1, 2: 'Now, go measure the Temple of God, its Altar, and those who are worshiping there. Don't pay any attention to the courtyard outside the Temple… don't measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they're going to trample the Holy City under their feet for forty-two months.'
• Revelation 11:3: 'Then I'm going to have my two witnesses prophesy for one thousand, two hundred and sixty days wearing sackcloth.'
• Revelation 12:6: 'Then the woman escaped into the desert to a place that God had prepared for her, where she would be fed for a thousand two hundred and sixty days.'
• Revelation 12:14: 'However, the woman was given the two wings of a huge eagle so she could fly to her place in the desert where she's fed for a time, times, and half a time, and where the snake can't reach her.

We find the same prophetic periods mentioned in the book of DaniEl (7:25), for there we read: 'He will speak great words and mislead the Holy Ones of the Most High, and he will be allowed to change both times and laws for a time, times, and a half a time.'

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 JeruSalem before they were rejected. And thereafter, it appears as though there was a break in the symbolic week, for the second half of that period was realized between 66-C.E. and 70-C.E., which started when the Romans first attacked JeruSalem and then left (allowing Christians to flee the city), and it ended with JeruSalem's final destruction.

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.

1 John 5:7, 8

In other Bibles, 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 of Jesus are the water (baptism), the Breath (Gr. pneuma – the Breath of God), and the (his shed) blood. 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 (words that were added to the Bible in the 11th Century C.E.). For more information, see how these words are translated in other Bibles.

2 Chronicles 36:21 (Contributed)

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. Because, DaniEl 9:2 reads: 'I DaniEl came to understand the number of the years from the words that Jehovah had given to the Prophet JeremiAh, 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 JeruSalem was in a total state of ruin for seventy years.

2 Thessalonians 1:9

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 ruin age-long 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 age-long 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.’

390 Days/Years

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 IsraEl had been in rebellion, until JeruSalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians. However, using popular estimates of the dates of IsraEl's establishment, its destruction, and JeruSalem's destruction, most critics say that 390 years just doesn't match date of the nation's formation.

However, our Bible-based calculations (below) do appear to show the critic's dates of IsraEl's establishment and destruction to be wrong, and the prophecy of EzekiEl to be within just three years of the 390-year period. This minor deviation could be caused by several factors, including the rounding of the numbers of each ruler's tenure. So, we'll defer to the words of the prophecy and assume that there were 390 years from the reign of JeroBoam until Jerusalem's destruction.

KINGS OF IsraEl:
JeroBoam 1000-978 22-yrs (1 Kings 14:20)
Nadab 2-yrs (1 Kings 15:25)
BaAsha 24-yrs (1 Kings 15:33)
ElAh 2-yrs (1 Kings 16:8)
Zimri 7 days (1 Kings 16:15)
Tibni
Omri 12-yrs (1 Kings 16:23)
Ahab 22-yrs (1 Kings 16:29)
AhaziAh 2-yrs (1 Kings 22:52)
JehoRam 12-yrs (2 Kings 3:1)
Jehu 28-yrs (2 Kings 10:36)
JehoAhaz 17-yrs (2 Kings 13:1)
JehoAsh 16-yrs (2 Kings 13:10)
JeroBoam II 41-yrs (2 Kings 14:23)
ZechariAh .5-yrs (2 Kings 15:8)
ShalLum 1 month (2 Kings 15:13)
Menahem 10-yrs (2 Kings 15:17)
PekahJah 2-yrs (2 Kings 15:23)
Pekah 20-yrs (2 Kings 15:27)
HosheA 9-yrs (2 Kings 17:1)

KINGS OF JUDAH:
Ahaz 16-yrs. Hoshea starts rule in Ahaz's 12th year (16-12=4 years) (2 Kings 17:1)
HezekiAh 29-yrs (2 Kings 18:2)
ManasSeh 55-yrs (2 Kings 21:1)
Amon 2-yrs (2 Kings 21:19)
JosiAh 31-yrs (2 Kings 22:1)
JehoAhaz 3 months (2 Kings 23:31)
JehoiAkim 11-yrs (2 Kings 23:36)
JehoiAchin 8-yrs (2 Kings 24:12)
ZedekiAh 11-yrs (2 Kings 24:18)

So, choose your dates:

· If you prefer 587-B.C.E. as the date for the destruction of JeruSalem, then Solomon ended his reign in 977, the Temple foundation was laid in 1015, David started his reign in 1057, Saul started his reign in 1097 (which was the end of the period of Judges), and the Exodus took place in 1395.

· If you prefer 607-B.C.E. as the date for the destruction of JeruSalem, then Solomon ended his reign in 997, the Temple foundation was laid in 1035, David started his reign in 1077, Saul started his reign in 1117 (which was the end of the period of Judges), and the Exodus took place in 1415.

430 Years?

Paul wrote at Galatians 3:17, 'So, let me also say this about that Sacred Agreement which God agreed to: The Law (which came some four hundred and thirty years later) didn’t destroy [the Agreement with AbraHam], so its promise hasn’t been done away with.'

If you do some research, you'll find that this 430-year period has been discussed extensively by commentators. And the conclusion that most have reached is that there was only 430 years from the time when God made the agreement with AbraHam until He gave the Law to Moses. So, most have concluded that IsraEl was in captivity in Egypt for just a little over 200 years… which is illogical and physically impossible, since the Bible tells us that there were only seventy-five people in the family of IsaAc when they entered Egypt (see Genesis 46:24, 25) and they left with over a million! This wrong conclusion has led to the miscalculation of important Bible dates, such as the time of the Downpour and the creation of Adam.

For a fact, it does appear as though Paul wrote that there was only 430 years between the time when God made His Sacred Agreement with AbraHam and the IsraElite's exodus from Egypt. However, notice what was said about this same period at Exodus 12:40: 'Now, although it had been four hundred and thirty years that the children of IsraEl had stayed in the land of Egypt and in the land of CanaAn, the whole army of Jehovah left the land of Egypt that night.' So, as you can see, the Exodus account tells us that this 430-year period started when the children of IsraEl left the house of Laban in MesoPotamia and returned to the land of CanaAn.

Then, how much of that time was actually spent in Egypt? Going back to the promise that God gave to AbraHam, we read (at Genesis 15:13), 'For Abram was told: You must know this for a fact; Your seed will have to live as aliens in a foreign land (where they'll be slaves who are treated badly and humbled) for four hundred years.' So, we must assume that the period of their stay in Egypt had to be four-hundred years.

But, did this 400-year period start when Jacob and his family entered Egypt, or when JoSeph arrived there some 10 years earlier (as other commentators have suggested)? Notice that in Genesis 30:22-25, we find JoSeph being born in MesoPotamia just before his father Jacob decided to return to his homeland, and his brother BenJamin being born shortly after that return. Also, the account in Genesis indicates that JoSeph was a young man when he was carried off to Egypt. So, it appears as though he was about 20 when that happened, and he was about 30 when his family moved to Egypt. So, the 400 years clearly started when IsraEl and his family entered Egypt, for it appears as though the period from their return to the land of CanaAn to their going down into Egypt was 30 years, as determined by the age of Joseph.

Then, as you can calculate from Genesis 47:9, Jacob was already 100 years old when he made the trek from MesoPotamia. We read that he and his brother were born to IsaAc when IsaAc was 60 years old (see Genesis 25:26), and IsaAc was born to AbraHam when he was 100 years old (see Genesis 21:5). Therefore, our calculations show the period from God's making the Agreement with Abraham (about 2141-B.C.E) to the giving of the Law (about 1555-B.C.E.) was more than 591 years.

Accepting a Repentant Sinner

In Second Corinthians Chapter Two, we read about 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 Corinth, Greece who had taken his father's wife as his own. As the result, Paul (at 1 Corinthians 5:11) told the congregation to judge the matter and to remove the sinner.

Then 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 from Paul's recommended action. Because Paul said (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 appears to have been particularly grievous and notorious.

Notice that Paul makes no further mention of this matter thereafter. He simply concludes by saying (at 2 Corinthians 2:10, 11), 'And when I forgive someone through you in front of the Anointed One (if I ever have anything to forgive), it is so that none are lost to the Opposer, because we know how he operates.'

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.

Adoption as God's Sons

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 6:15, 'However, a new creation [is something].'

And, once a person has received this adoption, he/she is said to become joint 'heirs' with Jesus. As Romans 8:17 says, 'So, if we are [His] children, we are also [His] heirs. Yes, heirs of God and heirs with the Anointed One.'

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 3:26, 27, says, 'The fact is; you're all sons of God because of your faith in the Anointed Jesus.'

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!'

Adultery

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.

Actually, according to the Old Law, marrying a legally-divorced woman was allowed, and neither person was styled as an adulterer or adulteress; and if such a thing were true, it certainly would have been mentioned in that detailed list of God's Laws (see Deuteronomy 24:3-6).

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 5:32 (and we're not being dogmatic here), is that legal (certificated) divorce (though not God's way) is the end of a marriage contract. Thus, if the faithful but legally released wife chooses to remarry, being given a divorce certificate frees her from the social stigma of being called an adulteress.

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.

For More information, see the linked document Christian Morality.

Advocate, Helper, Comforter, or Savior?

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 single 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 we have chosen to translate it as Advocate there, as we also 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 likely spoke 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 ParaCletos in First John was not implying that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, but this is a simple reference to the fact that Jesus is also our advocate before God.

Of course, much has been made of Jesus' use of the personal pronoun him, when speaking of the ParaCletos or the Holy Spirit. 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).

Age, Eternal, Perpetual, Everlasting, Immortal, or Forever?

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 alone as having 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, which is used throughout the Bible in various conjugated forms and is often translated as eternal and forever, 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 or era.

Where the singular form (aionos) is used, this appears to mean a period such as a lifetime, generation, or era. And where the plural form of the word (aiōnōn) is used, it refers to a longer time… at least multiple generations. Also, where the term ages of the ages is used (such as at Ephesians 3:21), which is usually said in reference to The God, we would assume that this truly means forever.

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?' Notice that aionos is also translated as world here in many Bibles, such as the KJ, and as system of things in other Bibles, such as the NWT. However, if the Apostles had meant any of those things, they would have used the Greek word cosmos (world or arrangement), not aionos.

You can see that 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 Temple in JeruSalem would be destroyed, because that's what Jesus was explaining to them.

Yet, there are instances when some forms of the word could imply forever, such as when we find it in the form aiōniŏn. This is an adjective in the singular case, which, when combined with the Greek word zoe (in its various forms) is usually translated in other Bibles as everlasting life. However, that isn't a totally-accurate description.

In the past, we had tried to reconcile the words zoe aiōniŏn as meaning, life in the age. However, the word age in this instance would not be an adjective, so we have recently chosen, in most cases where we find this word combination, to translate them more accurately as age-long life, which we will agree could mean everlasting life.

For more information, see the linked Scriptural Commentary, Does the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?

Age-long Fire

In Jude verse seven, we read of how the people of Sodom, GomorRah, and their surrounding cities were condemned to age-long fire (gr. pyros aioniou). This term is usually translated in other Bibles as eternal fire, and it has long been understood to be speaking of Hell Fire. Is that the fate of such bad people?

The problem with the common teaching that people's souls don't die, but are tortured eternally for their sins, is that such ones 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 15:53, 54 and 1 Timothy 6:16), and there you will find that Jesus is immortal, and that God offers immortality as a reward to the faithful. So, sinners are never given immortality.

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 2:17 He told Adam, 'You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad. Because, on whatever day you eat from it, your life will end and you will die.'

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 6:23, where we read, 'For the wage of sin is death; but God's gift is age-long life through the Anointed Jesus, our Lord.'

So, God gives life (gr. zoe) as a gift to the righteous. But the wage of unrepented sin is death (gr. thanatos).

Then, what did Jude mean when he spoke of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah as receiving 'age-long fire?' The answer to this is found at Revelation 20:14, where we read, 'The lake of fire symbolizes the second death.'

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?

Amen

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 14:16.

In addition, amen isn't said in the Bible just at the end of prayers. 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.'

Then, 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.'

Animal Sacrifices

Many religious teachers have tried to draw a line between Jehovah, whom 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 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 20:24) 'You must make an Altar to Me from the dirt…' So nothing fancy or expensive was required. Then, sometime later, He said (Exodus 20:25): 'Now, if you build a stone Altar to Me, don't use cut stones…' And at Exodus 20:26 we read, 'Nor should you build any steps to My Altar…' So, the Altar wasn't to be too high, and simple rock (or dirt) construction was fine.

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 and silver ornamentation and utensils, the Altar was to be 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 edible flesh was to be roasted or boiled nearby – except where it was a 'whole burnt offering.' 'Clean,' of course, meant that it was to be an 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.

Anointed

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 Jesus' last 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 (anointing) 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 whom God chose to be kings or priests over IsraEl. For example, David and Solomon were both anointed (oil was poured over their heads) in proof of the fact that they had been chosen by God to be kings over IsraEl.

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 Chosen One) until he was anointed with Holy Breath at his baptism (when the 'dove' came down on him).

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 Corinth that they too would be anointed… become 'christs.' For, when they were 'anointed' and sealed in their hearts by God's Holy Breath, they were selected to be 'kings on the earth' (Revelation 5:10).

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. For more information, see the linked document, False Anointed and False Prophets.

Another example of the poor use of the title Christ (implying Jesus) by Bible translators can be found at 1 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 the Christ (or the Anointed One) was in them.

Anointing

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. 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 IsraEl. However, at least in the case of Aaron and his sons, fragrant herbs were added to the oil to give it a pleasing odor. This is implied at Exodus 25:7, where the IsraElites were asked to donate 'fragrances for anointing oil.' And we find the exact formula for the anointing oil at Exodus 30:34, where we read that it was to be made from 'sixteen pounds of choice myrrh flowers, eight pounds of sweet-smelling cinnamon, eight pounds of sweet-smelling calamus, sixteen pounds of cassia (for the Holy Place), and a gallon of olive oil.'

The physical anointing with oil also appears to have pictured their receiving 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, when referring to them, is apropos.

Antichrists

Who are the antichrists? As John said (at 1 John 2:22), 'This is the Antichrist: He who denies both the Father and the Son.'

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 2:23), 'Whoever denies the Son [also denies] the Father.'

Such a denial of Jesus amounted to an unforgivable sin against God's Holy Breath, because it was God's Breath that had testified to 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 read: '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.

Apostasy and Apostates

The Greek word apostasis (in its various conjugated forms) is used several times in the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT). We find it used at 2 Chronicles 28:19, for example, 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. And there are just two places where this term (apostasy) is used to indicate someone's unfaithfulness in the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), at Acts 21:21 and at 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

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 not following the traditional Jewish way of life as outlined by Moses.

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) 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 as 'an apostate' or a 'heretic,' when there might be some question as to who is right, would be an even more serious matter before God.

The only other places in the Christian-Era Scriptures (NT) where the Greek word for apostasy is found, is where a 'certificate of dismissal' (divorce certificate) is mentioned (see Mark 10:4, for example). The words there are biblion apostasiu, which literally mean 'scroll of apostasy (or turning away).'

Ark or Chest?

What is an ark? Why, everyone has heard of Noah's ark, haven't they? But, just what is an ark? Ark is an ancient English word, the meaning of which has mostly been lost in history. However, it is often used to translate the Greek word kiboton (kee/boat/on). And, because most people don't understand the meaning of the English word, they usually don't know what it's talking about, and any concept that they might have of what it looked like may come from pictures in children's storybooks that show a large boat with all sorts of animals looking out the windows.

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.

We also find the word kiboton used to describe the sacred box known as 'the Ark of the Covenant' (gr. kiboton marturion – chest/of Testimony), but which we have more accurately translated as 'Chest of Proofs,' since that sacred Chest held such proofs of God's miracles as the manna, the flowering rod of Aaron, and the tablets of the Ten Commandments.

ArtaXerxes

It is thought that the ArtaXerxes mentioned in the book of Esther was ArtaXerxes II (see the Wikipedia reference ArtaXerxes II). However, the Hebrew text uses the name ArthaSasa.

There doesn't appear to be much said about him in the historical records, other than he was the son of Darius II and he ruled Persia somewhere between 405 to 358 B.C.E.

Astin

In Persian, the name of this rebellious queen is VashTi, but the Greek pronunciation is Astin (see the Wikipedia reference Vashti). And although previous Bible commentators have tried to identify her with one of ArtaXerxes' three-hundred-and-fifty wives, her rapid removal suggests that she likely wasn't listed among them.

BaAl, BeEl, Bel, and El

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 the 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 the person was 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. So, you will usually find them spelled as BaAl or BeEl herein.

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 9:46) as 'Bethel Bereth,' or, 'the temple of god ElBereth,' or, 'the vault of the house of El-Berith;' recognize that 'Beth (or Baith)' means 'the house (or temple) of,' 'El' means 'God,' and 'Bereth' is that God's name. So, we have translated it there as 'the temple of God Bereth.'

Babylon (the Great)

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 is 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 Babylon did to apostate Judah and JeruSalem, we have come across enough questionable details to cause us to be less sure of this conclusion.

What are these 'questionable details?' Well, the Bible shows us that God sent the Kingdom of Babylon against the Judeans because they had been unfaithful. So, 'the Great Babylon' (as it was referred to by the king of Babylon at DaniEl 4:30) was a worldly army that was sent against something that had become an apostate religion. And we have wondered whether unfaithful JeruSalem and Judah don't in fact represent what we thought that Babylon represented.

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 JeruSalem (which was attacked by the Great Babylon) was also described this way. For, if you read EzekiEl Chapter twenty-three, you will see how God Himself likened JeruSalem to a woman who was promised to Him, but who became a whore through her unfaithfulness… which is what much of modern Christendom and Judaism have both done today.

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.

Bible Measurements

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.

Bless or Praise?

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 eulogetos 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 a lot of 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.

Blest or Happy?

There is quite a debate as to whether the Greek word makarios found in many places throughout the Bible should be translated as 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.

Bodily Divinity

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. For, 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.'

Book of Enoch

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 all the way 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 Jude 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 Babylon (c. 537-B.C.E.) that the Scribe Ezra didn't include it among the Sacred Writings. However, some scholars point to these quotations from the book of Enoch to prove that the book of Jude is itself a spurious addition to the Bible.

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 Sodom in the Book of Enoch, which we believe came long after the lifetime of Enoch. However, it was suggested by an advisor that Sodom could have been a far more ancient city that was repopulated after the Downpour. And since the people of the whole earth were so bad during that pre-flood time, it may have been a center of wickedness in the lifetime of Enoch also. Yet, this mention could be proof that the whole book is uninspired, or that the words were added corruptions of the text.

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.

Book of Judges

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 IsraEl back then.'

Therefore, 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 IsraEl's conquest by the Assyrians and JeruSalem's conquest by the Babylonians, or in the late 6^th Century B.C.E. And the likely writer then would be the Scribe Ezra. So, how do we resolve the differences?

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 18:30. And since this comment is found both in the Hebrew and Greek texts, we know that it had to have been made sometime before the 3^rd Century B.C.E.

Boys

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.

Bread on Water

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 Jesse gave 'bread' to 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 will result in receiving liberally from others.

Breath

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.

In the Bible, the most common use of the word pneuma is to convey the idea of a force that can't be seen, such as breath or wind. And the problem with translating it as spirit or ghost, is that those words have been given religious meanings that aren't implied by the Greek texts.

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 said concerning the wicked people on earth before the Downpour: '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 19:30 say), 'he hung his head and gave up the breath' (gr. kai klinas ten kephalen paredoken to pneuma, or, and inclined his head giving/up the breath). In this case, the obvious reference is to 'the breath of life,' or that force which gave him life as a human.

Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

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).

Caesarea Philippi

While some critics have claimed the Bible's Gospel accounts weren't written for more than a century after Jesus' death, internal proofs, such as Matthew's use of the city name, Caesarea Philippi, show that this book had to be written prior to the middle of the First Century. For, archeologists have found that about 50-C.E., the Romans changed its name 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.

In addition, this city is also mentioned three times in the Gospel of Mark, which indicates the antiquity of that book.

For more information, see the linked document, The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History

Cainan

Note that we have added the name Cainan to the genealogies of First Chronicles Chapter One verse twenty-four (in brackets), as well as words indicating whose son he was, because his name is found at Genesis 11:12, 13, and at Luke 3:36. However, his name is not found in Genesis or First Chronicles in the Masoretic text. If this was a mistake of Septuagint translators, we would have to assume Luke used the Septuagint text for his genealogy of Jesus, and he just copied the mistake.

On the other hand, also note that the Septuagint text of First Chronicles Chapter One is clearly incomplete, with verses eighteen through twenty-three simply missing, and the descriptions of whose sons the following people were, is also missing, which we again added in brackets. So, here is one case where we recognize a portion of the Septuagint text as being corrupted and we therefore deferred to the genealogies found in Genesis and Luke.

Which text (Septuagint or Masoretic) is the correct rendering of Genesis 11:12, 13? We know that there was another Cainan listed in the genealogy between Adam and Noah, as found at Genesis 5:12, 13. And the time that he lived before fathering his son Sala (probably pronounced Shala), one-hundred and thirty years, is suspiciously the same as the time given for the life of Sala before fathering his son Heber. Yet, the total lifespans of each of these men are shown as being different, so we must assume that there was simply another man named Cainan, and that the dates of the births of their sons is coincidental. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that there was a deliberate attempt at forgery in the Septuagint text.

So, while admitting that the Septuagint text at 1 Chronicles 1:18-24 is corrupted, we trust its rendering of Genesis 11:12, 13, because there are clear indications of corruption and changes to the Masoretic text of Genesis Chapters Five and Eleven. For more information, see the document 'Why the Greek Septuagint?,' under the subheading Better Rendering of Dates.'

Cain's Wife

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 20:12). Then AbraHam sent his servant to his closest relatives to take a wife for his son IsaAc, who married his first cousin, Rebecca, who was also a granddaughter of Terah. This pattern followed through with the wives of IsaAc's sons Jacob and IshMaEl, who also married first cousins that were descended from Terah. So, what we call incest today wasn't illegal or immoral in early Bible times.

Called and Chosen

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 22:14): 'Many are called but few are chosen (gr. polloi eisin gar cletoi, oligoi de eclectoi).' And this verse could be possibly even be translated as 'Many are nominated but few are elected.'

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 17:14; for there we are told: 'Then they will go and fight against the Lamb. But, because he's the Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb and those who are with him (the called, elected, and faithful) will conquer them.'

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 Kingdom of Heaven.' In that parable, many were initially 'called' to the banquet of the King, but they didn't want to come. The obvious reference here is to the Jews who were invited first to become kings in that Kingdom, but who, for the most part, rejected the invitation.

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.'

Also, notice that in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 65:23, the elected are spoken of as fathering children, for there it says: 'My elected won't labor for nothing, nor will they produce children for a curse; for their seed and all their descendants, will then be a blessing from God.'

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, then we would also have to ask, 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 19:7-9). For, notice what Paul said of himself at Philippians 3:11, '… so I can somehow be found worthy of an out-resurrection from the dead'

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 3:12, '[I'm not saying] that I've made it yet, or that I'm already perfect.' Then he continued with the words (at Philippians 3:14), 'I'm running toward the goal, the prize of the higher (gr. ano – upward or higher) calling from God, through the Anointed Jesus.'

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 common 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 for 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.

Camel or Rope?

It has been argued that Jesus' use of the word camel, at Matthew 19:24, was really a humorous play on words. For, if he was speaking in Aramaic (which many claim he was), the word he used was gâmla, which means both camel and rope. However, in translating his words to Greek from Aramaic, the word camelon was probably selected, which only means camel.

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.

Capitals in Bible Names

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 IsaiAh, and Eliezer as EliEzer. Why? Well, partly to help with the correct pronunciations of the names, and partly to show some translating consistency.

Of course, 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. Yet, there are other names (such as EliJah), where the IEs have been changed to Js.

So, why have translators substituted a capital 'J' for the letters 'Ie' in both of the above cases? Well, there is an inconsistency here, because there was no letter 'J' in Hebrew or Greek alphabets. However, the letters were changed to coincide with the common English pronunciations of these names. Unfortunately though, this process wasn't followed consistently by ancient translators; so while some names are spelled with a J, many others are still spelled with an Ie or Iah.

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 Elee-ehzer. 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 Lam.

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.

Captives and Gifts

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 the OT and NT texts don't 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.'

As you can see, 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 it 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.

Chest of Proofs

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 IsraEl. So, wherever the words kiboton marturion appear in the text, we have called it the Chest of Proofs. But it was also referred to as the Chest of the Sacred Agreement (or, Ark of the Covenant) at Exodus 27:21, for example, so that term must also be correct. However, after the IsraElites settled in the Promised Land it was always referred to as the kiboton marturion, or the Chest of Proofs.

Unfortunately, during the time of Samuel and the High-Priest Eli, the Philistines captured the Chest, emptied its contents, and then returned it to IsraEl empty, because, their having it brought a plague on them (see 1 Samuel 5:12). However, later, during the time of King Solomon, the sacred tablets containing the Ten Commandments were found to be still in the Chest, but nothing else (see 1 Kings 8:9); so we have to assume that they had been found and returned.

ChoBar River

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 koh-bar) River, in the land of Babylon… and many assume that he was living in Babylon along its Grand Canal (which could still be true). However, note that living in the land of Babylon isn't necessarily the same as living in the City of Babylon, for the land of Babylon covered a vast empire. Yet, when the kings of Babylon deported and resettled nations that they captured, it is likely that only the royalty were taken to their capital city. So, the Jews may have been deported to some other location in that land, which would explain why EzekiEl speaks in awe of faithful DaniEl, but provides no record of speaking to or dealing with him directly, which you would expect if they lived nearby. However, even DaniEl didn't live in Babylon after it was invaded, but in Persian Susa, where he was taken by King Darius shortly before his death; for what is thought to be DaniEl's tomb is still found there (see the link Susa).

A likely location for their resettlement is west of Babylon and directly north of Palestine, on the eastern side of the land of Syria. For, there we find a river with a name that is similar to ChoBar, the Khabour (see Khabur River). Many Bible scholars now accept this as the site of that relocation and as the place where EzekiEl did his writing.

This place seems far more likely than inside the city of Babylon, for EzekiEl's prophecies were primarily against Judah and JeruSalem, and it was there that they were to be written or heard. Yet, this would be difficult if EzekiEl did his prophesying and writing in Babylon itself, which was a three-month journey away.

Christian

Some have commented on the fact 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 Christon 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 Follower 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 is 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.

Cosmos, Arrangement, or World?

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 arrangement.'

In Greek, the words we have translated as founding of the arrangement are katabole kosmou. You may recognize that the English word cosmos is a derivative of kosmou. And cosmos is the word that modern peoples usually use when referring to the universe today. So, why have we translated it as arrangement, and what is meant by the term, founding of the arrangement?

Actually, the closest English meaning of Greek word kosmos is arrangement. For example, when Paul urged Christian women to dress modestly, he used the word kosmos to describe well-arranged clothing. However, in other Bibles kosmos is usually translated as world.

Although it has been said that the word world doesn't appear at all in the Hebrew texts of the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT), the word kosmos does appear there several times in the Greek Septuagint. The reason why some say that world (or kosmos) doesn't appear there, is because the equivalent Hebrew word (te·vel) is often 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 kosmos appears several times, it is usually translated as world… as in the world of Noah, the light of the world, the field is the world, etc. However, there are some fifteen definitions given to the word world in English dictionaries, and most don't carry the same meaning as the Greek word. So, world is a poor choice when translating kosmos. For example: kosmos never seems to apply to the earth (which is how we often think of it). Rather, it often applies to the arrangement or situation of human society… system of things might be a better word choice.

Actually, two different Greek words are often translated as world in the Septuagint, kosmos and oichonomeo; and oichonomeo does appear to refer to the earth, because it means the habitation, or, the place where [man] dwells. So the Greek text clearly delineates the two meanings, which are both commonly translated as world in other Bibles.

Notice how the word kosmos was used by Paul at Romans 5:12, 'Sin entered the arrangement (kosmos) through one man, and this sin resulted in death. So, death spread to all men and everyone has sinned.'

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 for 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 (or kosmos) in a negative context, and that it (the current set of negative circumstances) will soon be done away with.

Yet, the Scriptures also indicate that the present worldly arrangement or system of things began after the Downpour of Noah's day, and that Noah had inherited the arrangement 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 arrangement (or 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 arrangement. Yet, He guarded Noah (who was a preacher of righteousness) along with seven others, when He brought a downpour on a system (kosmos or world) of godless people.'

So, apparently there have been at least two different worlds or arrangements; the one that Noah inherited and which started before the Downpour, followed by the second arrangement or system of things that we are now living in, which will also be destroyed. For, we read at 1 John 2:17, 'The system (kosmos) with all its desires is passing away, but he who does God's Will lives for the age.' And Romans 4:13 says, 'AbraHam and his seed weren't given the promise of inheriting the arrangement because of the Law, but because of his righteousness, which came from his faith!'

Thus (from the above), we may conclude that: What Jesus said about the Kingdom having been prepared for the sheep since the founding of the arrangement could 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.

However, the words of Revelation 13:8 could indicated that a third world began with the death of Jesus. For, there it says concerning him: 'he who had been slaughtered from the founding of the arrangement' (gr. esphagmenou apo kataboles kosmou or, who/was/slaughtered from foundation – or down-throw – cosmos). Therefore, we could be living in an entirely new world, arrangement, or system of things since the time of Jesus' death. And if so, then what Jesus may have been foretelling at Matthew 25:34, is that people would start being selected as 'Kingdom inheritors' after his death, or after the latest 'founding (or down-throwing) of the world.'

Cross or Pole?

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 (see the link Dispute about Jesus' Execution Method). 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. 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.

Crowns, Turbans, and Diadems

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 IsraEl, such as David and Solomon, wear?

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 Egypt, for example, was not referred to as either a crown (due to the lack of a corona) or a turban. However, in ancient IsraEl and in other middle-eastern countries, the common headgear for kings was a turban that was set with gold and jewels. And this custom remained true throughout the history of the Jews, because crowns were generally thought of by the faithful as representing the rays of the sun (an idol). However, gold crowns were used by pagan kings in many places throughout the world, as their sign of appointment by (the Sun) God.

The first mention of a crown being worn by a king of IsraEl is found at 2 Samuel 12:30, where 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 IsraEl thereafter, for the placing of Malchom's crown on his head seems to represent David's victory, not his envy of the Pagan king's headgear. And the fact that all IsraElite men wore turbans can be seen in the depictions of IsraElites in war scenes from Assyria that are currently on display at the British Museum.

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 gold crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.'

DaniEl 12:4

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.

By the way; another variation that we noticed between Bibles, is the translation (by some) of the Greek words kairou synteleias (time end), or the Hebrew words et ketz (of/time the/end) as end of time (rather than time of the end)! Yet, if we can trust Einstein's formula E=MC², space and distance would end when time ends, and the Scriptures don't speak of such an outcome for our universe.

David Dancing Naked

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 God's Sacred Chest into JeruSalem for the first time. Whereas, the Hebrew text says he was wearing just a linen ephod (vest). So, when his wife Michal accused him of exposing himself while he danced, the conclusion that many translators have made from the Hebrew text is that he celebrated bringing Jehovah's Chest to JeruSalem by dancing naked from the waist down. This doesn't sound appropriate or likely. Rather, the Greek text shows that he was fully covered in fine clothes, and Michal's accusation was probably the hyperbole of a disgusted wife who didn't think that her husband was behaving as her father Saul would have done.

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 wildly and joyfully than with the idea that he had truly exposed himself.

Day and Hour

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 specifically 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.

Day of the Lord

Throughout the Bible, we find references to 'the Day of Jehovah,' and 'the Day of the Lord' (Jesus). 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 12:10), 'Now it has come to pass; the salvation, the power, the Kingdom of our God, and the empowerment of His Anointed One!'

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 empowerment for Jesus (the Lord) to begin his 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 1:10), 'Through the Breath [of God] I found myself in the Lord's Day.'

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,' the Battle of Armageddon, tossing the Opposer and his messengers into the abyss, 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 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, and this is followed by the destruction of the worldly armies (see Joel Chapter Three). Then, in between these two events, we read of the marvelous outpouring of God's Breath upon His faithful servants (Joel 2:28-32).

Dedicated to Destruction

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 Temple. So the verse implies a vow to destroy those whom God deems worthy of destruction.

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 IsraEl swore a vow to Jehovah, saying, If you will hand them over to us, we will dedicate them and their cities to You.' So, Jehovah heard the voices of [the people of] IsraEl and gave the Canaanites into their hands, then they [totally destroyed] them and their cities. And they started calling that place The Cursed.

Demonized Man

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 the 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 IsraEl, in a Greek settlement called the DecaPolis (Ten Cities), near one city that may have been called Geras (since it was called the land of the Gerasenes). So, the man was likely a gentile, for he lived in a gentile land (notice that they were herders of pigs, which were unclean animals to the Jews). And since Jesus' commission from God was to go to the Jews and the related Samaritans, this gentile would have been an inappropriate disciple in the land of IsraEl.

Demons

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 17:18 the Epicureans and Stoic Philosophers of Greece asked about Paul's teaching a 'foreign demon.' And although most translations render his words as 'foreign god,' they truly said 'demon' (gr. daimonion). This is also true of Paul's reply found at Acts 17:22, 'Men of Athens; I see that you have a greater fear of the demons than do others.'

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.

Did Aaron Personally Make the Gold Calf?

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 SEE to worship, like the gods they could see in Egypt… 'memory aids.' And since a calf was often the first (and most valuable) sacrifice offered, this might have been the reason for its being carved into that shape. However, remember that God had already forbidden making or using idols, and that's why He was so displeased. They shouldn't have needed anything to see as proof that He was there.

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 Egypt), there had been little contact with God for a couple of hundred years! So, the proper ways of serving God had been forgotten. And as the result, God had to start from scratch in building and shaping a nation of worshipers… and they had to be taught some very hard lessons along the way; and often, death was involved, because people had to understand that this was a life-and-death matter.

Notice too that; when Moses asked, 'Who is on Jehovah's side?', and he assembled a small army to slaughter the unfaithful; 'the Sons of Levi' (which likely included Aaron and his family) came to Moses and took their stand for Jehovah as their God.

Did an Angel Want to Kill Moses?

The words of Exodus 4:24 have long been a source of doubt and concern to most Bible students, because, what is said in both the Hebrew and Greek texts, is that an angel wanted to kill 'him' at an inn. For, the person mentioned in the preceding verse was Moses, so we would logically conclude that he was the person whom the angel was planning to kill. Of course, this scenario is illogical, because God had just commissioned Moses to go to PharaOh and demand that His people be freed. So, why would a messenger from God try to thwart God's plans?

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 17:14).

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.

Did God Create Evil?

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. And because of this, they teach that man has no choice in his destiny.

But, let's see what the verse actually 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(s) and created bad.'

Notice that the Greek text doesn't actually say anything about God creating good and evil. Rather, as we have translated it: 'It is I who prepared light and I who made darkness; it is I who made peace and bad [times].'

Notice that the Greek words used here are eirenen (which means peace or peacefulness, since the tense is plural) and kaka (which simply means bad, not evil). We trust the Greek text here, because it makes more sense, and it better reflects what Jews understood this scripture to mean some twenty-two-hundred years ago.

Since the previous stanza used contrasting things (light and darkness); following the rules of Hebrew poetry (which is what this verse is), the next stanza must also reflect an opposite. And since the leading word (as found in the Septuagint) is peace or peacefulness, not good (gr kalon), this requires the next word to be an opposite. And in this case, the opposite of peace or peacefulness is bad times… which God brings to the willfully wicked.

Dip or Sop of the Last Supper

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), and surely salt and olive oil were used to add flavor and to soften the bread.

Disgusting Destroyer

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 of our Common Era. For, according to Eusebius, Christians in the city recognized this as the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy about its imminent destruction and fled JeruSalem. Then, in the year 70-C.E., 'all these things' ended when the Romans destroyed the city and its Temple.

Divine Habitation

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 as Divine Habitation, which is what naos actually implies, for the Greeks used that word to describe the innermost part of their temples where their gods were said to have dwelled.

Dogs

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.' 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, people who lived in 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.

Downpour

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.

Dragon

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, described any sort of fearsome wild beast.

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 Europe, for who hasn't heard the story of St. George and the dragon. Yet, if you read that story, you'll see that it is actually an allegory about man's fight against sin and the Slanderer. So in that case, it refers to the original dragon, or the first creature of terror.

Notice that faithful Job asked God (at Job 7:12), 'Am I the sea or the dragon that guards it?' This view that a dragon guarded the edges of the seas was common throughout Europe until after the Sixteenth Century, for dragons were usually drawn at the edges of maps of seas during that time. Yet, the actual original reference may have been to animals and fish that men feared and didn't understand (fearsome beasts), not to snakes with legs.

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, 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 11:25, when listing animals that shouldn't be eaten, and in that place, most Bibles also translate the word crocodile wrong.

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, so 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 land of Egypt and to its destruction. And you will also find references to the land of Egypt in this song (Isaiah Chapters 26 and 27). However, notice that the song seems to speak of some future time when God's people (IsraEl) are released from a symbolic Egypt at Armageddon, for notice the words of the prophecy (Isaiah 26:19-21), which say:

'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, Egypt seems to be used here as a symbol of the godless nations that are destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) and the dragon that represents them, appears to be the Opposer.

Dragon's Messengers

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 to seduce them into following him 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 whomever 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 religions (worshipers), must have been the enticing lure.

Earning a Living from Religion

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 us 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.' And the obvious problem with trying to teach those who pay us to do so, is this matter of sincerity. For, if one's livelihood depends on the goodwill of his/her listeners, there will be a reluctance to say what needs to be said.

Eating Jesus' Flesh and Drinking His Blood

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 appear to have been 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,' which he had just inaugurated.

Speaking ahead of time concerning this ritual, Jesus said (at John 6:53-56), 'I tell you the truth; If you don't eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood, you won't live. For, if you chew my flesh and drink my blood, you'll have life within yourself, and then I'll resurrect you on the Last Day, because, my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly a drink. Those who chew on my flesh and drink my blood will stay in me and I [will stay] in them.'

It is isn't surprising 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 (in verses 68, 69), 'Lord, whom should we go off to? You say the words of age-long life, 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 full moon closest to the Spring Equinox in JeruSalem. And what the Jews were celebrating was symbolic of Jesus' death, namely, the saving of the IsraElite 'firstborn' when God's messenger brought the last plague upon Egypt (which resulted in God's people being set free). For more information, see the linked document, The Passover and the Lord's Evening Meal.

Who should partake of the symbolic bread and wine at that time? The Scriptures say, those who want 'age-long life' and who wish to be resurrected 'on the Last Day.'

For more information, see the linked document, 'The New Covenant.'

Eating Meat

(NOTE: Two views are offered here, to represent the differing opinions of our advisors and staff.)

View 1 (understand that the following words do not represent the views of someone who is a vegetarian, they are just observations):
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 Paradise.

Notice that; from the start, men were also just to eat vegetation. For, Genesis 1:29 it is recorded that God said: '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.' He also told Adam at Genesis 3:18, 'Briars and thistles will grow for you, and your food will be the grasses in the fields. 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 IsraEl? Doesn't this prove that God approves of the slaughtering of animals? Well, it appears as though even this was man's idea, and that God simply allowed it to happen. For, notice what God Himself said concerning this at JeremiAh 7:21-23:
'Gather your whole burnt-offerings, along with your other sacrifices, and then go ahead and eat all the meats! For, I didn't tell your fathers to do this, nor did I give such instructions to them (on the day that I led them from Egypt's land), [to bring] whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. The only instructions I gave them, is to pay attention to My voice! [I said]; You'll be My people and I'll be your God, as long as you walk in My ways, and do whatever I tell you is good!'

We note that the instructions of offer living sacrifices were given as commands in the Old Law. However, in view of what God said, as quoted above, we would assume that such instructions were given to the IsraElites as a concession to their views as to how they chose to worship God.

View 2:
From the words of Genesis 1:29, some have concluded that man was originally meant to be a vegetarian. It reads, '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.'

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 Paradise.

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).

However, 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.

Eating with Unwashed Hands

At Matthew 15:2, we read of how Jesus' Apostles (and likely Jesus himself) had simply failed to wash their hands before eating, and the Pharisees were objecting to this.

Now, it is often been preached that what the Pharisees were objecting to, was that they hadn't performed a 'ritual washing' (to the elbows). Yet, the words in the parallel account at Mark 7:2 clearly shows that this isn't what the Pharisees had accused them of. Notice how this verse reads: 'Kai idontes tinas ton matheton autou hoti koinais chersin taut estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous,' or, and having/seen some of disciples of/him as/great with/unclean hands this being unwashed eating the bread.'

Note that their hands were described as being 'koinais,' (meaning 'unclean' or 'dirty) and as 'aniptois' (unwashed). So their hands were simply dirty and unwashed, and no ritual washing is indicated.

It is a fact that the people of the southern Province of Judea believed in washing their hands vigorously (scrubbing) before eating a meal. And yes, it was a religious thing, which was based on the rabbinic teaching that they should be a clean people. But that wasn't the end of the matter; they also (as part of the 'ritual') rinsed the vegetables that they brought from the market and washed their dishes (see verses 3 and 4). However, such actions apparently weren't as strictly followed by Galileans in that ancient world (Jesus and eleven of his Apostles were from Galilee). And as proof that our conclusions about this are correct, notice what Jesus went on to say about the matter, as found at Matthew 15:20, 'Eating with unwashed hands doesn't dirty a man.'

Of course, Jesus wasn't really condoning or promoting eating without washing one's hands. For, as the Son of God, he surely knew that disease and infection could be spread that way. But, what he was more concerned with here, is a far more important matter: What the Pharisees were doing was taking Bible principles (such as cleanliness) and turning them into laws – which Jesus went on to point out that the Pharisees were also doing to promote disregard for parents.

Unfortunately, we see some of these same rules and laws being preached in 'Christian' religions today.

For more information, see the linked document God's Laws and Principles.

Edem

Was there such as thing as the Garden of Eden, and if so, where was it located?

Actually, the Septuagint says, at Genesis 2:8, 'God planted a Paradise on the east side of Edem, where He put the man whom he had formed.' Then in verses 10-14 we read, 'A river flowed from Edem to water the Paradise, and from there [came the] head [waters] of four [rivers]. The name of the [first river] is Phison. It circles the entire land of Evilat, where there is gold (and the gold from that land is good). There is also coal and ornamental stone. The name of the second river is Geon. It runs around the land of Kush. The third river is the Tigris, which flows over toward the Assyrians; and the fourth river is the EuPhrates.'

As you can see; according to the Septuagint, the Garden was not named Eden, it was just called 'the Paradise,' or 'the Walled Garden' (from the word's old Iranian roots). And it was also called 'the Paradise of Delights,' at Genesis 2:15. So, where did Eden come in? Well, the Septuagint tells us that the Garden ran along the east side of 'the land of Edem.' Therefore, the garden wasn't named Eden (or Edem), but rather, it was located next to a land of that name.

But, which spelling is correct? We don't know. However, we frequently find the letters M and N interchanged in Bible names; and as you will see below, similar names are spelled with an M in both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts.

Don't confuse this name (Ed-em) with Edom (Ed-om), although they both have similar meanings, referring to something that is red. For, Edom is the name of the land that belonged to IsaAc's son Esau, and Edem is the name of a land in the east where the Garden of God was located, and from which we get the name Eden.

And where is Edem? Notice that when Moses wrote this portion of Genesis, he used places and countries that existed in his day to describe its location. For, at Genesis 2:14 he tells us that the Tigris river 'flows over toward the Assyrians.' Therefore, we must assume that the land of Edem existed during the time of the Assyrians and of Moses.

A people called the Sons of Edem are mentioned in other scriptures, such as 2 Kings 19:12 (4 Kings 19:12 Sept.), where the Assyrians were taunting the people of JeruSalem by bragging about the cities they had conquered. In the Septuagint, it says the Sons of Edem were conquered at 'ThaEsthen' ('Tel Assar' in Hebrew), which almost all references cite as being a country annexed to Assyria.' But where?

Recent research indicates that the land of Edem (or Eden) may well have been north of where most people think of it as being (in southern Iraq). For, its location is likely where you'll find the headwaters of the Tigris, EuPhrates, and two other rivers, the Geon (likely the Gihon or the Gaihun-Aras) and the Phison (likely the Pishon, which is now known as the Sephid-Rud, or, Long Red River), since they have similar names today. They are all located near Mt. Ararat, SW of Tabriz in Azerbaijan, a place that was inhabited by the Medes in the 7th Century B.C.E.

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 Babylon, a geographical map shows that this has never happened. However, the Hebrew words that are usually translated as saying that the rivers come together in four heads, may also be translated as saying that the headwaters of these four rivers are found in the land. And this aptly describes the area which is still called Edin, near Mt. Ararat.

Was there a man named Edem, from whom the land at the foot of Mt. Ararat derives its name? That could be, but since Edem appears to mean red earth, the term sons of Edem could also mean sons of the red earth, after the bright red ochre soil which is found near Tabriz. It is interesting that the name Adam also seems to imply Red Earth, so the Septuagint spelling of the land (Edem) appears to be correct, and soil from that area (SW of Ararat) could also be the dust of the ground from which Adam was made.

Also notice that one of the descendants of Kush was Evilat (according to Genesis 10:7). And this is the name of the land around which the Phison flowed (see Genesis 2:11), where it was said that there was gold and other valuable minerals.

This location appears to be confirmed at Genesis 25:18, where the land of Esau is described as running to the land of Evilat, which it says, is in the country of Assyria. Notice that this location is also confirmed at Amos 1:5.

Then, if the Geon River is located in Azerbaijan, why does the Septuagint say (at Genesis 2:13) that it runs around Ethiopia?

Well, notice that Ethiopia is just the Greek word for the land of the blacks. The Hebrew (Masoretic) text says there that 'it runs around the entire land of Kush,' which means the same thing, since Cush also means Black. But, doesn't this mean that the Geon is located near or in Africa?

Obviously, the present country of Ethiopia is not the original location of the headwaters of the River Geon that flowed into Edem (Eden). For, not only is that impossible geologically, but the Bible's account about the sons of Edem and the location of the land of Evilat, indicates that the descendants of Kush (whom the Ethiopians still claim as their progenitor), at least in part, originally lived in areas north of Iran. The fact that Kush's son Nimrod founded many cities in Iran and Iraq gives credence to the thought that black or dark-skinned people once inhabited that area. Although there are no archaeological records of these people, they could be the same as the Cadusii (although there is no record of skin color), who are mentioned by the ancient Greeks.

Egyptian Law of Eminent Domain

The account found at Genesis Chapter 47, where Joseph purchased all of the Egyptian people's land for PharaOh with grain, provides us an interesting insight into the history of governmental power to tax its residents and to own the land (eminent 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 were to be subsidized to all future generations.

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 paid no taxes on the property they owned, 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 taxation by governments.

The parallels to these ancient laws of God can still be seen in modern governments, where they claim the right to confiscate, purchase, or own all land within their domain (eminent domain), where national taxation is about the same as it was in Egypt, twenty percent, and religious organizations and their clerics aren't taxed on income from religious duties.

Elder or Overseer

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). Therefore, Christian elders appear to have always been males, and their job was to shepherd and teach the congregation. Another common English word for overseer is bishop, a corruption of the Greek episcopos.

The early Christian congregations may have had many older men who took the lead, taught, and watched over the flock. And the Scriptures show that to be considered as such, such men were to meet high standards of conduct and reputation. And although Paul doesn't mention it specifically, they 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].'

Then, should such an appointment be given to any 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. For, Solomon wrote (at Proverbs 22:29), 'An observant man who is sharp in his ways, will also stand beside kings… he won't stand beside the dull witted.'

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:

· Has not been charged [with misconduct] (gr. anepilepton)

· Is a one-woman man (gr. mias one gynaikos woman aner man)

· Is moderate in his habits

· Is sensible (wise)

· Is friendly to strangers (hospitable)

· Is a (qualified) teacher

· Is not a drunk

· Isn't headstrong

· Isn't quarrelsome

· Isn't a greedy person

· Is someone who takes the lead in his family

· Has children who obey him seriously

· Isn't a newly converted man

· Is someone who is spoken well of by those outside the congregation.

And most of all, they should follow the course set out by Peter, who wrote at 1 Peter 5:1-4, 'I encourage the elders among you (my fellow elders and witnesses of the sufferings of the Anointed One, who will share in the glory that's soon to be revealed) to shepherd the flock of God that has been entrusted to your [care]. Don't [do this] because you have to, but because you want to! Don't do it to make a lot of money, but because you want to help! Don't [set yourselves up as] rulers over those who have been entrusted to your care, but become examples to the flock. Then, when the Chief Shepherd is revealed, you will walk away with the enduring crown of glory!'

For more information, see the linked document Arrangement of the First Christian Churches.

Empowering the Priests

At Exodus 28:37 (in the Septuagint) 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. For, there is no mention of anointing or empowerment. So, we wonder which is correct.

In Greek, the words that we are concerned with (and which we have translated as empower) 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.

Eroticism of the Bible

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. For more information, see the linked document Christian Morality.

Esther

Esther is the Hellenized (Greek) pronunciation of the (possibly Median) name HadasShah. She appears to have been one of the primary wives of ArtaXerxes II (see the Wikipedia reference Esther).

Eue, Euan, or Eve?

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 3:20, but as Eue or Euan (pronounced Eu-weh or Eu-wan) at Genesis 4:25. However, there is no contradiction, just a difference in languages. The Greek word found at Genesis 3:21 (Zoe) means Life, and the word (אֶת־חַוָּה or H'Hawah) found at Genesis 4:1 also means Life in Hebrew.

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 name Eue (which shows the strong influence that the Septuagint has had on the Hebrew text), because the Greek letter u looks like a v (ευαν). So her English name should be Life, but Eve has become the common mispronunciation.

Then, what does Eue or Euan mean in Greek? Who knows, since no Bible dictionaries attempt to define it. All we can tell you is that the prefix eu in Greek means good. However, it is possible that Eue is just a Greek attempt to pronounce the Hebrew word H'Hawah (Life).

Eunuchs

When we hear the word eunuch, we usually think of a man who 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 IsraEl, such mutilation would have been considered repulsive; for a sexually-mutilated person, by Law, couldn't serve as a Priest or worship at the Temple of Jehovah.

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.

Notice that 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, 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 a member of the nobility or royalty, and notice the prophecy that God gave to King HezekiAh 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 JeruSalem, makes this a possible conclusion.

Expression of Judgment

The term Expression of Judgment (gr. logeion ton kriseon) is what the Greek text says that God used to describe the special jeweled chest covering of gold cloth that the IsraElite High Priest was to wear whenever he served on special sacred 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 those 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.

Faith

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?'

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 about 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 2:17, 'So, faith that doesn't do anything is dead.'

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 fair, to be forgiving, and to live clean, honest lives. Then he concluded (at James 2:24), 'So, just as a body that isn't breathing is dead, faith without action is dead.'

False Brothers

At Galatians 2:4, Paul wrote about problems that he had with 'false brothers' (gr. pseudo adelphoi) whom he had to deal with on his second visit to JeruSalem. These may have been the same ones that he mentioned at 2 Corinthians 11:26, when he was talking about the many dangers that he had faced as an Apostle… and this was apparently one of the most treacherous of obstacles.

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. And the fact that there were such ones who looked down on and opposed Paul, is discussed under the Wikipedia topic, Ebionites.

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.

So clearly, some in the First Century congregation in JeruSalem didn't like Paul or 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. For, they would have loved to bring an end to 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 pro-Judaism) led to disqualifying them as Paul's 'brothers,' although there is no mention of their being corrected by anyone at the time. In fact, it was due to his trying to please them by by observing Jewish cleansing rituals that led to Paul's arrest and being sent to Rome.

Note that they had actually accused Paul teaching an 'apostasy,' just before his arrest and eventual deportation (see Acts 21:21). It is interesting that this is the only Bible record of a Christian ever being accused of such a thing.

Fear or Respect?

The Greek word for respect (or value) is temer, while the Greek word for fear is phobou (as in phobia). Yet, 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 more 'politically correct;' because, the same word, 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.

Fool, Foolish, or Uncaring?

The Greek word μωραι (pronounced, moe-rai) 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 (for example) weren't just 'foolish' girls; they knew what to do and didn't care enough to do it.

Footstool

Paul wrote (at Hebrews 1:13), 'And to which one of his messengers did He ever say, Sit here on my right until I put your enemies on a stool at your feet?'

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 appears to be described in the book of Revelation, which (as Revelation 1:10 says) gives us a glimpse into the things that would happen in 'the Lord's Day.' For, everything found there describes that 'Day,' which was still a future event when John wrote the book.

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.'

So, 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 12:12), 'This is why the heavens and those who live there should be joyful! But woe to the earth and to the sea, because the Slanderer has come down to you in a rage, knowing that he has little time.'

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 in Matthew 24 – 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. For, 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. However, when the events of Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 see their greater fulfillment (the Lord's Day), his enemies are thrown down from heaven and 'put at his footstool' (the earth).

And notice what the account at Revelation 12:10 says happens in heaven at that time: 'Now it has come to pass; the salvation, the power, the Kingdom of our God, and the empowerment of His Anointed One! For, the accuser of our brothers has been thrown out… he who has been accusing them day and night before our God!'

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.

Foreign Wives and Children

While Ezra's commandment for the people of IsraEl to send away their foreign wives and children may seem harsh and unreasonable, we want to understand that these wives likely weren't proselytes of Judaism, but worshipers of foreign gods, and that was the reason for Ezra's concern. Through the ages, anyone who chose to join with IsraEl and to start worshiping Jehovah was accepted as part of that nation; and there are many notable examples of this in the Bible. However, what had apparently happened after their restoration from Babylon, was that they were making marriage alliances with the pagan peoples of the land, which Jehovah forbade, and which was the sin of Solomon. So, these pagans were ordered to return to the homes of their parents.

Also notice that kindness was shown to these wives and children; because, sufficient time was allowed so as not to just put them out in the cold. And (although the account doesn't tell us this) many could well have been given some measure of the family inheritance when they left.

Foreskin

It appears as though God has provided a secret sign, known only to God and a person's mate, to indicate 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 these extra pieces of skin, so that those who wish to remain faithful before God and their mate can choose to indicate this in a very private way.

We first learned of the meaning of 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 that 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 this is 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 also be circumcised. And when the matter was brought before 'the Holy Ones' in JeruSalem, they decided that physical circumcision was just a sign that God required of the descendants of AbraHam. So they decreed (as found at Acts 15:28, 29), 'It's apparent to the Holy Breath [of God] and to us that we shouldn't put any burdens on you other than these necessary things: Stay away from things that are sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things that are strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you stay away from these things, you will do well. Good health to you!'

In other words, physical circumcision was no longer required. However, notice what Moses wrote (as recorded at Deuteronomy 10:16, 17), 'So, circumcise the hardness from your hearts and don't be [rebellious], for Jehovah your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords.'

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 cruel 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? 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 IsraEl (and among other descendants of AbraHam), the custom was to provide the blanket or rug on which the marriage was consummated to the parents of the bride, as proof that she was a virgin. For we read at Deuteronomy 32:13-15, 'If any man should take a wife whom he comes to dislike after he has lived with her, then starts saying bad things about her and calling her bad names, saying, When I took this woman and had sex with her, she didn't prove to be a virgin, her father and mother must bring the girl's proof of virginity to the elders at the city gate.'

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 whom 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 view 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 23.

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) must 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 IsraEl (Leviticus 21:13-15): 'He may only take a wife who is a virgin and from his own tribe… not a widow, a divorcee, someone who has been violated, or a prostitute. He may only take a virgin from his own people as a wife, for he must not profane his seed among his people. I am Jehovah who makes him holy.'

Fornication or Sexual Immorality?

The Greek word porneia means more than just copulation between individuals who aren't married to each other. The term literally means that which is sold (by prostitutes). So, it includes all types of sexual acts that might be sold by prostitutes; and it applies to such actions between those (whether male or female) who are not married to each other, even when there may be no exchange of money, because, wherever we find the word porneia in the Bible, the Hebrew Law shows that it involves any intimate relations between unmarried persons.

Therefore, because the English word fornication carries the nuance of just copulation between unmarried persons, we have used the broader term sexual immorality in this Bible to indicate the full range of meaning.

For more information, see the linked document Christian Morality.

Fountains or Springs?

You will notice that in our Bible, we have rendered the Greek words pege (pronounced pay-gay) as springs, not as fountains or mists, as other translators have done. Yes, it could be argued that the Hebrew text uses a word (in Genesis 2 for example) which many think refers to a mist. However, in the various places where we find the word pege in the Septuagint, the consistent application seems to be to springs of water.

Fortunately, the meanings of ancient Greek words can be more easily determined than those of ancient Hebrew, since Greek is still spoken, and unlike ancient Hebrew, we have many existing copies of secular ancient Greek texts where we can compare the meanings.

Pege appears to be a variation of the word pegnumi, which means to gush (and yes, we can see how that could be construed as fountain). However, natural fountains of water are rare and self destructive, while gushing springs are quite common. And while stylized depictions of fountains shooting from the ground are quite idyllic, this isn't the view that we get consistently from the word's other uses in the Bible.

Friends of the World

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, whom he called 'adulteresses.' Paul wrote of Christians (at 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3), of whom he said, 'I personally promised you in marriage to a husband as chaste virgins, 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.'

So, how can a Christian remain or become a 'chaste virgin?' As James pointed 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 reign in God's Kingdom 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 fruits to God and to the Lamb. No lies are found in their mouths and they don't have any defects.'

Therefore, spiritual 'virginity' is required to be counted among this special group. How is this virginity obtained? Well, notice what was also said of these 'spiritual virgins' at Revelation 20:4: 'And I saw thrones… and those who sat down on them were the ones who had been executed with axes for testifying about Jesus and for telling about God, and who hadn't worshiped the wild animal or its image, and who hadn't received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands. Then they were appointed judges, and they came to life and ruled as kings with the Anointed 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 a world or arrangement that is 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 are 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 whomever 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.'

Funeral

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 in modern terms, we would refer to this as attending a funeral.

Gadflies or Stable Flies?

The fourth plague that God sent to Egypt prior to the IsraElite exodus, was a countrywide infestation of biting flies. The Greek word for them is kunomuian, which implies (and is often translated as) dog fly. And in other Bibles, they are called gadflies.

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.

Galilee or Judea?

At Luke 4:44, we have written that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Galilee. However, many other Bibles say that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Judea. Which is correct? It depends on which Greek text you use as a reference. The Wescott/Hort text, which we have used for much of this Bible, says he preached in Judea, while several other texts (such as the Tischendorf) say that he preached in Galilee. We have chosen to go with the later rendering, because at the time, he was preaching in Galilee. Actually, Jesus did little preaching in Judea until the later days of his life on earth, because the Judeans were always looking to kill him (see John 11:8).

Garbage Dump

The Greek word Gehenna is often translated Hell Fire. Yet, the word simply means the Valley (heb. ga) of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom (also referred to as 'the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom') was a garbage dump that was located along one of JeruSalem's outer walls. It was a beautiful park before JeruSalem's conquest by Babylon, but it was defiled when apostate Jews offered their children as sacrifices on an altar to the God Moloch there (see 2 Chronicles 28:3). Then, after the repatriation to JeruSalem, the valley was used in a disrespectful way.

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?'

Gays and Men Who Have Sex with Men

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 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 as '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 said (as recorded 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 documents, God's Promise of an Inheritance, Christian Morality, and the Note (from Leviticus) Homosexuality and Bestiality.

Gentiles or Ethnics

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 'IsraElites' or 'Jews.' However, in Genesis we find another definition of the term. Notice what Genesis 10:2-5 says, 'JaPheth's sons were Gamer, Magog, Madoi [the Medes], Jovan, Elisa, Thobel [of Tubal], Mosoch [of possibly Russia], and Thiras [Islands of the Aegean Sea]. Gamer's sons were Aschanaz [Germans], Riphath [of Northwestern Asia Minor], and Thorgama [the Armenians]. Jovan's sons were EliShah [of Tyre], Tarshish [of Spain], Cetians [of Phoenicia], Rhodians [of Rhodes]. [They settled the] islands, which lands were divided by tribe and nation among the Gentiles, each according to his own language.'

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 Europe and the northern Middle East, or if the term was extended to include all nations other than just the Tribes of IsraEl. It is possible that those whom Moses called the Gentiles (or, the nations) were people whose languages had been changed by God in Babylon, while the rest shared a similar language.

It is interesting that the Medes and Persians settled in a land that came to be known as Iran, which the history books speculate came from the term Aryan, showing that the people in that land were once considered descendants of JaPheth, and were thus 'gentiles.' However, recognize that JaPheth's descendants were also the progenitors of the Germanic, Slavic, and Russian races.

It is important to note that the words ethnics, gentiles, and nations, which are derived from the Greek word ethnos, may in several instances carry a highly symbolic meaning, especially in prophecies; for these words refer to peoples who are not (or were not) in a covenant relationship with God. Take for example the reference at Revelation 7:9 ('And after all that, I saw {Look!} a crowd so large that no one could count them. They came from all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages; and they were standing within sight of the throne and within sight of the Lamb'). Since 'the twelve tribes of IsraEl had been mentioned previously (in verses 4-8), they stand out as a different group, and the term may refer to those who were previously non-Christians (those not claiming to be in a Covenant relationship with God). But later, references to the nations or ethnics in the Revelation appear to be speaking about those who had yet to make peace with Him.

Gnats or Fleas?

The third plague that God sent to Egypt during the time prior to the IsraElite exodus, was a countrywide infestation of small, biting insects. The Greek word for them is skniphes, which has been translated as gnats, fleas, mosquitoes, etc. We have decided that they were likely some sort of flea, because gnats aren't thought of as biting insects, and the text indicates that they lived on the ground, which would preclude mosquitoes.

Gods

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 (spirits who had 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 who God met with 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 'lands and skies' pass away (see 2 Peter 3:12, 13), 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 the word really means.

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, 'of/gods not speak/badly.' But if you read the context, you will see that God was telling the IsraElites not to speak badly of powerful humans here.'

Therefore, recognize that 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 (for example) 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 (Jesus), 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?

God's Chosen People

The idea that the Jews are still God's chosen people and that they will eventually rule over the earth from the City of JeruSalem, is becoming popular among many fundamentalist religions today. However, this concept appears to disregard the promises and teachings of the Bible.

For instance, notice Jesus' words to the people of that city as found at Matthew 23:37, 38, 'O JeruSalem, JeruSalem… you killer of Prophets and stoner of those who were sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you didn't want it. Look! Your house has been taken from you!'

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 IsraEl.' So, it was to this 'new nation' that all the promises and Sacred Agreements apply, not to the earthly city of JeruSalem, for JeruSalem had been rejected. Why? Well notice what the people in that city replied to Pilate's question when they were calling for the murder of God's Son (at Matthew 27: 25): 'At that, all the people said, 'May we and our children be responsible for his blood.' And (at John 19:15), 'We have no king but Caesar.'
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 JeruSalem appear to have nothing to do with a literal city in Palestine today.

Also, notice how Paul addressed the non-Jews in the Congregation at Corinth, Greece (1 Corinthians 12:2): 'You know that when you were people of the nations, you were led to be followers of dumb idols.' As you can see, he clearly viewed 'gentile' Christians as Spiritual Jews.

Paul also wrote (at Romans 9:6-8): 'Now, the word of God didn't fail; because, not all who came from IsraEl are really IsraEl, nor are all of AbraHam's seed his children. For [it's written], That which will be called your seed will come through IsaAc. However, [IsaAc's] fleshly children aren't the children of God. The children of the promise are that seed.'

Then he added at Romans 9:27, 'Isaiah shouted this about IsraEl: Although the sons of IsraEl may become as many as the sands of the sea, only a few will be saved.'

And again, Paul wrote (at Romans 9:30-33): 'So, we can say that people of the nations (although they weren't trying to become righteous) became righteous with the [type of] righteousness that comes from faith, while IsraEl (which was following a righteous Law) just didn't make it! And why was that so? Because [IsraEl] didn't look for it in faith, but in the things that they were doing… they tripped over the stumbling stone! As it is written: {Look!} I'm putting a stumbling stone and a rock to trip over in Zion. But he who has faith in him will never be shamed.'

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.

Gog the Grasshopper King

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.

Gospel Message

What is the message of the Gospel or 'Good News' that (immediately prior to his ascension into heaven) Jesus said was to be preached throughout the entire inhabited earth before 'the end' comes? According to Matthew's account, it is 'the Kingdom' (see Matthew 24:14). And because most modern religions base their beliefs on what is written just in the book of Matthew, ignoring the Gospels of Mark and Luke, they teach that preaching the message of 'the Kingdom' should be the foremost. However, note that Luke's account of what appear to be the same words (as found at Luke 24:47) quote Jesus as saying, 'Then, in his name, [the message of] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be preached in all the nations, starting from JeruSalem.' Which is correct?

As we have pointed out several times in our Notes in the book of Matthew, it appears as though that book is one of the most corrupted of the Bible texts, because the current available Greek versions of Matthew's writing were likely translated from the original Hebrew or Aramaic sometime early in the Second Century C.E., after the great 'turning away' that was foretold by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 had occurred. And either at that time or sometime later, much of the text seems to have been corrupted by the contemporary beliefs. Yes, it could be true that Jesus said both things, but it is still interesting that Luke (whom the majority of Bible scholars agree wrote most accurately) records Jesus as saying something else entirely.

Also, consider what the message of John the Baptist (who was sent to 'prepare the way' for the coming of Jesus) was to be (Luke 1:16, 17): 'He will turn many sons of IsraEl back to Jehovah, their God; He will travel in front of him in the power and spirit of EliJah, and he will prepare a people for the Lord by turning the hearts of fathers back to their children, and the [hearts] of those who don't obey to righteous good sense.' In other words, his was to be a message of repentance and the need to return to righteous ways (which we so badly need today). And almost all Bible commentators agree that a similar work must be done before the modern coming of Jesus. Also see Mark 1:4.

So, are we saying that the 'Good News of the Kingdom' should not be preached? Obviously not, for that was the message of Jesus, and it is a good message of hope. However, using the questionable words of Matthew 24:14 to overshadow Jesus' instructions to preach 'repentance for forgiveness of sins' in order to prepare the way for his return or coming, seems an inappropriate choice in an age where faithlessness, immorality, dishonesty, and lack of love have become so rampant. Also, see the linked document, Christian Forgiveness and Repentance.

But, hasn't John's message already been preached? John the Baptist seems to have been quite successful in preparing the people for the first coming of Jesus. But just look around. Does the world look like it has repented and is ready for the second coming? Judge for yourselves.

Gospel of Matthew

Matthew (who was also known as Levi – pronounced Leh-vee, as in Levine) was one of the first disciples of Jesus, and was later apponted by him as an Apostle or Sent One. According to ancient Christian writers such as Origen (who wrote during the early 2^nd Century), Matthew's was the first recorded Gospel account. He wrote: 'The first book was written by Matthew. This Gospel was composed in Hebrew near JeruSalem for Hebrew Christians and translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome, which he used in his work.'

Although we would strongly disagree with many of Origin's personal religious views, which reflect the pagan influences that started entering Christianity during the early 2^nd Century; our research of its contents clearly proves that Origen was right about the Gospel of Matthew being the first written account (regardless of what modern critics have said), and that it was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, then later translated into Greek.

We also agree that the first Greek copies of the Gospel of Matthew were likely lost, for, the many errors and additions as mentioned in these Notes indicate that the existing Greek text was likely translated again and corrupted sometime in the 2^nd Century, by the same person who translated other 1^st Century Bible books into Greek. We have drawn this conclusion from the unusual use of the Greek word parousias, which is found only in the Greek translations of the writings of Matthew, Paul, James, Peter, and John (which were likely originally penned in Aramaic). For more information, see the linked document Coming, Presence, or Nearness?

Hades

The Greek word Hades (the Greeks pronounced it hah-dess) has been translated both as Hell (which many today think 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 from 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, and even better translated as the place of the dead.

In the book of Job, another word that is used once in the Christian-era Scriptures and often translated as Hell, is found twice. That Greek word is Tartarus, which refers to the place where evil gods or angels are sent. For more information on this and other words that are translated as Hell, see the linked document, Is There a Burning Hell?

HaMan

Why was HaMan so opposed to the Jews, and why was he so hated by them? The Bible account says that he was an AgAgite, which indicates that he was a descendant of AgAg, an ancient king of the Amalekites, who were condemned by God and who were virtually wiped out by King David. Also, according to the Midrash, Haman had an idolatrous image embroidered on his garments, so that those who bowed to him also bowed to the image. And if this it true, it adds to the reason why MordecAi refused to bow before him. The Midrash also says that Haman was an astrologer, and this may be confirmed by the method he chose to fix the time for the genocide of the Jews… by first casting lots to determine the best day for that purpose.

But if HaMan was an Amalekite, then why was HaMan also referred to as a Macedonian at Esther 9:24? Reasons are given in the Wikipedia description (see the reference Haman), but it seems logical to us that after King David wiped out his race, any who remained would likely have left the land and assumed other national identifications.

Hate, Dislike, or Care Less for?

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.

Heavens or Sky, Earth or Land?

In both the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT) and the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), we find all the realm of non-living creation divided into just three entities; the heavens (or sky), the earth (the land or ground), and the seas (or the waters) and rivers.

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 is literally translated herein as, 'In the beginning, The God created the skies and the lands.' This is very accurate, because it was man's view of creation from the earth. There was just the land that he stood on, the sky above him, and the waters or seas over there. He had no technical understanding of the earth as a planet, because men had never seen the earth as a globe in space, as most of us have done today. However, because of these distinctions that we are aware of, 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. And as you will see, something as simple as selecting another synonym can give us a quite different view of the meanings of some common verses.

The Greek word ourano(n), for example, can be correctly translated as heaven, heavens, sky, and skies, depending on the context and tense. But if the translator should choose the wrong word, people will reach very different (and often wrong) conclusions, because of the nuances implied in English.

Likewise, the Greek words ge, ges, and gen can be translated as earth, earths, ground, grounds, land, or lands, depending on the context and tense. 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 skies and land 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, ges, and gen, see the linked document Isaiah 24 - Is It Speaking of Armageddon?).

Notice that the 'skies and land' 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 skies.

The same is true of the famous words of Jesus at Matthew 5:5, which read in Greek: 'Makarioi oi praeis hoti outoi kleronomesousin ten gen,' or, Blest the gentle for they will/inherit the (earth, ground, or land).' Notice that in some Bibles Jesus is recorded as saying, 'The meek will inherit the earth;' while in others he said, 'The meek will inherit the land.' Do you see the difference in nuances implied here? Yet, both word choices are equally correct.

And finally, when it comes to the seas (gr. tas thalassan), there are already distinctions as to different types of waters in the Greek text. For instance, seas are called thalassan 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, whIch we have translated as saying, 'Then I saw new skies and new lands, because the previous sky and land had disappeared, as did the sea.' So, did John see 'a new heavens and a new earth,' as some translate his words, or did he see 'new skies and new lands,' as we have quoted him? The Greek words that are used in the beginning of this verse are both in the plural tense, but in the singular tense in the latter half of the verse. So, what John says that he saw was 'new skies and new lands' which took the place of the old 'sky, land, and sea' that had just disappeared before him (he didn't see the globe and the realm of God disappear).

Also, in the case of where EliJah was taken away in a celestial chariot; most people think he was taken (as their Bibles put it) 'to heaven,' where he went to live with God. This isn't true, because King JehoRam later received a letter from Elijah (see 2 Chronicles 21:12). So, God had apparently used the celestial chariot to take him into 'the sky' (the proper translation here), where he was then sent to another place here on the earth. For more information on this, see the linked document, The Hereafter.

Hebrew Songs and Poetry

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 understood the thought, the poetry could 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.

Hebrews, IsraElites, Jews, and Semites

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 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 IsraEl). Then their families were thereafter often referred to both as the 'Sons of IsraEl' and as 'Hebrews.' Thereafter, during the time of David, a split is to be noted between the tribe of Judah (the Jews), and IsraEl. For, during the first portion of David's reign, he ruled over just Judah; and then later, both he and Solomon ruled over all the tribes… a reunited IsraEl.

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 IsraEl, leaving the southern two tribes (Judah and BenJamin), who were referred to in English as the Jews.

And actually, there were many people who came to be called both Jews and IsraElites, which weren't related to either Judah or IsraEl. This is because God's Law allowed foreigners to become a part of the nation. In fact, RaHab, the prostitute of JeriCho (who was a CanaAnite, not a Semite, Hebrew, or IsraElite) became the ancestress of Kings David, Solomon, and eventually Jesus; and this was also true of the Moabite, Ruth.

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 province of Judea as Galileans, because they came from an area outside Judea near the Sea of Galilee, which was divided from Judea by settlements of Samaritans. Therefore, when Jesus and his disciples spoke of 'the Jews,' they were often specifically referring to people who lived in and around the city of JeruSalem.

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 IsraEl.

Holidays (Contributed)

When Paul wrote (at Romans 14:5), 'One considers a day as more important than other days, while another considers each day as all the rest', it is clear that the problem he was addressing had to do with Jewish Christians trying to convince the Gentile Christians that it was necessary to observe the special days, festivals, and Sabbaths prescribed under the Mosaic Law. And Paul was simply pointing out that it wasn't necessary to observe those days any longer. Therefore, when he went on to write (in verse 6), 'Those who observe a certain day [as holy] should observe it to the Lord,' you can see that he wasn't encouraging Christians to celebrate pagan Roman holidays, if they so wished (by applying Christian names and purposes to them), but rather, he was saying that Gentile Christians were under no obligation to celebrate Old-Law holidays, or to follow Old-Law dietary restrictions.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, you can see that in part, he was writing to deal with a problem in the relationship between the Christian Jews and Gentiles in the congregation in Rome… a theme which was similar to that in many of his writings. You will notice that he often attacked specific problems with matters he considered most vital to those to whom he wrote. For example, in this case there were apparently jealousies and feelings of superiority on the part of both Jews and Gentiles (see Romans 3:1, 9). So, Paul's purpose was to try to settle the differences in viewpoints between Jewish and Gentile Christians and to bring them toward complete unity as one man in Jesus (Romans 3:22; 12:5). For as can see, in the rest of chapter 14, Paul goes on to point out that those who still do not feel comfortable eating food that is forbidden under the Jewish Law should not be judged; and that those who do eat such food should not be judged for eating it. And this was the point he was also making about Jewish holidays in verses 4 and 5.

Homosexual Relationship Between JoNathan and David?

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.

Homosexuality and Bestiality

If you search the Internet for references to Leviticus 18:22, you will find hundreds of them. Some of these are used to prove that God forbids homosexuality, and many more are written to argue against that thought. So, let's consider what the Greek Bible text actually says. The words are, 'Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten bdelugma gar estin,' or, 'And with males not bed as/bed women, disgusting for is.'

So, the Old 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 18:23) we read: 'Nor may you lie down and have sex with any animal, for that would pollute you. Nor should any woman offer herself before any animal to have sex with it, because that would be disgusting.'

However, remember that this Law was given to, and just applied to, those living among the people of IsraEl. And as several Bible writers after the time of Jesus (especially Paul) pointed out, this old Law was superseded by the new Sacred Agreement of love.

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, The Resurrection, and Christian Morality.

Honest Judge

As you read the Bible, you will notice that one of the things that God views as most disgusting 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 Judah and IsraEl. It is also a major theme in the Proverbs.

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. 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.'

So, the point is: Whenever we judge others, God in turn is judging us. And while our judgment on others may have a 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 5:21), 'Don't jump to any conclusions before you hear the evidence, and never make a decision because you are biased one way or the other.' Good advice for all.

Hope of All Creation

Romans 8:19-21 says, 'For [all] creation has been eagerly expecting and awaiting the revealing of the Sons of God. Why, the things that were created didn't have a choice when it comes their not having any hope… and it was only because of Him that they have any hope at all. For, creation will be set free from slavery to corruption 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)?

Let's assume for a moment, that Paul meant the words he wrote – that 'all creation will be set free from being slaves to corruption' – 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 new skies… the rulership of Jesus and those whom he selects to rule as kings with him. 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 ALL CREATION are virtually limitless.

See the linked contributed poem, Animals Our Wards .

Horeb

On which 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 Mount Sinai in the morning, then stand there [and wait] for Me on top of the Mountain.' But at Exodus 33:6, we find that the IsraElites were gathered at Mount Horeb. Why were both names used?

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 Arabia. For it is where Moses, by the power of God, struck the rock to bring out water for the people to drink, since there was no other source of water there.

Sinai may have gotten its name from its prominent place toward the end of the Sin Desert, for Sin-ai could possibly mean the City in the Sin (Desert). However, Hebrew scholars say Sinai means bush, referring to the burning bush where God spoke to Moses.

House to House?

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 Miletus, he sent word to Ephesus to call the elders of the congregation to him. And when they arrived, he told them, You know very well that, from the first day I stepped into Asia, I was with you all along, humbly slaving for the Lord. And [you know] of all the tears and trials I endured because of the plots of the Jews. Yet, I didn't fail to remind you and teach you both in public and in [your] homes, for I gave a thorough witness to both Jews and Greeks about [the need to] repent before God, and [to have] faith in our Lord Jesus.'

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.

House, Temple, or Palace?

Throughout the Bible, the Greek word that is used in most places to describe the Temple of Jehovah is Oikos (pronounced Oy-koss), or House. That is also true when it comes to describing the building where the king lived. However, for clarification, we have usually chosen to translate the word as Temple when speaking of the place of worship of Jehovah, and as palace when speaking of the king's house. We have done this because, neither of these buildings were just regular houses, and the words Temple and palace better describe their appearance and use in contemporary American English.

There is a Greek word that might also mean Temple; it is iero, which was occasionally used to describe that place of worship. And another Greek word that is frequently used, is naos (pronounced nah-oss), which means the place of the Gods.

How David Pictured Jesus

You can see proof of the Bible's inspiration by God 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 are gathering around me. They're cutting into my hands and my feet; they count all my bones as they watch me and think. They've divided my garments among them, and thrown dice for the clothes that I wear.'

Also, notice David's words at Psalm 22:20, where he said, 'O rescue my life from the broadsword… [Your] one-and-only son from the hands of the dogs.'

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 'one-and-only son' is monogenea… only fathered, or one-and-only. And in the Bible, this word is just used to describe Jesus, who was in fact God's only fathered (or one-and-only) 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 2:35, and as did Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:25 and several times more in book of Hebrews. So, there is no question that this Psalm specifically referred to the coming of Jesus.

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 IsraEl by God.

Hypocrite

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. 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.'

Image of DaniEl Chapter Two

In DaniEl Chapter Two, we read of how 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 Babylon) was the head of gold, and that his kingdom (or empire) would be followed by a lesser king (the one of silver), which turned out to be the empire of Persia, along with their allies and close neighbors, the Medes.

DaniEl described the next empire (the brass) as one that would 'dominate the whole earth;' and that aptly describes the empire of Greece under Alexander the Great.

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 Rome under the Caesars.

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.

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 Rome, so which would that be?

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 Roman Empire, and this could refer to Spain, France, or England, for they all had deep Roman roots… but which one?

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 British Empire and its many colonies, especially the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. And since each of these former British colonies has claimed some form of independence, they haven't stuck together and they don't always agree.

The final clue is the fact that these governments (or the 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.'

Immediate Resurrection to Heaven?

That people receive an immediate resurrection into heaven after their deaths is one of the most common beliefs among most of Christendom's religions today. In fact, some have even invented rules as to who gets to heaven, when, and through which routes. However, Jesus (and the Revelation) speaks of the resurrection as happening in 'the last day,' not of people having 'immortal souls' that immediately speed off to 'the light' at death.

The teaching of immediate life in heaven (though 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 adopt this belief. 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.

'In'

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.

Especially in the book of John do we find the question raised, 'Was Jesus really the same person as The God?' This a question has been raised because the text at John 10:38 literally says, '… in order that you should know and you may be knowing that in (en) me the Father and I in (en) the Father.' And in many Bibles, this text is translated as saying, 'I and my father are one.' Is this the true meaning of what Jesus said? Is Jesus 'one with' (the same as) the Father?

That could be a correct translation if the verse is pulled out of context. However, notice what Jesus said later on, as found at John 14:20: 'εν εκεινη τη ημερα υμεις γνωσεσθε οτι εγω εν τω πατρι μου και υμεις 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.'

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.

Incest

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). For more information, see the linked document, Christian Morality.

In the Name Of

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 appear to 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.

Unfortunately, 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 strong evidence that this is a later corruption of the original text; for in his earliest writings, the ancient Church historian Eusebius appears to have quoted this verse as saying something quite different. 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, notice that there was no mention of being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

Why the Change? Well, it is interesting that the traditional Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 does not appear in Eusebius' writings until after the Council of Nicaea, where the Trinity began to formally held as official doctrine. So, evidence strongly indicates that this is a spurious scripture inserted by later Trinitarians, in the same vein as 1 John 5:7-8.

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:

• Acts 2:38, 'Repent, and each of you get baptized in the name of Jesus the Anointed One, so your sins can be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Breath.'
• Acts 8:15, 16, 'They went [to the Samaritans] and prayed for them to receive the Holy Breath, because it hadn't come to any of them yet, although they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'
• Acts 10:48, 'So, he commanded that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus the Anointed One.'
• Acts 19:5, 'When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'
• Romans 6:3, 'Don't you realize that all who were baptized into the Anointed Jesus were also baptized into his death?'
• Galatians 3:27, 'All who were baptized into the Anointed One have put on the Anointed One.'

Also, notice the Description that Luke gave of the parting words of Jesus, as found at Luke 24:47. 'Then, in his (Jesus') name, [the message of] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be preached in all the nations, starting from JeruSalem.' So, as you can see, the Trinitarian formula isn't found there either, which it surely would have been, if this was the true formula for baptism. For, why would Luke have missed such a critical detail if it was in fact said by Jesus?

Is Jesus God?

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 (or theon) 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.

Isaiah 14:12 (contributed)

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 14:12 is identical to the word found at Zechariah 11:2, where the trees are shown to be howling (not bright ones). For it says there: 'Let all the pine trees now shriek, because the cedar has fallen.'

So, a correct translation of Isaiah 14:12 will read: 'O how you have fallen from the sky; Shriek, O one that arises at dawn, for you who [once conquered] all nations, have now been broken to the ground.' Notice that this rendering fits the context perfectly, for the King of Babylon should shriek or howl, as he was broken to the ground.

IsraEl's Sin Over Meat

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 TRUE!

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 Egypt, as well as the cucumbers, melons, leeks, garlic, and onions. But now our lives have become [empty], because all we can see is manna.'

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 12:38). So they really had plenty of meat to eat. In fact, most of the meat of their holy sacrifices was returned to them for their own consumption. Also, we know that they had wheat, barley, possibly beer and wine, and many other food items, because all of these things were required in the sacrifices and at the festivals.

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 Egypt, where a person could go every day and purchase meats of all sorts and a wide variety of vegetables (cucumbers, melons, leeks, garlic, and onions). However, they did have beef, lamb, and all the miraculous manna that they cared to eat, which was in fact their primary staple… and it could be prepared in different ways.

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 Egypt prior to the restrictions that came with God's Laws. So the complaint doesn't really seem to be that they didn't have meat, but rather, it was likely a complaint about the restrictions of God's Laws as to what types of meat they could eat.

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.

JeremiAh 31:37

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 IsraEl will not be rejected, but the Hebrew text says that they will be cast off. Which of the two is right?

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 IsraEl won't stand as a nation before Me, throughout the rest of the days.' So, God is clearly saying that IsraEl could be rejected; thus the words of verse 37 in the Septuagint simply don't follow. As the result, we have deferred to the conclusion of the Hebrew text and must assume that an early Septuagint translator simply couldn't believe that IsraEl could be rejected, so he incorrectly added the word not.

Doesn't this error prove the Septuagint is the inferior text? Not necessarily, because we continually find obvious errors in both (Hebrew and Greek) sources. 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.

Jesus' Last Words (Contributed)

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 abandoned me?' However, 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 is possible 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.

These words of Jesus appear to be a quotation from the prophecy of David, found at Psalm 22:1. And they point out that sabachthani is not the same as the Hebrew word that is used in the prophecy, 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.'

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Septuagint, which Jesus was quoting, reads, 'O God, my God, please hear me! Why have I been abandoned by You?,' and this is much closer to Jesus' words as found in Matthew.

Jesus' Fleshly Brothers and Sisters

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.

Jew

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) Province of Galilee, the Judeans called them Galileans (see Mark 14:70), and the Galileans referred to the people around JeruSalem as Judeans (or Jews).

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, the texts aren't referring to the nation as a whole, but to the people who lived in Judea and JeruSalem specifically.

Job

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 land of Uz. Of course, since the Greek text post-dates the Hebrew text, Ausitidi may have been the name of the place (which was earlier called Uz) in the Third Century B.C.E.

It is noteworthy that some Greek texts render the word Uz as Aus, so Ausitidi could simply refer to the people from the land of Uz.

The land of Uz likely refers to the land of AbraHam's nephew Uz, who is mentioned at Genesis 22:21. However, there was also a man named Uz who was a great-grandson of Noah through his son Shem. But either way, it is likely the land of people who were close relatives of AbraHam. So, Uz is probably where AbraHam sent his servant to get a wife for his son IsaAc, which is thought to be located in the desert west of the EuPhrates in modern Iraq and which is directly east of the Promised Land. So, if these assumptions are true, then Job was a relative of AbraHam (a great nephew), but not a direct descendant.

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 modern Iraq.

Also, notice the reference to the Jordan River at Job 40:18, where it says, 'And when it rains, he pays no attention, for when it runs to the Jordan he'll drink it.' So, the water from that land (Uz) runs into the Jordan River.

Who later inhabited the land of Uz (or Ausitidi)? It was the descendants of Esau, for we read at Lamentations 4:21, 'So, rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, she who lives in the land of Uz!'

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 Middle East. In fact, a study of current Arab cultures shows that among nomadic peoples, stories of actual events are still communicated through poetic songs that employ memory aids. So, a story can be told accurately and beautifully, although the words aren't always the same.

As the result, we have concluded that; Although Moses may have written the book of Job, it was likely an inspired story that was sung and handed down through people of the Middle East for centuries, and then Moses recorded in writing in the Sixteenth Century B.C.E.

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 EliPhaz the Temanite. Notice how (as recorded at Job 4:17, 18) this man had once been spoken to by a demon that told him, 'Why should a man be pure before Jehovah… why not do the things that are wrong? For none of His servants are trusted by God, and He thinks of His angels as crooked.'

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 15:15) he said: 'Yet He doesn't trust even the holy… before Him even the heavens aren't pure.' Such a subtle continuity of arguments, where seven or more spoke at different times, indicates that the story is a quite accurate account of what was actually said.

John

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 my not have written the books attributed to him (because of language and style differences), 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, and this would explain the variations in writing styles.

John and his brother James, whom Jesus had appointed to be his Apostles (or Sent Ones), were Galileans (considered 'country bumpkins' by people in Judea) who worked as fishermen for their father in a business that seemed to be co-owned by Peter (Simon).

Some Bible critics have describe John as a laid-back dreamer. However, notice that Jesus referred to him and his brother as 'the Sons of Thunder' (at Mark 3:17). 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 in the Congregation, 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 his father's business partner. 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 JeruSalem. And thereafter, James served as the spokesman for the three, when the matter of circumcising the gentiles had to be decided.

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 one-and-only' 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 he told Christians not to have anything to do with such individuals.

In John's book of Revelation, he 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, the Revelation provides a fitting climax to the entire Bible by bringing together the four mysterious characters mentioned in the first Bible prophecy (Genesis 3:16) about the snake, its seed, the woman, and her seed. There it fills in all the gray areas as to who each of these individuals would 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.

Judging God's Messengers

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:

• At Luke 20:36 we read, 'They can't die anymore either, because they are equal to (gr. is) [God's] messengers.'
• Revelation 5:10 says, 'Then you made them rulers and Priests to our God, and they will rule as kings on (gr. epi) the earth.'

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).

Judging the Twelve Tribes of IsraEl

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 IsraEl meant the same thing as judging the world. However, in our study of the true meaning of the Greek word cosmos, which is usually translated as world in the Christian Era Scriptures, we have found that these two judgments don't mean the same thing.

It now seems obvious to us that any symbolic use of IsraEl in the Bible refers an arrangement for serving God, although it doesn't necessarily imply that all the members of this arrangement are righteous. Otherwise, why would they be judged (or condemned)? For example, at Revelation 7:3, 4, we read that 'the 144,000 slaves of God' are chosen from among (gr. ek) 'every tribe of the sons of IsraEl.' So, here are faithful individuals that are chosen from among others who are worshiping God, and which are called 'IsraEl.'

But then, couldn't Jesus have meant that they were to judge the literal nation of IsraEl? Well, that isn't likely, because; although a small portion of that nation can still be identified today (the Jews), the rest of the tribes have become scattered among the nations and millions can no longer be identified. And as the result, there really is no pure 'twelve tribes of IsraEl' anymore. And as Paul told us at Romans 9:6-8 'Now, God's word didn't fail, because, not all who came from IsraEl are really IsraEl. Nor are all of AbraHam's seed his children. For [it's written]: That which will be called your seed will come through IsaAc. However, [IsaAc's] fleshly children aren't the children of God. The children of the promise are that seed.' For more information on this, see the linked document, JeruSalem and the IsraEl of God.

So, judging the twelve tribes of IsraEl could mean that they are to judge all who claim to be Christians today. While, judging the world clearly refers to passing a negative judgment on the current imperfect arrangement that man and all creation must endure today.

Judging Your Brothers

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 the First-Century Christian Congregation in Corinth, Greece. For, Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 5:1: 'I've actually heard that there is sexual immorality among you. And it's a type of immorality that isn't even [heard of] among the nations – that someone has taken the wife of his father.'

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.

Judgment Day

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 16:14), because Jesus spoke of people being resurrected when he talked about the Judgment Day.

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 aren'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?

Kill or Murder?

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 Mount Sinai while He was present there. He said at Exodus 19:13, 'Anyone who [touches the mountain] must be pelted with rocks or shot through with arrows. Whether it's a man or animal, [he or she] won't live.'

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 20:15, is phoneuseis. And to be honest, most Bible translators aren't sure of its exact meaning. However, the main Greek word for kill (there are a few of them) is ktino. And this word is used (in its various conjugated forms) throughout the Bible, as when God told the IsraElites that they should destroy (or kill) all the people in the cities in the Promised land, as they moved there. So, since we know that God wouldn't give anyone conflicting laws (as in: To kill and not to kill), we must assume that the best word to translate phoneuseis is murder; for what He was forbidding was the murder of IsraElite neighbors in His land.

Kingdom

The word Kingdom is translated from the Greek word basileia, which refers to the realm of a king (basil).

A common misconception about the Kingdom of God, is that it isn't real… that it's just a state of mind. This conclusion is based on Jesus' words found at Luke 17:21, which say (in Greek), he basileia tou Theou entos hymon estin (the Kingdom of the God in you is). And we have quite literally translated this verse as, 'for God's Kingdom is within you.' However, some object to our translating his words this way, because, notice that (at Luke 17:20) Jesus said this in reply to a question which was raised by the Pharisees; and he probably didn't think that the Kingdom was in their hearts (although some Pharisees did become his followers).

So, what did Jesus really 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 Kingdom of God was truly within some of them… but this doesn't necessarily mean (as some religions have concluded) that the Kingdom won't come at some actual future time and become the realm of the kingship of Jesus and his faithful followers.

Notice, for example, Jesus' own words found at Luke 22:16, where he told his disciples (concerning the fermentation-free bread), 'Because I say to you; I won't eat it again until it's fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.' So, he was clearly saying that the Kingdom was to be a future thing, and thus is was not just an existing frame of mind.

Also notice that; Since it appears as though he and his elected ones will rule from heaven, the place from which they will rule could be called 'the Kingdom of Heaven.' However, the term, the Kingdom of Heaven appears to refer to the rule from heaven, and not to the place where those who are ruled will all live. We draw this conclusion from Jesus' words as found at Matthew 8:11, where it is recorded that he said: 'Many from the sunrise and sunset will come and recline [at the table] with AbraHam, IsaAc, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.'

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 Kingdom of God (or as Matthew describes it, 'The Kingdom of Heaven') may have been in their hearts, there was still to be an actual Kingdom rulership over IsraEl and the earth.

Then Jesus told the parable about the Kingdom (in Luke 19:12-27)) of a man who (like himself) made a long trip to a distant land to receive kingship. So, this parable shows that there was to be a long period between the time when Jesus would leave on his journey (to receive kingship in heaven), and the time when he would return to reward his faithful slaves.

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 (gr. epi) 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.

Lachish

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 JeruSalem during the reign of King HezekiAh. At 2 Chronicles 32:9, we read of how the Assyrian King Sennacherib marched on the Judean city of Lachish before attacking JeruSalem. And today, letters about this attack from the general who was defending Lachish have been discovered, which can currently be found in the British Museum.

Also, the mention of HezekiAh'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 (see the reference, Hezekiah's Tunnel).

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 Babylon thereafter became the dominant world power with little resistance from the Assyrians, gives mute testimony to the fact that this happened.

Lake of Fire

The Lake of fire, which is spoken of in the Revelation, is often thought to be Hell Fire. However, notice that what many Bibles call 'Hell' is actually to be thrown into this lake. For, at Revelation 20:14 we read, 'Finally, death and the grave (gr. Hades) were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire symbolizes the second death.'

This same condition is also referred to as the fire of the ages, at Matthew 18:8, and there it is described as being the same thing as the garbage dump or Gehenna.

Then, why was the term Lake of Fire used in the Bible? Because fire destroys, and those who are thrown there (the Slanderer, the wild animals that picture the worldly nations, and The Great Babylon) will be burned up and gone forever.

Then, why are those who go there spoken of as being tortured through the ages (as we read 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 torturers, not necessarily because they performed physical acts of torture (which they often did), 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 literal pain, but it refers to the fact that such things will be locked away there forever. For, as Revelation 20:14 explains it, 'The lake of fire symbolizes the second (or eternal) death.'

Lamp Stands of Revelation

Notice what was represented by the lamp stands in the Revelation: Revelation 1:20 says, 'The seven lamp stands signify the seven congregations.' So, these lamp stands must picture callings or groups of Christians. And where a 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.

Large Crowd

Who are those that are described at Revelation 7:6 as, 'a crowd so large that nobody could count them,' and who come from 'all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages,' that are found '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' (as described in verses 3-8), nor do they seem to comprise the IsraEl from whom the 144,000 are taken (as mentioned in those same verses); for, the large crowd is seen by John after he saw the first two groups in the Revelation vision.

Revelation 7:2-4 tells us: 'Then I saw another messenger who was coming up from the sunrise. He had the seal of the living God, and he shouted aloud to the four messengers who were allowed to harm the earth and sea, saying, Don't harm the earth, the sea, or the trees, until after we've sealed the slaves of our God in their foreheads. And I heard how many of them had been sealed; a hundred and forty-four thousand from among every tribe of the sons of IsraEl.' 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 out/of all tribes of/the/sons of/IsraEl.'

And that is the difference: The 144,000 are taken from 'IsraEl," while the large crowd come from 'all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages.' So, they are clearly a different group.

Then Revelation 7:14-17 goes on to tell 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 springs of the waters of life, and God will wipe all the tears from their eyes.'

So, this huge group has 'washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,' which seems to imply that they will have cleaned up their lives and gotten baptized, and they specifically will have lived through the great time of difficulty, which (according to the Revelation) precedes the destruction of The Great Babylon and the Battle of Armageddon.

However, the fact that they are spoken of as coming from among the 'nations' or 'ethnics,' appears to indicate that they are not chosen from among the IsraEl of God, or, from among those who claim to have a covenant relationship with God… Judaic or 'Christian' religions. So, they could be non-religious peoples, and/or those with pagan religious backgrounds.

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. For, being 'guided to the fountains of waters of life' indicates that their names have not yet been written in the Scroll of Life.

Last Days

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 2:17-21):
'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 that it was fulfilled (at least initially) at the time he was saying this… during and after Pentecost 33-C.E. So, many religions teach that Joel's prophecy concerning the last days only applied to 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, the 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 the 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 JeruSalem's destruction), appears to be indicated by Jesus' words as found throughout the Bible book of John. For example, John wrote (some 29 years after JeruSalem's destruction) that Jesus said (at John 6:39. 40), 'This is what the Will of the One who sent me is: That I shouldn't destroy anything He has given me, but that I should resurrect it on the Last Day. This is what my Father's will is: That everyone who pays close attention to the Son and believes in him should have age-long life, and I will resurrect him on the Last Day.'

It is noteworthy that John didn't thereafter add any comment to explain that the resurrection had already started back on Pentecost 33-C.E. (before JeruSalem was destroyed). So apparently it hadn't, and the resurrection was still to come in some future last day. In fact, John's writing of the Revelation indicates that the resurrection wouldn't come until after 'the battle of Armageddon' (Revelation 16-20) is fought. Such conclusions lead us to believe that there are actually two periods referred to in the Bible as the last days:

1. The last days of JeruSalem

2. The Lord's Day.

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? 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, is clearly indicated by Joel's prophecy. However, while many religions that already 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 (something more than sharing our personal interpretations of Bible doctrines) and on an unusual outpouring of brotherly love.

See also the linked documents, The Last Days, and The Powers of God's Holy Spirit.

Last Lamb

The Twenty-Ninth Chapter of Exodus talks about a calf and two lambs that had to be sacrificed as a rite of empowerment for Aaron and his sons to be Anointed 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 to be 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.

Laying the Temple Foundation

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 IsraEl from Egypt…'

What is different? In the Hebrew text and in most Bible translations based on that text, the foundation of the Temple was laid four hundred and EIGHTY years after the exodus from Egypt. This is no minor deviation, nor would it have gone unnoticed by early translators. So, either the Greek text or the Hebrew text was deliberately changed sometime in the past 2,200 years, and we don't know which is true, so we are open to any arguments. However, we are leaning toward the rendering of the Hebrew text (480 years), because of the research we did on The PharaOh of the Exodus.

Leprosy

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, was of a whiteness (or redness) that was internal or deep into the skin, and 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 13:12-17).

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 Palestine that clothing in particular, would develop bacterial infections, unless they were extremely dirty, which is doubtful, knowing the IsraElite view of cleanliness. However, mold can grow almost anywhere, and it is extremely hard to destroy. The fact that it grew on walls in Bible times seems to indicate that it was a type of mold.

Of interest are the descriptions about 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 Temple, indicates that such things weren't customary.

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.

Lesson in Humility

We learn an interesting lesson about humility from the words and actions of MichaEl (God's ArchAngel or 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 Bible translations call the Devil and Satan, because he turned from his righteous position in the heavens (which is what apostasy means… turning away from a state or condition). 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 abusive and condemning words against others, no matter what the circumstances. For if the term 'Christian' means being like or following Jesus, his true followers should never accuse others in such ways.

Living Creatures or Animals?

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 these creatures here is zōo (pronounced Zō-ah), as in the place where people go to see animals today (zoo). 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.

Lottery or Lot

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 show the selection or choice of God. 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 because they wished to allow God's hand in the decision, rather than trusting in the viewpoints or opinions of men. And there is good reason to believe 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 (ZechariAh) 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 responsibilities 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.'

Lord's (Our Father) Prayer

You will note that we have made several changes to the Lord's (Our Father) Prayer. Here are the reasons:

• Understand that in Hebrew and Greek (as in several other languages) there is no word for heaven, there is just the word for sky. So, where the singular-case Greek word ouranou is found, we have usually translated it as sky. However, where the plural-case word ouranon is used (indicating something greater than just the sky), we have usually translated it as heavens. The closest Greek word for heaven would be naos (dwelling place of the Gods), which was used by John in several instances. However, naos was not the word that was used by Jesus in this prayer.
• Bible students have long had a problem with the words of verse thirteen, for they imply that God is responsible for leading us into temptation. However, as we have pointed out in previous Notes; we have concluded that the book of Matthew (in particular) was originally written in Aramaic, and was thereafter translated into Greek sometime in the Second Century, where several errors were introduced. Therefore, in this text (as in others) we have deferred to the wording of the Aramaic text, which makes more sense theologically.
• Since the words for thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever; amen are not found in the most ancient available texts of Matthew, we have decided that they are spurious and omitted them.

However, although the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is actually translated wrong in many places, due to the lack of access to the most ancient texts, we do applaud the efforts of its translators to restore the original beauty and poetic context to these and other verses, which we have attempted to do also.

Love and Brotherly Love

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.

According to what Peter wrote (at 2 Peter 1:7), achieving brotherly love comes one step before achieving pure love (taken from the Greek word agape).

And while it is our belief that the meaning of agape has been 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; in this instance (2 Peter 1:7), Peter obviously intends for the word 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.

Luke

Notice that the Bible book of Luke starts out by addressing the same man as does the book of Acts; someone with the Greek name (or title) TheoPhilus. So, we have good reason to believe that the person who wrote the book of 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 writes that 'we' did this or that. So, Luke was likely someone who was also assigned to preach to Gentiles. And although there is no record of him being an eye-witness to the events of the life of Jesus, that isn't true of the events recorded in the book of Acts, because the accounts show that he lived most of it, especially the journeys of Paul. And because he ended Acts with the imprisonment of Paul in Rome, we have to assume that he did all his writing about the year 62-C.E., which is almost thirty years after Jesus' death.

Luke was quite a chronicler, since (according to his own words), the book of Luke in particular was a compilation of things he had researched. And something that only a translator would notice, is that quite a bit of Luke's Gospel is borrowed from Matthew's, although it doesn't follow in the same chronological order. There is nothing wrong with him quoting Matthew, because he admits that his was a compiled account, and Matthew's writing was just one of his sources (see the link, Augustinian Hypothesis)

Also, if you look at his writing style (Luke's writing is flowery and educated, and his greetings can go on for paragraphs), you can see that he likely wrote some of the epistles that are attributed to Paul. For, it appears as though Paul may have told him what to write (because Paul himself had very poor vision), and Luke, on occasion, served as Paul's secretary.

The reason why Luke prepared the book bearing his name, was to set matters straight when it came to all the stories that were being told about Jesus at that late date. For, notice what he wrote at 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 a number of 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.

Also, many of the things that Jesus said and did are shown as happening in a different order than in Matthew. And this could be:

· Because Jesus said and did similar things on other occasions

· Because someone remembered them as happening on other occasions

· Because one of the writers (likely Matthew) was more concerned with the subject than the chronology.

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. And the extensive use of the poetry of Jesus' words in Luke's account does seem to indicate a better recollection of things exactly as he said them.

In addition; the book of Luke appears to have been written in Greek, whereas the book of Matthew (in particular) was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and was translated into Greek early in the 2^nd Century, where errors were made and spurious words started to be introduced. And Luke's account doesn't appear to have been as 'messed with' as do the books of Matthew and Mark, where many changes and additions can be documented. So, wherever major difference between the accounts are found, we have learned to defer to and trust the words of Luke.

Making Fun

The account at Genesis 21:9 speaks of Hagar's son IshmaEl '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.

Man of Lawlessness

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 Temple of God and publicly displays himself as being a god.'

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 Temple of God' (or the organization pretends to have authority over all proper religious worship), and he sets himself up as a 'god' (or he expects people to worship the organization and its clergy)… does this sound familiar?

Mandrake Apples

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 Middle East, it is still thought to be an aphrodisiac and an aid to human fertility and conception. This is likely the reason why Jacob's wives RachaEl and Leah, who were unable to bear children, considered this fruit so valuable.

Manna

What was manna? All we know is what the Bible tells us. At Exodus 16:31 we read, 'And the children of IsraEl called this [food] manna. It looked like white coriander seeds and tasted like crackers and honey.'

While the IsraElites were in the desert, prior to entering the Promised Land, 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 is that it looked like (hoar) frost on the ground. However, the description (in the Septuagint) of each portion looking like a coriander seed, is easier to visualize.

What does manna mean? It is thought that those were the first words the IsraElites 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 it being found after the dew dried, may indicate that it was gathered by the moisture in the morning air.

Mark

Mark was really named John Mark, but he was referred to as just Mark to distinguish him from the others named John.

Mark was an eyewitness to Jesus' arrest in the Garden of GethSemane, for his account tells us (at Mark 14:50-52), 'Then [the Apostles] all abandoned him and ran. But, a certain young man who had slipped a linen nightgown over his naked body, started following close behind. However, [the mob] tried to grab him, so he ran away naked, leaving his covering behind.' The fact that mark doesn't identify this young man by name, indicates that he was talking about himself.

The next mentioning of him in the Bible, is when he traveled with Paul and BarNabas to AntiOch, then on to the Island of Cyprus. From there, he (against Paul's wishes) returned home to JeruSalem. And that departure later caused quite an argument between Paul and BarNabas, when BarNabas wanted to take Mark along on a subsequent missionary journey. However, in a letter written several years after that, Paul indicated that he had forgiven Mark and asked him to come to him.

Mark was a resident of JeruSalem, because the Bible tells us that Peter went to the home of Mark's mother (in JeruSalem) after a messenger from God freed Peter from the jail there. And the fact that Mark was present in a nightgown at Jesus' arrest, indicates that he lived nearby.

Some commentators have claimed that Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, but it is clear that much of Mark's story is actually borrowed from the more detailed account of Matthew. Note, for example, the comment at Mark 13:14, advising the readers to pay attention (or understand), and then compare this to the same comment made by Matthew at Matthew 24:15. So it can be seen that one borrowed the words from the other; but was it Matthew or Mark?

Now notice how Mark corrected Matthew's account in his description about the things that Jesus did after arriving at the Temple, shortly before his death. Matthew 21:10-12 tells us, 'Well, when he entered JeruSalem, the whole city was stirred up [as people asked], Who is this? But the crowd [that was with Jesus] answered, He's Jesus, the Prophet from NazarEth of GaliLee! Then Jesus went into the Temple and threw out all those who were buying and selling there, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those who were selling doves.' As you can see, Matthew's Gospel indicates that Jesus did this all on the same day! However, Mark wrote (at Mark 11:11), 'Then he rode into JeruSalem, went into the Temple, and looked around at everything; but because it was late, he [went back] to BethAny with the twelve.'

So it can be proven from the texts that Matthew wrote first, and then Mark borrowed from some of his writings (see the link, Augustinian Hypothesis). Of course, there is nothing wrong with one writer copying the words of another, since the books of Mark and Luke are admittedly compiled accounts, and the writings of Matthew were surely included in those compilations. While many of the things that Jesus said and did followed the same order as they are told in Matthew (but not in the same order as in Luke's Gospel), someone (probably Peter) appears to have added comments where his recollections differed, or where he remembered more.

The reason why Mark wrote this book, was apparently to eliminate many of Matthew's references to Hebrew prophecies. He likely did this so that gentiles (those to whom he was preaching) could see how Jesus' life and words applied to them, rather than to the Jews. His writing is definitely more direct, interesting, and abbreviated than the Book of Matthew.

Is Mark's Gospel more accurate than Matthew's Gospel? Well, he did have a second look at what Matthew wrote, which always provides an edge when it comes to accuracy. And his close adherence to the words of Matthew would indicate that his revisions are corrections. However, most of the poetry of Jesus' words is missing, so the beauty of what Jesus said was sacrificed for brevity.

Mark's Gospel seems to end in the middle of the story, which likely caused two later writers to add their own conclusions to his words. However, a study of ancient Bible manuscripts indicates that neither conclusion is likely authentic, so both have been omitted here.

Mark 7:19

At Mark 7:19 we have translated Jesus as saying, 'for, it doesn't go into his heart, but into his belly and then into the sewer, making all edibles clean.' However, in Greek, the last portion of this verse literally says, 'katharizon (cleansing) panta (all) ta (the) bromata (eatables);' giving the impression that the eating, digesting, and eliminating food makes it clean, which makes no sense to us.

But consider the point that Jesus was making here, for he said in verse 15, 'There's nothing on the outside that goes into a man which can make him unclean. Rather, it's the things that come out of a man that make him unclean.' Then he added (in verses 20-23), 'It's what comes out of a man that makes him unclean. It's the things on the inside – from their hearts – that bad thoughts come… things such as immorality, thefts, murders, adulteries, selfish desires, wicked actions, deceit, lack of restraint, eyes that are wicked, blasphemy, arrogance, and unreasonableness. All these wicked things that come from the inside are what make a man unclean.'

So, it is our assumption that the wording of verse 15 reflects the same thought as verse 19; that all food which a human consumes is (in a figurative way) clean. Therefore, consuming it doesn't make him unclean.

Notice that these words in Mark seem to be the same as the account at Matthew 15:10, 11, where Jesus said: 'Listen and understand: It isn't the things that go into his mouth that dirty a man, it's the things that come out of his mouth that pollute him.'

However, Hebrew Law specifically laid out guidelines to show which eatable things were clean, and which were unclean. So, it comes as no surprise that Jesus' Apostles said (in verse 12), 'Don't you know that the Pharisees were stumbled by what you said?'

Then he went on to clarify his point to his Apostles in verses 16-19, saying, 'Don't you get the point? Don't you realize that whatever you put into your mouth goes into your belly and then into the sewer? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart… these are the things that dirty a man. Because, out of the heart comes wicked thinking, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, thievery, false testimony, and blasphemy. These are the things that pollute a man. But eating with unwashed hands doesn't dirty a man.'

So, in the account in Matthew, we read nothing of food being cleansed by being eaten and expelled.

Marriage in the Resurrection?

At Matthew 22:30 Jesus said, 'In the resurrection, men won't marry nor will women be given in marriage, but they are like the messengers in heaven.'

This scripture is often quoted to show that those who are resurrected won't marry (as Jesus said). However, does this apply to all those whom the Bible says will be raised? We can't say for sure, but notice what Luke's parallel account says (Luke 20:34-36): 'The sons of this age marry and are married. But those who have been found worthy of that age and the resurrection from the dead don't marry, nor do they get married; neither can they die anymore, because they are equal to [God's] messengers and they are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection.'

As you can see, it appears as though Luke's account quotes Jesus as speaking specifically of immortal 'God's sons' (gr. uioi eisin Theou – sons are/of God) not marrying in the resurrection. So, was he then just referring to only those who are raised in the 'first resurrection?' It is difficult to tell, because, no matter how you interpret Jesus' words in any of the three parallel Bible accounts, the answers are still unclear.

Notice that the question the Sadducees had asked was just about the resurrection in general. So, was Jesus just avoiding mention of the 'resurrection of the unrighteous,' sidestepping the question in order to avoid a common pitfall that the Sadducees had successfully used in past arguments, or was he saying that there would be no marrying in any form of the resurrection? Again, we simply don't know.

Yet, there may be another explanation for the meaning of what Jesus said. Notice how the words are laid out in Mark 12:24-27: 'Then Jesus answered, This is why you are so misled. You don't understand the Scriptures or the power of God! When the dead are resurrected, they won't marry or be married, they are as the messengers in heaven. As for the dead who are raised, didn't you read in the book of Moses – in the story about the thorn bush – how God said to him, I am the God of AbraHam, IsaAc, and Jacob? He isn't a God of the dead, but of the living. Yes, you are very misled.'

So, could Jesus have been saying that only those who are dead in God's eyes won't marry, but those whom He considers among the living will marry? That sounds logical. However, such a conclusion would seem to be contradicted by Jesus' words, 'neither can they die anymore, because they are equal to [God's] messengers and they are sons of God, because they are sons of the resurrection.'

And all of this raises the question: 'Will children be born after the Battle of Armageddon?' If you believe that the prophecy found in Isaiah 65 is talking about the same period, then yes. For at Isaiah 65:23, we were told, 'And My elected won't labor for nothing, nor will they produce children for a curse, for their seed will be blest by God, as well as even their children.' So, what Jesus really meant when he replied to the Sadducees is still unclear and open to interpretation.

Mary from Magdala

Much has been said and written about this woman, with no basis, because the only record of her is in the Bible, and it tells us very little. What we do know, is that her name wasn't Magdalene, as most Bibles indicate, because surnames were seldom used in Bible times. Rather, her name was just Mary, and she was referred to as the Magdalean to differentiate her from other Marys who were also Jesus' disciples (there are six Marys mentioned in the Bible). This term may have referred to her coming from the town of Magdala or Magadan, which was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee about halfway between CapharNaum and Tiberias.

Jesus expelled seven demons from this Mary, and that is likely why she was so devoted to serving him. We find the first mention of her in the second year of Jesus' preaching, as he and his Apostles were traveling from city to city proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom. There the Bible tells us that she and several other faithful women traveled among the crowd of Jesus' disciples, serving the needs of Jesus and his Apostles from their possessions. And finally, she was also among the large crowd of people who traveled with Jesus from Galilee to JeruSalem and witnessed his death on the pole… followed by seeing him in his resurrected form. Thereafter, there is no mention of her in the book of Acts.

Could she have possibly been Jesus' wife, as some have claimed? No, for the busy nomadic life of Jesus would have made him a poor provider and husband. And after Jesus' death, she isn't mentioned by Paul, James, John, Peter, or Jude… which would be strange if she had held such an important position in his life.

Actually, if Jesus had taken Mary as a wife, he would have disqualified himself for his high position before God, for notice what was to be true of him (Hebrews 3:1): 'Let's consider this Apostle and High Priest whom we confess, Jesus.'

As God's Highest Priest, Jesus could have never chosen Mary (with her reputed unsavory past) as his wife, for notice God's own requirements for His Priests (Leviticus 21:10-14): 'And the Priest who is the chief one among his brothers … may only take a wife who is a virgin and from his own tribe… not a widow, a divorcee, someone who has been violated, or a whore. He may only take a virgin from his own people as a wife.'

Matthew 25:1

You will notice that we have included the words 'and the bride' at the end of Matthew 25:1, because it is included in Aramaic and other ancient texts. Although these words would seem to be a foregone conclusion (that the Lord arrived with his bride), many believe that the virgins in the parable are the bride! Yet, these words, which indicate that the bride arrived with the groom, clearly show that the virgins were not the bride, but that they were simply to be guests at the wedding banquet.

Notice how this situation was prophesied at Psalm 45:15-18, where we read: 'The king's daughter is glorious within, and she's wrapped in embroidered fringes of gold. Then all the virgins who follow in her train, (those closest to her) will be carried to you. They will be carried in gladness and praising, and led to the king's Holy Abode.'

Yes, it is possible that these words about the bride arriving with the groom may not have been written by Matthew; but they likely were, so we have included them. For, consider the other facts, such as the number of the virgins (many brides?), and that some were not allowed into the banquet (rejected brides?), which indicates that they are likely not the bride.

Also, recognize that in ancient Hebrew society, it was customary for the man to take the bride from her home (which was the marriage), consumate the marriage, and then they would go to a wedding banquet where friends and guests were invited. However, no marriage ceremony was performed at the banquet. So, the fact that the virgins were invited to the celebration (not the wedding) shows that they were not the bride. It would seem strange indeed for a man to marry, and thereafter come along the road to invite some of his brides to the party, while not allowing the rest to enter. For more information, see the linked document The Faithful and Sensible Slave.

Matthew 27:9

At Matthew 27:9, the Greek text says that JeremiAh prophesied the words about the thirty pieces of silver and the potter's field. However, this isn't accurate, because those words were actually written by the Prophet Zechariah (see Zechariah 11:12, 13). So, some error in the Greek text of Matthew is apparent. However, in the Aramaic text, we find no name given for the Prophet who wrote the words; it just says 'the Prophet.' Therefore, we have gone with the Aramaic wording of this verse, and suspect that the Aramaic texts are more accurate than the existing Greek texts in the proper rendering of the book of Matthew (see the link Aramaic Peshitta).

Meaning of Psalm 45

The wording of this Psalm is particularly difficult and our choice of words could be proven wrong. However, the superscription indicates that this is a psalm about 'the loved one,' whom we would assume to be the hoped-for Messiah. And for that reason, we have adapted certain words to meet this understanding. The Psalm obviously isn't speaking of King David, but of some future great king and his queen.

Notice in verse five, that this person starts out by conquering his enemies, for we read: 'Sharpen your arrows, O mighty one. For the peoples beneath you must fall; all enemies in the heart of the king.'

Then in verse six we read, 'Your throne, O great one, lasts through ages of ages. And your Kingdom is led with your scepter so straight.'

You will notice that the words we inserted (great one) were translated from the Greek word theos, or god. So the natural assumption is that this king is God. Yet, notice the verse that follows (7), 'For, you've loved righteousness and hated law breaking. And for this, God anointed you with oil, and praised you above all your fellow partakers.'

So, we must assume that theos in this case didn't refer to The God, but to a great or mighty one whom God chooses or anoints; for the word theos in Greek can also refer to one lesser than The God (for more information, see the Note from John 1:1, Is Jesus God?).

Also, notice that this one was chosen over his 'fellow partakers,' because he 'loved righteousness and hated law breaking.' And this may give us some insight as to why he was chosen by God to be born on earth as a human.

Further insights may be gained by looking at verses 14-16, where we read, 'Then all the virgins who follow in her train, those nearest to her will be carried to you. They will be carried in gladness and praising, and led to the king's Holy Abode. Instead of your fathers sons will be born, and on the whole earth you'll appoint them as rulers.'

This mention of virgins being carried to the king exactly reflects the words of Revelation 14:1-4, where we read of 144,000 'virgins' who will be 'bought from the earth' and then taken to heaven as 'the bride of the Lamb.'

Meeting the Lord 'In the Air'

The words of Paul at 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 should be of particular interest to Christians, because they speak of a situation that happens to those who are dead in Jesus at the time of their resurrection; for this might raise some questions about what will actually happen then.

We have translated these words as saying: 'We the living who have remained until the Lord is near, definitely won't go ahead of those who are asleep [in death]. Because, the Lord himself will descend from heaven and give the command in the voice of the highest messenger [of God] and with God's trumpet. Then those who have died in the Anointed One will be resurrected first. And we the living who remain will be snatched away with them at that time into the clouds, for an assembly with the Lord in the air; so we'll always be with the Lord.'

Let's examine these words that he wrote and see what questions are raised:

1. Why are they spoken of as being taken into the clouds (gr. en nephalais) and meeting with the Lord in the air (gr. eis aera), which is all down here in earth's atmosphere?

2. If they are being taken into heaven (the presence of God), why is the word heaven (gr. ourano) specifically left unmentioned?

3. Who are these dead in the Anointed One (gr. nekroi en Christo)?

4. Will they then 'always be with the Lord' in the air, in heaven, or here on the earth?

For an in-depth discussion of the possible answers to these questions, see the linked document The Rapture.

Men Who Have Sex With Men

The Greek word at 1 Timothy 1:10 that we have translated as men who have sex with men, is arsenokoitais. Arseno means males and koitais means bed-ers (or those who 'bed' males). And while this term specifically refers to males who take sexual advantage of other males in another instance (at 1 Corinthians 6:9); in this case, Paul seems to be broadening the term to include all so-called 'homosexual' behavior.

Messengers

Most Bible translations render the Greek word aggelos (pronounced ahn-gel-ose – with a hard g) as angel wherever it is found. However, aggelos is just the Greek word for messenger. True, in most cases where the Bible speaks of angels, it is referring to spirit messengers from God. However, this may not be the meaning in every instance, and always translating it as angel may distort what was meant.

For example, consider the words at Acts 12:15, where Peter had just been released from prison and came to the door of some faithful Christians. Here the housemaid told the people inside that Peter was outside. And according to many other Bibles, they thought that it was 'his angel' at the door. However, this rendering doesn't sound reasonable, for it would have been unusual for Christians to assume that an angel from God (who looked like Peter) was standing and knocking at their door. Rather, the rendering we have used herein makes more sense, 'So they said, It's his messenger.'

Another good example of why aggelos shouldn't always be translated as angel can be found at Genesis 32:3, which reads in Greek, 'Apasteile de Iakob aggelous emprosthen autou pros Hesau ton adelphon autou' or, 'Sent of Jacob angels(?) ahead of/him toward Esau the brother of/him.' Here Jacob was obviously sending human messengers to his brother, not heavenly ones (angels).

And consider the words at Numbers 20:14, where we read that Moses sent messengers (gr. aggelous – messengers, plural) from Cades to the king of Edom.' Then in verse 16, it says that 'Jehovah … heard our voice and sent His messenger (gr. aggelon – messenger, singular) who brought us out of Egypt.'

Obviously, the same word (with only conjugated variations) is used there to speak of two different types of messengers… those who were human and the one who was sent from heaven by God. And in this case, most Bibles translate the first instance as messengers, but the second as angel. We have not chosen to make this distinction, however, for the readers should be able to discern from the context which ones are human and which ones are spirit by themselves. And when there is some question, each person should keep an open mind.

Consider the words of Haggai 1:13, where we read: 'Then the Messenger (or angel) of Jehovah, Haggai, one of the messengers (or angels) of Jehovah, said to the people: Jehovah says, I am with you!'

Yet, Haggai was just a man, not a spirit. So, there may be other cases in the Bible where some translations have presumptuously written angel, when the one that God sent was a human messenger!

Also consider that; Translating aggelos as messenger when it is truly speaking of a spirit from God, helps to provide readers a better, deeper understanding of the actual role that such sons of God play in His dealings with mankind… and that the term angel isn't a type of creature or a heavenly rank (as most think), but an assignment that may even be temporary. It also helps us to understand why the Bible never speaks of female or baby angels (because dead men, dead women, and dead babies don't become angels, since heavenly spirits are direct creations by God).

MichaEl

The Greek word that is translated 'Highest Messenger [of God]' at Jude 9 is ArchAggelos. Arch (pronounced ark) means highest (or beginning) and aggelos (pronounced ahn-gell-ose) is the word that we get angel or messenger from.

Who was this 'highest messenger of God?' Jude gives his name as MichaEl. However, many Bible scholars think that this is the name of Jesus prior to his coming to the earth. The reasoning behind this is that Jesus is truly God's highest messenger (see the First Chapter of Hebrews), so some believe that Jesus and MichaEl are the same person.

The thought that Jesus is MichaEl is reinforced by Paul's words as found at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where we read, 'Because the Lord himself will come down from heaven and give the command in the voice of the highest messenger (gr. archaggelou) [of God] with God's trumpet.'

So, since 'the Lord' is an obvious reference to Jesus, he does appear to be the ArchAngel MichaEl.

Milk of God's Word

At Hebrew 5:12-14 Paul was scolding the Christians in JeruSalem and Judea for their flagging interest in God's word. He said, 'And although you ought to be teachers in view of the time, you need someone to go back and teach you the basics of God's Word again. You've become people who need milk, not solid food. For, those who live on milk are babies and they are unfamiliar with righteous teachings; while the adults eat solid food and have trained their senses to recognize the difference between right and wrong.'

What is this 'milk' that Paul was chiding the Hebrew Christians about? He tells us at Hebrews 6:1, 2: 'So, now that we've gone beyond the basics of the Anointed One, may we be carried on toward maturity. Let's not go back and lay a new foundation on such matters as:

· Repenting over bad deeds

· Having faith in God

Or learning about:

· Baptisms

· [Spiritual] appointments

· The resurrection of the dead

· The judgments on this age.'

Yet, these are the very same things that almost all religions spend their time discussing, preaching, writing about, and arguing with each other about today.

How many sermons have you heard or articles and books have you read recently where Christians are being 'reminded' not to get involved in 'bad deeds,' and they must have 'faith in God' and His greatness? Too many, we are sure.

But if we go beyond that, to Paul's next descriptions of what he considered milk (baptisms, spiritual appointments, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgments on this age), we enter the area that most Christians today consider advanced spiritual food and which some would refer to as part of a 'great spiritual banquet.' Yet, Paul still called it milk, and he considered such things the wet-nursing of those who are spiritual babies.

Paul's words are a major condemnation of those religious leaders and organizations that consider such light spiritual fare important, because it reflects their own lack of spiritual growth and their inability to feed the flocks entrusted to their care.

So, is it wrong for Christians to become disgusted with spiritual pabulum… shouldn't we appreciate any spiritual food that we receive, no matter how poor its quality? As Paul said (at Hebrews 5:14), 'Adults eat solid food and have trained their senses to recognize the difference between right and wrong.' Yes, mature Christians REQUIRE solid scriptural food in order to maintain their spiritual health!

What did he consider the 'meat' of God's word? Well, read the rest of the book of Hebrews and see if you can follow it. Also, see the linked document, What Is Truth?

Missing Ancestor of Jesus

If you've ever taken the time to count them, you'll notice that there seems to be a generation missing in the genealogy of Jesus in most Bibles; for we read at Matthew 1:17, 'So, there were fourteen generations from AbraHam to David, fourteen generations from David until the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen generations from the deportation to Babylon to [the coming of] the Anointed One.' Yet, the list after the deportation to Babylon, shows only thirteen names. What accounts for this?

Well, a study of the Aramaic text indicates that Joseph the son of Jacob wasn't Mary's husband, but her father, which makes fourteen generations. Yes, she did marry a man who was also named Joseph, but apparently he isn't mentioned in the text at Matthew 1:16. You will notice that Mary's husband Joseph was not the son of Jacob, but of Heli (see Luke 3:23).

Then why does the genealogy of Luke's account differ? Because he lists the family line of Joseph, Mary's husband, while Matthew is discussing the genealogy of Mary.

Mistreatment of Women

Many people have commented on the mistreatment of women in Bible texts, and speak as though such things were condoned by God… they weren't. Recognize that; Where the Bible speaks of women being mistreated (as in the case of the concubine mentioned in Judges the 20^th Chapter), this doesn't indicate God's approval of the actions, it's just the relating of a true story. For, especially during the period of Judges, the people of IsraEl had come a long way from God's Laws, and their society had become corrupt. This is proven by all the times that God had allowed them to come under the control of (and to be oppressed by) the surrounding pagan nations.

MordecAi

MordecAi appears to be a Babylonian name, and possibly means City of Marduk, or just Marduka (see the Wikipedia reference Mordecai). Although it might seem unlikely that an IsraElite would bear the name of a pagan god, such renaming was common practice among the Persians, when dealing with their officials.

Morning Star

Admittedly, our rendering of Psalm 110:3, which reads, 'For, since the time that you came from the womb, I made you to be the [bright] morning star,' could be wrong, because it differs from the Hebrew text and other translations of the Septuagint. The Greek word in question here is eosphorou, which some translate as dawn. However, others argue that the word should be translated as morning star, and we find this logical, because Jesus referred to himself as the morning star at Revelation 2:28, and again at Revelation 22:16. So, this would explain what scripture Jesus was quoting when he used that term.

Notice that this rendering is also more in harmony with the principles of Hebrew poetry, for it better reflects the thought of the previous verse, 'In that mighty day you'll be the sovereign, and in the brightness of your holy ones you will shine.' It also just makes more sense than the Hebrew words, 'in the splendors of holiness from the womb of the dawn,' which don't appear to mean very much, and which don't tie into other prophesies.

Revelation 2:28 says, 'I'll also give him the morning star.' Notice the explanation that the Bible itself provides (at Revelation 22:16) of who this morning star is: 'I (Jesus) sent my messenger to you [so you would] bring this testimony against the congregations. I'm the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.'

Moses' Question about the 'Name' of God

(Contributed)

Inaccurate translating of Exodus 3:13 has led to a faulty understanding of this verse. In numerous Bibles, one can read the question: 'What is his name?,' as in Judges 13:17, when ManoAh wanted to know the name (that is, the pronunciation of the name) of the angel who came to meet him. On the other hand, the IsraElites really asked Moses (at Exodus 3:13), 'How is His Name?' – that is, 'What does His Name mean?' or 'What does His fame mean?'

One can verify that in Hebrew, the interrogation 'what is,' or 'how is,' is 'mâ.' And 'who is,' is 'mî.' And there's a big difference between asking to know a name because one is ignorant of it (as in Ezra 5:4), and asking the meaning of a name that one already knows… as in Genesis 32:27, where the angel asks Jacob to remind him of the meaning of his name before he gave him a new name (IsraEl).

Therefore, when Moses asked God: 'How is his name?' God gave the explanation 'I shall [prove to] be who (or what) I shall [prove to] be' (èhyèh ashèr èhyèh). Even here, regrettably, numerous translators are influenced by Greek philosophy on The Being as existing, which was developed by Plato in some of his works, including 'Parmenides.' For example, the Septuagint translated this passage as 'I am the Being (égô éimi o ôn in Greek),' or, 'I am He who is.' Yet Aquila's Translation (which is more faithful to Hebrew) translates this sentence as, 'I shall be: I shall be' (ésomai ésomai in Greek).

As you can see; from a study on the translation of this sentence, the difficulty results from translators who want to explain the words by means of their personal beliefs, which are very often influenced by Greek philosophy; otherwise there is no difficulty. For example, one finds the word èhyèh just before Exodus 3:12 and just after Exodus 4:12, 15, and here translators have no problem translating it as 'I shall [prove to be] with you.' Moreover, the Talmud retains this explanation for the meaning of the Name.

So, a better translation of Exodus 3:13, 14 would be: 'Then Moses said to God, Look, I'll go to the children of IsraEl and tell them that the God of our ancestors has sent me to you. But then they're going to ask, How is his name? So, what should I tell them? And God told Moses; I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be! Just tell the children of IsraEl that I shall [prove to] be has sent you.'

OUR NOTE: In the Septuagint this verse reads: ego eime o on, or, I am The Being, and this is how we rendered it.

Moses' Sin at the Rock

The story of how Moses sinned against Jehovah by not mentioning His Name when he struck the rock in the Sin Desert and caused it to gush water, has been told and retold over the centuries. However, it appears as though Moses' reason for doing this is often overlooked. Notice the exact words of God to Moses (at Numbers 20:17), 'Then Jehovah said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn't believe Me enough to mention Me before the children of IsraEl, you won't be allowed to lead this gathering into the land that I have given them.'

So, while many have concluded that Moses had sinned by taking the credit for this miracle himself, that doesn't appear to be the case. Rather, God's words indicate that Moses was unsure of whether this miracle would really happen, and that's why he didn't mention God's Name before he struck the rock. So, it doesn't appear to be a sin of presumptuousness, but one of a lack of faith.

Moses' Wife

In harmony with the statement found at Numbers 12:3, Moses must truly have been 'the humblest man on the earth,' because we actually know very little about him and his personal life. We know that he was married to a Midianite woman named ZipPorah (the daughter of Jethro), and that he had at least two sons by her, Gersam and EliEzer. So, it comes as no surprise that there is quite a bit of controversy about the exact reason why Miriam and Aaron were so upset over Moses' wife, who the account at Numbers 12:1 describes as an 'Ethiopian woman.' Was this ZipPorah, or did he take another wife? And if it was another wife, what happened to ZipPorah?

Unfortunately, we don't know for sure, because the Bible simply doesn't tell us. However, at least one source claims that it was ZipPorah and that her being called an 'Ethiopian' wasn't unusual, because people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula 'were often referred to as Ethiopians.'

We question this conclusion and suspect that those writers were more interested in clearing any questions that might reflect poorly on Moses' name than in looking at the matter objectively. Since Moses had been married to ZipPorah for at least sixty years prior to this time, it seems unlikely that Miriam and Aaron would suddenly turn against Moses and start condemning him over this. Rather, the fact that they started questioning his right to represent God at that late date (after ZipPorah was likely a great grandmother), indicates that the marriage in question was something that had happened more recently. Otherwise, the actions by Miriam and Aaron simply make no sense at all.

Also, the fact that ZipPorah was one of the Midianites, who were descendants of AbraHam (see Genesis 25:1) and close relatives of the IsraElites, makes it very hard to believe that the Bible writer would refer to her as an Ethiopian, because Ethiopians are an entirely different race that descended through Noah's son Ham (see Genesis 10:7).

Actually, Ethiopian is a Greek word, so it stems from a time well after Moses (to about the Third Century C.E.), and it means a black person. Also notice that the Hebrew text doesn't call her an Ethiopian but a Kushite (a descendant of Kush, or a black person). And when the Bible speaks of Ethiopians it isn't necessarily talking about people from the modern country of Ethiopia (though it could), it actually refers to people from any land inhabited by blacks, which was true (at the time) of lands from Persia to South Africa. So the term proves that his new wife was a black person, not an olive-skinned descendant of AbraHam.

Then, why was Miriam particularly upset? Well, she was Moses' older sister (likely the one who followed him as a baby and spoke to PharaOh's daughter), so she was probably very protective. Also, the woman he married wasn't an IsraElite, and her skin was likely much darker than that of others in the camp, so there could have been some racism involved.

Then what happened to ZipPorah? The Bible just doesn't tell us. Had ZipPorah died; had she left Moses; or could he have possibly taken a second wife? Again, we just don't know. However, just look at the mathematics: Moses married ZipPorah when he was forty years old, so she was likely at least twenty years old (and likely older) at the time she was married. Then forty years later (when she was over 60), Moses went before PharaOh and led the IsraElites out of Egypt. Thereafter, IsraEl wandered in the desert for some forty years.

Now, we don't know exactly when the problem arose over Moses' wife, but let's say it was ten years before IsraEl entered the promised land; so if ZipPorah was still alive, she would have been more than seventy years old! And since Moses himself said that the average lifespan at the time was seventy or eighty years, we could assume that she had died prior to this second marriage of Moses.

However, recognize that; if ZipPorah was still living at the time and Moses had in fact taken a second wife, this was not a violation of God's Law (see the linked document Christian Morality). Since the Scriptures prove that Moses still had God's approval, who are we to question his actions or to make assumptions based on so little evidence?

Mystery

The Greek word that is translated as mystery here (Sacred Secret in other Bibles) is mysterion, which is the root word of the English word mystery.

Never Die?

According to some Bible Translations, Jesus said (as recorded at John 8:51), 'Most truly I say to you, if anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.' Yet, all of Jesus' faithful Apostles and disciples (who had certainly observed his word) died, for the Bible tells of how some of them did die. So, did Jesus lie?

No, rather, the way those words are translated in other Bibles is what is wrong. In Greek, John 8:51 reads, 'Amen, amen, lego hymin, ean tis ton emon logon terese, thanaton ou me theorese eis ton aiōna,' or, 'Amen, amen (truthfully) I/say to/you, if/ever anyone the my word should/observe, death not not he/shall/behold into the age.'

Notice that the word death (thanaton) precedes age (aiōna), and the word for age is in the singular accusative tense; so he was saying that they wouldn't know death through the era or age. In other words, they would die, but they wouldn't be counted as dead through the age.

You will notice that Jesus used the same sentence structure at John 11:26, where he said, 'kai pas ho zon kai pisteuon eis eme ou me apothane eis ton aiōna, pisteueis touto?' or, 'and everyone the living and believing into me not not should/die into the age. Believe/you this?'

Therefore, we have translated the verse as, 'and all the living who believe in me won't be dead through the age. Do you believe this?'

For more information, see the linked document The Hereafter.

New JeruSalem

Chapter 22 of Revelation gives us a vision of a glorious Holy City that is built on a foundation of the 'twelve Apostles of the Lamb.' Notice the description as found at Revelation 22:9-12, 14: 'He said, Come here! I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. So, he carried me away by [God's] Breath to an enormously high mountain. There he showed me JeruSalem, the Holy City, coming down out of heaven from God… it had all the glory of God, and it had a shine like the most precious of gems. It gleamed like a crystal-clear jasper stone. It had thick high walls and twelve gates; and at the twelve gates there were twelve messengers. [On the gates] were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of IsraEl. The city wall also had twelve foundation stones, and the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb were written on them.'

So notice first, that New JeruSalem appears to be linked to the Lamb's bride or wife. And this is the reason why we suspect that this 'woman' pictures those humans who are chosen to be a part of God's arrangement to govern the earth from this 'New JeruSalem' that comes down from heaven (or out of the sky) at the end of the thousand years.

Also notice that those who seem to be the rulers within that sacred city have 'become one' with Jesus as 'the bride of the Lamb.' These could possibly be the same ones who were described at Revelation 14:3 as, 'the hundred and forty-four thousand who were purchased from the earth.' And if so, Revelation 7:4, 5 tells us that these ones are chosen from among (gr. ek) the (symbolic) 'twelve tribes of IsraEl.' Therefore, they could be said to make up a 'city,' which is to be the seat of government for the earth.

Notice how Revelation 21:2, 3 describes that city: 'I also saw the Holy City,New JeruSalem, stepping down out of the sky from God, and she had been prepared as a bride who is adorned for her husband. Then I heard a loud voice from the throne say, Look! The Tent of The God is with mankind! He's going to pitch His Tent among them, then they will be His people and He will be their God.'

So, here we find a link between the Holy City and 'the Tent of God.' However, does this mean that the city itself is God's Tent? Well, first recognize that the original Tent of God itself wasn't located within JeruSalem's walls on Mount Zion, but on nearby Mount MoriAh… and it was there just during the later portion of David's reign and the beginning of Solomon's reign. However, after it had been replaced by the Temple (often referred to in Greek as the oikos – permanent dwelling or house), that Temple was thereafter located within the City walls. So, the city and the Tent are not the same thing.

Also recognize that the Greek word skene (translated here as Tent) refers to a temporary dwelling. So, as in ancient IsraEl, it doesn't appear as though God intends to come down and live among mankind. Rather, this seems to indicate that He will be present on occasions within His Tent, as He was in the first Tent of God.

Notice that we are told at Revelation 21:22, 'I didn't see a Divine Habitation (naos) within [the city], because Jehovah God the Almighty and the Lamb are its Holy Place.' So, it appears as though God (Jehovah) and Jesus will continue to live in the naos (heavenly dwelling of the Gods), but their glory will be the light of the earth.

This conclusion seems to be in line with the words of the Old Law concerning the High Priest (typical of Jesus), for we are told at Leviticus 21:10-12: 'And the Priest who is the chief one among his brothers … may not leave the Holy Place and he must not make the Holy Place of his God unclean, because he wears God's holy anointing oil. I am Jehovah.'

However, as in ancient JeruSalem, the under-Priests will apparently be allowed to come and go, after they leave their Priestly garments inside the Holy Place, for we read at EzekiEl 44:19, 'And when they enter the People's outer courtyard, they must remove the clothes that they served in, and leave them inside the Holy's inner chambers… for then they must wear other clothes. There's no way that they can make people holy while they're wearing their own clothes.'

Yet, it doesn't appear as though these Holy Ones will become humans once again, because we are told at EzekiEl 42:14, 'No one can enter (the Holy Place) except for the Priests, and they cannot leave the Holy Place, to go to the outer courtyard, so these who are leading will always be holy. Nor may anyone touch the garments they wear, for they are also most holy. So, when touching the people they must wear other clothes.'

But, this same prophecy does also tell us at EzekiEl 45:7, 'And a portion of [the sacred land] must be set aside as a [home for the Chief Priest]. [It runs] to the Holy Place of first-fruits, and it'll be his possession in the city, there before the Holy Place of first-fruits, and in front of the portions of the city, that run from the east to the west.' So, this does seem to indicate that there will be some sort of permanent presence of Jesus within that city.

For more information, see the linked document, JeruSalem and the IsraEl of God.

Nicolaitans

The infiltration of this sect into two of the seven congregations that Jesus addressed in the Second and Third Chapters of Revelation has raised the question of what they were teaching that he found so offensive. This is important, since the description of these congregations seems to be mirrored among modern Christianity.

An Early Christian elder, Iranaeus, identified the Nicolaitans in his treatise 'Against Heresies,' in the Second Century. He said of them, that they are an 'offshoot of the knowledge which is falsely so-called,' and he explained that they 'lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.'

This description seems to mirror what Paul warned Timothy of at 1 Timothy 6:20, 21, when he wrote, 'O Timothy, guard this hope and turn away from all the unclean and opposing empty talk that is falsely called knowledge, through which some who once showed promise in the faith were turned aside.'

So, this corrupting influence appears to have taken root in congregations as early as the middle of the First Century, for, it looks like Iranaeus was quoting Paul.

What is this falsely called knowledge that was (and still is) a corrupting influence on Christians? Apparently, it is acceptance of a philosophy that people may be Christians and still do whatever they wish. However, others have looked at the name Nicolaitans, and suggested that its Greek meaning (nicao) to conquer (laos) the people, refers to the earliest form of a priestly order or clergy. For more information, see the link Nicolaism.

Noble Bereans

The words of Acts 17:10 are often quoted to show why Christians should follow along in their Bibles as its verses are being read by others in Church. And while this is an excellent practice, the actual reason for following along is often overlooked or glossed over. Notice what Luke wrote, 'Now, these people were nobler than those who were in Thessalonica, because they eagerly welcomed the Word and examined the Scriptures every day, to make sure the things [they were being told] were true.'

It's an unfortunate fact that, while we are often told that we must 'examine the scriptures every day,' we are seldom reminded that the reason for this is to make sure the things we are being told are true.

Checking to make sure that a teacher, preacher, magazine, or book is properly applying the Scriptures, is vital for true Christians, and asking questions should never be avoided. For, far too often, people quote Bible verses out of context, without considering the circumstances under which the things were written or said, and the result is wrong interpretations of the verses being quoted. Is this acceptable in the eyes of God? Notice Paul's answer as found at Romans 3:7, 8:
'Now, if I tell a lie and that makes the truth of God and His glory grow, then why should I be judged a sinner? Well, that is why people are saying so many bad things about us. They claim that some of us are saying, Let's do bad things, so good things can happen. This is why that judgment is righteous.'

It has long been said that 'the Bible is a fiddle that you can play any old tune on.' However, this really isn't true; for when the context of any verse is fully considered, the Bible is found to be a harmonious writing with a single theme and purpose. Yet, the statement above can be made true by using the Scriptures out of their context.

It's unfortunate that many sincere Christians will quote scriptures that don't really apply to their argument or circumstances to make a point. It's also unfortunate that; because they haven't searched the Scriptures for themselves (to read the context of the things they are taught), this has caused many to embrace erroneous beliefs. Can this be excused? No, not when we all have easy access to God's Word and simply choose not to read and examine it, preferring to trust others to make up our minds as to what we should believe.

So, after reading religious literature or listening to an interesting speaker, each of us should ask, 'Do I just remember what was said, or do I also remember the scriptures that prove what was said?' If we can only quote what others say or write, we have missed the point, because we are neither sure of its truth, nor can we explain it to others.

Are there many today who are like those noble people in the synagogue at Berea? Unfortunately, no. We live in a world of fast food and packaging, and such quick solutions often include accepting pre-packaged beliefs. Why, even the arguments for or against such beliefs come prepackaged in magazines, books, tracts, and brochures, so nobody has to do any research. All they have to do is to quote what they've been told.

Anyhow, if you've come this far, hopefully you can see the advantage of the format of this Bible. Small sections of verses aren't just quoted here; you can read the context and the rest of the Bible if you wish. Also, if you find some omission or error, you may contact us and discuss it, for we are truly interested in what you have to say.

For more information, see the linked document, What Is Truth?

One Hope?

At Ephesians 4:4-6 we read, 'For there's just one body and one Spirit, according to the one hope that you were called to when you were called; there's just one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of everyone, who is over all, through all, and in all.' So, doesn't this imply that there is just one hope for the faithful; that of going to heaven to be with Jesus?

Well, when we speak of our hope, we usually think that it applies to our eventual destination in God. However, Paul spoke of it in a different way at Ephesians 1:11, 12, where he said, 'We were selected to be heirs through him, as the one who operates everything the way His Will directs as planned, so that we can praise His glory… yes, we who have put our hope in the Anointed One.'

So, notice that the hope which Paul was discussing didn't necessarily have reference to the hope of a particular destination, but to the hope that we have in Jesus and in his promises. However, at Ephesians 2:18 Paul went on to write, '… so you can know the glorious richness of the hope that He has called you for, and which He holds as an inheritance for the Holy Ones.'

For a fact, this reference does seem to imply that all have the same calling or hope. But does it mean that they will all receive the same reward? Remember that Jesus said, 'Many are called but few are chosen.' So the obvious implication is that; although all may be called to the same hope, not all are chosen for the same reward.

One-Woman Man

Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus (at 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6) about the requirements for those whom they were to appoint as overseers or bishops (gr. EpiSkopos – OnLookers) have usually been translated as 'the husband of one wife.' However, in other Bibles, his words have translated as saying that the person must be 'faithful or true to his one wife.' Which is the proper translation?

Actually, there have been at least three different views as to the meaning of these words:

1. That the man must not be polygamous

2. That the man must be married

3. That the man must be morally faithful.

Was Paul forbidding polygamy here? Actually, that doesn't seem to be the case, for if so, then it would appear as though polygamy was fairly common in the early Christian Congregation, which it wasn't. On the other hand, according to the Old Law, polygamy was not only allowed among the IsraElites, it may have been required in the case of levirate (brother-in-law) marriages (see Deuteronomy 25:5). However, under Roman laws and customs, polygamy was frowned upon, and may have actually been illegal. So, it is doubtful that Paul was telling Timothy and Titus to only choose men who didn't have multiple wives.

Was Paul requiring such men to be married? No, for Paul himself wasn't married, and he encouraged other Christians to remain unmarried, if possible (see 1 Corinthians 7:25-28).

Was Paul requiring moral fidelity? This conclusion seems to be the most likely, because it's what his actual words imply in Greek. Notice that he told them the candidate must be a mias one gynaikos woman aner man. So, it appears as though he wasn't forbidding polygamy or requiring the man to be married. Rather, it looks like he was speaking of moral fidelity; and since (in both 1 Timothy and in Titus) this instruction is preceded with the requirement that the man has 'not been charged with misconduct,' it appears as though sexual misconduct is implied.

Certainly, we are not condoning polygamy here, since it is clear from the case of Adam and Eve (gr. Eue) that God had originally intended for a man to have just one 'helper' or mate. However, these instructions to Timothy and Titus have long been used among Christian religions to not only prevent polygamous men from serving in an office, but to forbid polygamy among members of their congregation. And we have heard of cases in some western religions, where men are required to put away other wives and children (as in southern Africa, where polygamy is still practiced), before such men can even be baptized.

Understand that; although the standard set by God was monogamy, there are no actual instructions forbidding Christians to have more than one wife. In fact, in the Bible's patriarchal societies, such faithful men as Job, AbraHam, Jacob, David, and many others are known to have had multiple wives and/or concubines (possibly referring to secondary wives taken from among servants or slaves). So, there is little scriptural basis for Christians in monogamous societies to judge or to set their own standards for Christians in patriarchal (polygamous) societies.

For more information, see the linked document Christian Morality.

Paradise

At Luke 23:43, one of the criminals who was hung next to Jesus when he was impaled, expressed belief in Jesus and asked Jesus to remember him when he got into his Kingdom. Jesus words, 'Amen, soi ego semeron met emou ese en to paradeiso' (Amen, to/you I/say today with me you will be in the paradise), have been translated 'I tell you that, today you will be with me in paradise.'

The inference created by punctuating Jesus' words that way, is that this person would be in 'paradise' with Jesus on that same day. However, Jesus wasn't even resurrected until two days later. In addition, the word paradeiso really means a garden or park (a place on earth); because, paradeiso is the same word that was used to describe the 'Paradise of Delights in the land of Edem' (Garden of Eden) in the Greek Septuagint.

Recognize that this criminal had never been baptized and had done nothing else to that point to be found worthy of being appointed a king in heaven. So, Jesus' words should obviously have been translated as; 'I'm telling you this today; You will be with me in Paradise.' In other words, Jesus was telling him on that day that he would be resurrected in the paradise garden (here on earth), when Jesus begins his rule as king over the earth.

Parvaim or PharaOh Aim?

Second Chronicles 3:6, 7 says in this Bible Translation: 'Using gold that he got from PharaOh Aim, he (Solomon) gilded the Temple's walls, gatehouses, roofing, and doorways, and he carved cherubs on its walls.'

Note that this is a different rendering than what is found in most Bibles, for most say that Solomon got the gold from (some land called) Parvaim, which has never been located. However, the Greek word that we have translated as PharaOh Aim is Pharou/aim, which could refer to PharaOh Amenemnisu, of the 21st Dynasty of ancient Egypt. And although the given period of his reign (1051–1047 BCE) is earlier than most would attribute to the reign of Solomon (but we don't), his reign may have actually lasted much longer, for he may be the same person as Amenemope, who is said to have reigned until 992-B.C.E. (see the linked Wikipedia article, Amenemope). However, our own chronological calculations put the lifetime of PharaOh Amenemnisu as concurrent with and overlapping the period of Solomon's Temple construction.

Paul's Letters

We find the entire flap about who wrote Paul's letters – by scholars and critics alike – funny. For, much has been made of the fact that the writing styles of Paul's letters vary so much, it is improbable that he wrote them all; and he obviously didn't, as the words of Romans 16:22 testify, 'I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in [the] Lord.'

Paul, as several of his letters indicate, had very poor eyesight (see Galatians 4:13-15). Why? Was this caused by the brightness of his vision of Jesus, as some say? Well, it could have been, but we doubt it. Remember that there were no eyeglasses at the time when Paul wrote, he was likely over forty years old, and many of us who are beyond that age couldn't see to write letters today if it weren't for our eyeglasses. And there are several other natural causes for poor eyesight – other than miraculous visions.

A further indication of Paul's poor eyesight is found at Galatians 6:11, where he wrote, 'Look at these large letters that I wrote with my own hand!' This can indicate that; either Paul wrote the book of Galatians by himself, or that he had written just those few words of the letter. However, the mentioning of 'large letters' shows that he could barely see his own handwriting. That he could have written this letter himself is seen by the relatively short and less 'flowery' introductory words (Galatians 1:1-5).

Obviously, a man named Tertius wrote the letter to the Romans for Paul. Then, if you look at the headings or conclusions of other letters, you'll find references to those who likely did the writing. For example, First Corinthians starts with the words, 'Paul … and Sosthenes our brother.' Then Second Corinthians starts out the same way, 'Paul … and our brother Timothy.'

So, there are obviously different writing styles in Paul's letters, because (as the letters themselves indicate), different people did the writing. This may be quite a revelation to critics and college professors, but they obviously haven't actually read the letters.

For more information, see the attached link, The Bible's Internal Proofs of Its Authentic History.

People or Men?

The Greek word anthropois, which is usually (correctly) translated as men, actually refers to man as the species, not necessarily to the gender; so we have often translated it as people, to show that gender may not be implied.

Perfect Lamb

In many other Bibles, we read that the IsraElites were to offer unspotted lambs in their sacrifices to God. Did this mean that the animals were to be perfectly white with no spots, or did it mean that they were to be perfectly healthy?

It is interesting that the Greek word often translated as unspotted is hamartias, which really means without sin. Obviously, the word sin can't really be applied to animals, as we understand those terms, so hamartias must have meant that the lambs were to be physically perfect. And we don't know if this means that they should have no literal spots (as indicated by other Bibles), but that could have been implied. Yet, other sacrificial animals that are naturally spotted (such as bulls and goats) are also described as having to be perfect, since hamartias, or a related Greek word, hamoma (which can't be directly translated into English) is also used to describe them. So, those words should actually be translated as sinless; however, translating it that way might be confusing to readers who would think of sin as actions, not physical attributes; so we have decided to use the word perfect (although that term is better translated from the Greek word telios… which was also used to describe the Anointed Priest).

In view of the fact that God often required just the undesirable portions of an animal for sacrifices (the fat, liver, and kidneys), one might wonder why He required the animals to be healthy (not sick, lame, or deformed). Well, we first have to understand the meanings of the sacrifices. They were required to show the need for the sacrifice of a perfect human to redeem mankind in general from the effects of the imperfection, sin, and death that we inherited from Adam (due to his sin in the Paradise). At 1 Peter 1:19, for example, we can clearly see that these perfect animals which were sacrificed, pictured God's offering of His perfect son, Jesus. And at John 1:29 he was described as 'The Lamb of God who lifts sin from the world!'

Unfortunately, many today (due to religious cynicism and wrong teachings) have lost sight of just who Jesus was, what type of person he had to be, and why he had to die as he did. But, the perfection (hamartias) of the lamb and the perfection (telios) of the Anointed (christos or Christ) Priests showed that both had to be sinless… like Jesus, the perfect son of God.

Perfect Priests

At Leviticus 4:5 (for example), we find an interesting description of a Priest who was to offer the blood of a sacrificial animal before God. In Greek he is described there as ho teteliomenos, which can be translated as, the perfect. However, this term is missing in the Hebrew text at that location, so we are unsure of its validity. If the current Hebrew text is right, the Septuagint has added questionable words. But if the word was originally there, then we must assume that they have been deleted from the Hebrew text. Which is true? Our current leaning is to trust the Septuagint, since it predates the available Hebrew texts. And it does logically follow that God must have considered the Priest perfect in his duties on such occasions, because of the required action that followed (entering the Sacred Tent).

These words (Perfect Priest) seem to describe a specific Priest among the Priests. In fact, the descriptions found at Leviticus Chapter Sixteen indicates that it refers to the person that was later described in the Bible as the High Priest, or as the one who may have been chosen annually to offer the sacrifices on what came to be known as The Day of Atonement.

Other Bibles have translated teteliomenos as consecrated, which isn't a bad choice, since it indicates that the Priest was chosen to his work by God, and that could be implied. However, consecrated is an unfamiliar term today, so we have chosen not to use it. And notice that the root portion of that Greek word telios, means perfect, end, or finish. So we have selected perfect as the most likely meaning of the term here.

Peter

The teaching that Peter was the first 'Pope' or 'Father' of the Christian Church, and that he ruled from (and died in) Rome, is a common but unsubstantiated religious supposition.

Notice, for example, what Paul wrote at Galatians 2:9: 'When they came to know the care that was shown to me, James, Cephas (Peter), and John (the ones who seemed to be pillars) gave BarNabas and I their approval to go to the nations, while they would go to the circumcised.'

So, it is clear from Paul's words that there was no earthly 'head of the Christian congregation' at that time. There were three 'pillars' – or those who seemed to be taking the lead – and they were living in JeruSalem (not Rome) at the time.

Also, notice that Peter's responsibility was not that of being the head of the congregation, but he was spoken of by Paul as being an 'Apostle (sent one) to the circumcised' (the Jews), as were James and John. Then, if you read the next few verses in Galatians 2, you will see how Paul thereafter reprimanded Peter for separating himself from Gentile converts, which isn't something that anyone would do to the 'infallible' head of the Christian Church.

However, Peter did travel to visit far away Christian congregations, as both Paul and the book of Acts tell us. But, as 'the Apostle to the circumcised,' his home was in JeruSalem and his travel was limited primarily to large Jewish settlements, such as was true of the ancient city of Babylon, which is where he wrote a letter (the book of First Peter). Notice how he ended this letter (at 1 Peter 5:13), 'I send greetings from the woman who was also chosen along with you, and Mark (my son), from Babylon.'

Now, while the City of Babylon may not have been inhabited by the time of Peter, the city that replaced it (Seleucia) was, and the area was know to be heavily populated by Jews (those to whom Peter was an Apostle).

Also notice that this greeting comes from Peter's wife, 'the woman who was also chosen along with you' (see Matthew 8:14) and from Peter's close associate, the Gospel writer Mark.

Jesus' words to Peter, found at Matthew 16:18, 19, don't indicate that Peter would be the head of his 'Church.' For, notice exactly what he said there: 'I also tell you this: You are Peter, but I will build my congregation on this bedrock so the gates to the grave won't overpower it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you make binding on earth will be bound in the heavens. And whatever you set free on earth will be set free in the heavens.'

In Greek, verse 18 reads, 'su ei Petros kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ecclesian,' or, 'you are Bedrock, but on this and bedrock (I will) build my the congregation.'

Notice that Jesus didn't say, 'I will build my Church on you,' he said 'I will build my congregation on this bedrock.' What was 'this bedrock' that Jesus was referring to? Was it Peter? We find a description of this congregation and its construction at Revelation 21:14, which says, 'The city wall also had twelve foundation stones, and the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb were written on them.' (This includes Peter.)

So, we can see that Peter was just one of the twelve foundation stones, not the primary foundation or bedrock. Rather, what Jesus appears to be saying (at Matthew 16:18) is that; as Peter's name meant Bedrock, Jesus' body (by his death) would serve as the bedrock or foundation of the Christian Congregation (or Church). In other words, the 'bedrock' that the Congregation would be built on, was the body of Jesus, not on Peter.

For, notice what Peter himself said at 1 Peter 2:4-6, 'Approach him (Jesus) as though he were a living block of stone (who for a fact was rejected by men but was chosen as precious by God), [upon whom] you as living blocks are being built into a spiritual house – a Holy Priesthood – to offer up spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God, through Jesus the Anointed. For the Scripture says, {Look!} I am laying a block that I selected in Zion, a precious primary cornerstone. Anyone who believes in it will never be shamed.'

The sentence structure at Matthew 16:18 shows our conclusion to be true (that Jesus was simply using a play on Peter's name when he spoke of the bedrock on which he would build his congregation). Notice the structure, 'su ei Petros kai epi taute te petra.'

Use of the word te before petra indicates that petra was used as a parallel to Petros, or that this was a play on words. Te is not a common Bible word. It is what is referred to as an 'enclitic particle,' which is often translated as and, but is used to couple parallel thoughts. Notice that the Greek word which is normally translated as and, is kai; but according to The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, 'te is employed generally when something is subjoined, and which does not thus directly and necessarily follow.' So, 'te' might be better translated as 'but.'

There is certainly no indication in any other part of the Bible that Peter ever took the principal lead in governing the Congregation. In fact, when the matter of Gentile circumcision was raised before the governing body in JeruSalem, the decision was given by (Jesus' half-brother) James, not by Peter.

As to Peter's being given 'the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven;' this refers to the leading role that Peter would play in identifying and explaining the outpouring of God's Holy Breath, first on the Jews at Pentecost (see Acts 2:14-39), and then upon the acceptance and conversion of the first Gentiles (see Acts Chapter 10). All of this had to do with opening the opportunity to rule (first to Jews, then to Gentiles) in the 'Kingdom of heaven.'

Where did Peter die? Well, we do know that he died violently for his faith, since that is what Jesus foretold at John 21:18, 19. But, since Peter apparently died before the Roman attack on JeruSalem (66-70 C.E.), he was likely murdered by the Jews in JeruSalem, or possibly in Babylon. There is no Bible (or authenticated historical) record of his ever traveling to or being killed in Rome.

Phantom

When Jesus' disciples saw him coming toward them walking across the water, what did they think they were seeing? The fact is; nobody knows what was going through their minds, although many commentators apparently claim such clairvoyance. However, the Greek word that the disciples used to describe it was phantasma, which is the root of the English word phantom. The meanings that are listed in Bible references to define this Greek word include, vision, apparition, and appearance.

Pharisees

During the earthly life of Jesus, no religious group was more castigated by him than the Jewish sect of the Pharisees. The name, Pharisees, literally means 'the Separated Ones,' which could refer to their belief that they were separate from (and superior to) the common people of IsraEl. They also believed that they would be the only ones to be 'saved' when God brings retribution on the wicked.

The Pharisees actually set the pattern for many modern-day so-called 'Christian' beliefs (although the group predated Jesus), for they also seem to have taught that souls don't die, and that bad people suffer eternal punishment.

The Pharisees fasted twice each week, they were conscientious about paying the tithes, and they believed in the resurrection. They took pride in their 'righteousness,' and they obviously looked down on the common people. They had detailed rules about what could and couldn't be done on a Sabbath, and because these rules went beyond the spirit of God's Laws, they hated Jesus when he exposed their foolishness by healing the sick on Sabbath days.

To impress their peers with their righteousness, the Pharisees made the cases that they carried the Scriptures in larger than normal; and they made the fringes of the bottoms of their robes a little longer than those of the rest of the Jews. They also prayed aloud and fasted in public. Most were relatively well to do, and they enjoyed the privileges of being viewed as 'holy people.' So, why was Jesus so opposed to them and their teachings?

In addition to the fact that many of their teachings were out of line with what was written in the Scriptures, the problem was that they were self-righteous and they were constantly turning Bible principles into laws. They told people what they should be doing, and then made up rules to allow themselves exceptions to God's Laws.

Does any of this sound familiar? A common human failing when people are trying to live righteous lives, is to look down on others who aren't trying as hard. Another such failing is when such people take the rules of conscience that they have created for themselves and turn them into laws for others to live by. This is a constant problem among zealous religious groups, because, as Jesus pointed out, such self-righteous attitudes aren't pleasing to God.

An example of this bad attitude and the way that it affects religious rule making, is seen in the case where the Pharisees (in particular) objected to the fact that the Apostles (and Jesus, in Luke's account) failed to wash their hands before eating. Although there is nothing in God's Law that required washing before eating, the Pharisees had elevated the principle of 'being a clean people' into a law, which they used to condemn even the holy. For more information, see the Note, 'Eating With Unwashed Hands?'

As you can see; whenever any person or religious group starts setting out Bible principles as Laws, they step into the shoes of the Pharisees.

See also the document, God's Laws and Principles.

Poor Widow

The real import of Jesus' observation about the widow who he says contributed more to the Temple treasury than all the others, is often distorted in its application. We usually hear this account told as the story of 'the Widow's Mite,' and it's used to show that people can have God's blessings even when they are unable to do much in serving Him (due to advanced age and/or poor circumstances). And while that is true, there is a large difference between what the widow did here and what people usually do in their public service to God.

Notice that this story isn't about serving God in a public way. Rather, it has to do with a very private act; contributing financially and secretly to support His place of worship. In this case, only Jesus (and God) knew what she did and what her circumstances were. However, when it comes to our serving God, many others usually know what we are doing, and many expect praise for that.

The true lesson of this story is, however: Do what you know is right, and then trust in God (who looks on in secret) to provide blessings and the things you need. For, this is the story of a private act of trust in God. Notice that this widow contributed 'her whole means of living.' So she did what she believed was right, and she was trusting in God with her whole heart to provide even her next meal.

Prayer

James wrote (at James 5:16), 'So, admit your sins to each other and pray that each one of you will be healed, because prayer has a lot of power when it's working through a righteous man.'

From these words, we learn to never underestimate the powers of righteousness and prayer. Then, if you continue reading that account (verses 17, 18), you will find the wonderful example that James used to prove his point… where he spoke of what the Prophet EliJah was able to accomplish through the power of prayer.

Why doesn't prayer always work? As James pointed out; the more righteous the person really is, the more likely it is that his/her prayers will be answered. Also, as Jesus taught us in 'the Lord's Prayer,' God's Will is involved. In other words; What a person is asking for can't be out of harmony with God's purposes and direction.

For example: In the past, certain prominent religious leaders have declared 'Holy Years,' when all Christians were asked to pray for world peace. Yet, Jesus told us (at Matthew 24:7) that the signs of when he would be 'near' are, 'Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and shakings in many places.'

So, it appears as though it is God's will for the world not to be granted peace, since great wars must happen before the promised end; and as the result, prayers for world peace have just gone unheeded by God. Therefore, it would seem to be a far better and more positive action on the part of such religious leaders to just tell their members not to go to war. For, prayers work much better whenever you work in harmony with (not against) what you're asking for.

This puts us in mind of a faithless sign that was posted outside o local church during a recent time of turmoil: 'Pray for peace, but prepare for war.'

In Matthew the Sixth Chapter, Jesus set out some important guidelines regarding prayer. Noteworthy are his words found at Matthew 6:6: 'When you pray, go into your private room and after shutting the door, pray to your Father in secret. Then your Father who watches secretly will repay you.'

This instruction specifically covers prayers that are said in public places (whether said silently or aloud), which draw attention to ones self; because praying in public draws attention to the piety of the one who is praying. For example, we often note devout people praying openly (and sometimes audibly) in public restaurants, thanking God for their food. But note that; when we do this to be seen by others, Jesus says that such conspicuousness is our total reward from God. In other words, our prayer won't be answered, because or reward is our open display of piety.

Another important warning against improper prayers is found in Jesus' words at Matthew 6:7, 'When praying, don't babble the same expressions repeatedly (gr. de me battalogesete – not you multiply words) as people of the nations do, because they think that by [repeating] them they will be heard.'

Repeating memorized prayers have been the staple of pagan religions throughout the millennia. However, Jesus indicates here that expressions which come from the heart are what God approves of. And in view of this; obviously, what is called the Lord's or the Our Father Prayer (at Matthew 6:9, 10) wasn't suggested by Jesus as something to be memorized and then spoken to God. Rather, he was simply listing important subjects for prayer. These included:

· Clearing God's Name of any accusations made by the Slanderer

· The coming of the Kingdom

· The fulfillment of God's purposes regarding heaven and earth

· Asking for God to provide our daily needs

· Asking for the forgiving of our sins (with the reminder that we also need to forgive others)

· Asking for protection against the Wicked One.

You will notice that this Prayer of Jesus, as translated here, doesn't end with the words, 'For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the glory forever. Amen.' Why not? Because, examination of ancient Bible texts reveals that these words, which are found in some other Bibles, were added hundreds of years after Matthew wrote this book. And if you think about it, those words don't make sense anyhow. Why? Well, why would Jesus say 'For thine is the Kingdom,' when he had just said to pray for 'your (or thy) Kingdom to come?' And notice from the context that Jesus wasn't really praying; rather, he was teaching his disciples what to pray for. So, saying amen would have been inappropriate. In fact, if you search the Christian Era Scriptures, you won't find the Hebrew word Amen said at the end of any prayer (although it was likely said in affirmation of public prayers).

You can see the actual setting in which Jesus spoke the words of this prayer in the parallel account that is found at Luke 11:1-4. Notice there, that Jesus wasn't actually praying, but he was teaching his disciples how to pray (what to ask for) in reply to their request. And as Luke recorded it, the familiar concluding words mentioned above are simply missing. You can see that it says, 'Now, he was in a certain place praying; and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us how to pray… as John taught his disciples. Then he said, When you pray, say: Father, May Your Name be made Holy, and may Your Kingdom come. Give us the bread that we need for today. And forgive us for our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us, and don't bring us into temptation.'

Pronunciation of C and CH in Greek Words

The most mispronounced letters when English-speaking people try to pronounce Greek or Hebrew names, is C (or CH). For, there is no 'soft C' pronunciation in those languages; it is always a hard C (as in Call), even when a CH is used (as in CHrist). So, the title Caesar was actually pronounced more like Kaiser (as in German). And the faithful woman Priscilla was called Prees-kee-lah, as the town of Laodicea was called La-oh-dee-keh-ah. However, don't try to pronounce those names and titles properly, because the mispronunciations are just too well entrenched in English.

When it comes to less familiar names though, one might try to pronounce them properly. Take for example, the name of the king of Elam, Chodollogomor, or the sons of Chet, or the people called the Chaldeans. In ancient Greek, they were pronounced (approximately and respectively), Kah-dah-lah-gah-mer, Ket, and Kahl-dee-owns. Oh yes, it helps to have an interlinear Bible translation to know how the word was actually spelled, and a knowledge of how Greek vowels are pronounced.

The Greeks had two letters that they pronounced as a K. One looks like a K and is pronounced that way, with the tongue touching the roof of the mouth. The other (the one we render as C and CH in English) looks like an X and is pronounced like a K, but with the tongue touching the soft palate at the back of the mouth, which gives a breathier sound to the K. For example, say Christ and notice the part of your mouth that the tongue touches. Then say Kill and notice the difference. This is the difference between CH and K.

So, why did the Greeks have different letters for such a small variation in sound? This is because they had no alphabet until about the time of their classical poet, Homer. They then borrowed or adapted their alphabet from the Hebrews (if you could examine both alphabets from that period, you would see the similarities). And since Hebrew is a more guttural language, their letter cheth (where the Greeks got their letter for CH from) has a far more pronounced palate sound.

Proof of Virginity

Ancient customs and ways may sound very foreign in today's world, where sex acts among unmarried people has become quite common. However, God's requirement for His people was that they were to be honest, upright, moral, and clean. And anyone who chose to be unclean or immoral, was to be put to death… this is the reason why a woman's proof of virginity became so important on her wedding night.

In ancient IsraEl, a father literally waited outside the nuptial chamber until the marriage was consummated (before the wedding feast), and he received the cloth they lay on with the blood of her virginity; for this was the father's proof of her purity and the validity of the marriage. To fail to do this would have left his daughter open to divorce; and if she was not a virgin, to being stoned to death for her immorality.

Propitiatory

We have searched hard for a modern English synonym for this difficult and obscure word, and have found none. Sure, it was just a cover for the sacred Chest, but cover wouldn't properly reflect the full meaning.

The Greek word that we are struggling with is ilasterion. Other Bibles have translated it as Propitiatory, Expiation, and Mercy Seat. Yet, the first two words are unfamiliar, and Mercy Seat doesn't accurately describe what it was, because nobody was to sit on it. It was actually an Altar where the Priests sprinkled the blood of Propitiation on the Day of Atonement. And what does Propitiation mean? It refers to something that is done to sooth God's feelings and to improve relations with Him.

Purim

As it is pointed out in this Bible account, the name of the Jewish festival that was instituted to celebrate their salvation from the wicked plans of Haman, was called Purim, or Lots, in reference to the lots that HaMan cast to choose the day for their destruction. And although Bible critics write questioningly about all the events described in the book of Esther (as they do about ALL history written in the Bible), the fact that this festival is documented to have been celebrated regularly by the Jews since the Fourth Century B.C.E., testifies to the accuracy of the Bible account. For more information, see the Wikipedia reference, Purim.

Ransom

Throughout the Bible, we read of 'the ransom' (gr. lytron) that Jesus paid. Exactly what does this term refer to?

At Matthew 20:28, Jesus said, 'This is how the Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve and to give his living body as a ransom for many.'

Romans 5:12, 14 says, 'Sin entered this world through one man and this sin resulted in death. So, death spread to all men because everyone has sinned. However, death reigned from [the time of] Adam down to Moses, even over those who didn't sin in the same way that Adam did. And [Adam] was a prototype of the one who would come.

1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 says, 'Since death came through a man, resurrection from the dead also comes through a man. And as all are dying because of Adam, all will be made alive in the Anointed One.'

Therefore, from the above, we must conclude that Adam lost the hope of 'life' for himself and for all his descendants through his sin in Eden. However, Jesus came and paid the 'ransom price' to God, to redeem us from the sin of Adam, so that we could once again have the hope of 'age-long life' and a resurrection of the living.

Religious Titles

Understand that (at Matthew 23:8-11) Jesus told his followers not to take any honorary titles to themselves, for he said: 'But not you! Don't [have people] call you rabbi, for you have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. And don't address anyone on earth as Father, because there's just One who is your Father, the Heavenly One. Nor should you be called leaders, for you have but one Leader, the Anointed One. However, the greatest among you must be your servant. So, whoever promotes himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be promoted.'

Of course, he wasn't talking about titles of office such as apostle, elder or servant, just the honorifics that people might use, such as 'Father' or 'Rabbi.' However, this command has bothered people throughout the centuries, especially those who feel that they deserve religious titles of respect. As the result, most have either tried to find ways to sneak around Jesus' words, or they have ignored them altogether.

One of the 'sneaky' ways that people have used to take honorary titles for themselves is by simply avoiding the use of the specific titles that Jesus mentioned. So, while some Priests still have people calling them 'Father,' those in religious orders distorted the meaning of Jesus' words and had people tack the titles 'Brother' or 'Sister' onto the fronts of their names.

After the Protestant Reformation, other sneaky tricks to employ honorifics were tried. For example, the terms 'Reverend' and even 'Pastor' have been used for centuries; and those with adequate college degrees like to be called 'Doctor,' as a religious title.

This trend of adding titles ahead of names has reached throughout 'Christian' society today, to the point where we would be hard-pressed to tell of one group that isn't in violation of Jesus' command. If they don't have other titles for their leaders, they insist that certain ones (or even all in the congregation) have the honorific titles 'Brother' or 'Sister' added before their names.

Is it wrong to give each other 'titles of respect' such as even Brother or Sister? Notice that Jesus didn't say his followers should call each other Brother (or sister), but that they are brothers (gr: hymeis adelphoi este or, you brother are). Jesus wasn't giving a dissertation on which honorifics are bad and which ones are okay; he was saying that Christians are all equals, and that they should share a loving relationship as members of the same family. So, adding a title ahead of a name (whether Brother, Sister, Minister, Bishop, or whatever) also appears to be a dodge to get around the import of Jesus' words.

Nevertheless, adding such titles before names has become a common practice among most religious groups (as well as among many trade-union and club memberships today). Some people even (presumptuously, arrogantly, and in error grammatically) introduce themselves with the title preceding their own name ('My name is Brother…'), presuming to have a relationship with new acquaintances and even total strangers.

While it's true that early Christians lovingly referred to their fellows as my brother (or sister), or our brothers, there is little indication that the term brother was ever commonly applied as an honorific title that people added in front of names in the First Century Congregation. How did that work out among early Christians? Well, the Bible tells us that Paul was just called Paul; Peter was called Peter, etc. Only Jesus was given titles of respect, such as Lord, the Anointed One, etc. Even the title 'Apostle' was never added in front of a name in the Bible (as in 'the Apostle Peter'), but that's a common practice among many religions, when speaking of the Apostles today.

Removing the Wicked

Jesus' Instructions About Taking Your Brother to Court

In Matthew the Eighteenth Chapter, Jesus spoke of how Jews should deal with each other when one was guilty of harming another, and he outlined three steps that they should take, ending with the words (verse 17), ‘If he refuses to listen even to the congregation, then let him become as a man of the nations, or as a tax collector to you.’

Although many have concluded that Jesus was discussing how to handle such matters within the Christian Congregation, we have to realize that the Christian Congregation hadn’t been formed yet, and that Jesus wasn’t giving these instructions just to Christians. Rather, he was speaking to Jews in general, and referring to what the Bible calls ‘the congregation of IsraEl.’ So his instructions here, were to be kind to each other and try to work things out among themselves, before taking such matters before their religious court (the Sanhedrin), synagogue, or the Roman authorities.

These instructions are very similar to what Jesus said at Matthew 5:25, 26:
‘If someone has a lawsuit against you,
Settle it quickly before going to court.
Then there will be not a chance,
That you’ll fall into the hands of the judge,
And from the judge to the bailiff,
And you end up being thrown into prison.
I tell you this for a fact:
If that should happen to you,
You won’t be released ‘til you’ve paid your last cent.’

Paul's Instructions About Dealing With a Serious Wrongdoer

However, in First Corinthians (after the formation of the Christian Congregation), Paul laid out some procedural guidelines on how to deal with ‘those called brothers’ who are guilty of serious and un-repented sins. This matter was raised when a brother in Corinth was said to be guilty of ‘taking his father’s wife’ as his own. Such a thing, even if the wife was widowed, was very serious in God’s eyes, for the Old Law shows that it is the same as uncovering the nakedness of one’s father (see Leviticus 18:7, 8). And if this man was having sex with the wife of his living father, that was even worse and creating a public scandal among the Jews. So, Paul’s instructions were for Christians to ‘judge such matters’ and to ‘remove the wicked man from among yourselves.’ What did this entail?

Thereafter, notice what Paul said should be done (at 1 Corinthians 5:11), ‘However, now I’m writing you to quit associating with anyone called a brother who is immoral, greedy, an idol worshiper, an insulter, a drunkard, or an extortionist. Don’t even eat with a person like that!’

You can see that he didn’t say to stop talking to the person, just to not treat the person as a friend who you would eat with. Of course, in those early days of Christianity, most of their congregational meetings were held in private homes (not ‘synagogues’ or public meeting places), so exclusion from the congregation likely meant that the offender was no longer welcome at their (private) meetings.

For more information on how this problem was resolved, see the Note in 2 Corinthians, Accepting a Repentant Sinner Back Into the Congregation.

'Marking'

There seems to be a similar instruction at 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15, where Paul wrote, ‘And if anyone isn’t willing to obey the things we wrote in this letter; Note this, and don’t associate with him, to shame him. However, don’t think of him as an enemy, council him as a brother.’

Unfortunately, many religious groups have failed to recognize what Paul was talking about here, and as the result, they have created an entirely new category of shunning, which they call 'Marking.' But notice that Paul seems to have been talking about perhaps a single person in the congregation in Thessalonica who didn't work for a living but did a lot of visiting to get free meals; and in the process, he or she was becoming a busybody and spreading gossip. So Paul wrote, 'semeioo' (say-mi-o'-o), meaning (according to NASB Word Usage), take special note, and yes, even mark. However, he didn't say, mark him, but simply, note. So, Paul doesn't appear to have been giving Christians another group of reasons for giving their brothers 'the cold shoulder.' He was simply telling the brothers there not to invite him (or her) in for free meals.

John's Instruction About How to Deal With 'Anti-Christs'

Then John (the Apostle) gave similar instructions a 2 John 7, when he was talking about people in the Christian Congregation who ‘have strayed [back] into the world and won’t admit that Jesus the Anointed One came in the flesh.’ He referred to them as the ‘AntiChrists,’ and instructed (at 2 John 10, 11): ‘If anyone comes to you and doesn’t bring this teaching (of the Anointed One), don’t welcome him into your homes or even greet him; because, whoever greets him shares in the wicked things he does.’

So, in the case of someone who denies that there was a Jesus (the AntiChrists), such individuals shouldn’t even be greeted on the street. However, these instructions don’t seem to be added to what was said by Jesus and Paul, because the circumstances were different. Also, notice that these added directions from John were penned almost sixty years after what Jesus said on the matter, and about forty years after the writings of Paul. So as you can see, there were no instructions that forbade talking to errant Christians during most of the First Century.

Those Who Disagree

Would this same action (not to welcome him or even greet him) be taken against anyone who disagrees on some doctrinal matter? No, because; notice what actually Paul wrote about this at Romans 16: 17, ‘Now, I beg you brothers; keep an eye on those who are creating divisions and setting traps by going against the teachings that you’ve learned… avoid them.’ So, Paul’s instructions were to ‘keep and eye on’ (gr. scopein) them and to ‘avoid’ them (gr. ecclenete ap auton – incline away from them), not cut them off from the congregation. For more information, see the Note in 1 Corinthians, Should Christians Agree on Everything?

Serious Offenses

Now, Paul did speak of several types of unrighteous actions that may have been worthy of shunning for the sake of the safety and good name of the Christian Congregation, which include:

· Sexually immorality

· Idol worshiping

· Adultery

· Homosexual behavior (gays and men who have sex with men)

· Thievery

· Greed

· Drunkenness

· Insulting

· Extortion.

Religious Interpretations

Through the years, expulsions of notorious members from Christian congregations have taken many forms. Catholics, for example, call such removal excommunication. However, they limit these disciplines to just those that offend their Church. Yet, other groups may disfellowship or expel unrepentant sinners for reasons that are closer to those outlined by Paul, while many religions just ignore Paul’s instructions altogether and object to taking any such actions against members who sin in vile and notorious ways.

In certain cases, religious groups have adopted the extreme view that the sanctions recommended by Jesus, Paul, and John are cumulative and that they must take all the actions listed above against those who are guilty of any of the practices listed in those combined verses, including even those who may disagree over doctrinal points (heretics). These religions forbid associating with or even talking to persons whom they judge to be violators in matters of business, morality, or doctrines. And even after such wrongdoers have repented, such religions may impose further disciplinary sanctions on them. Of course, these views and actions can’t be supported from Bible texts.

In addition, some religions have gone so far as to ban normal conversations with ones’ own family members when they are guilty of any of the offenses listed above. Is this a correct understanding?

It would seem that whenever there are no clear written Biblical guidelines (as in the case of how to treat erring family members), Christians should turn to basic Scriptural law. And God’s Law requires wives to respect their husbands, husbands to love their wives, children to obey their parents, for everyone to respect their mothers and fathers, and for each one to provide for those who are in their own households. Anything less than that would fit the description that Paul gave of how Godless people would act in ‘the last days’ (at 2 Timothy 3:3), which says, ‘They won’t love their families (gr. astorge) or be willing to agree on anything.’

Such sanctions obviously go beyond Paul’s instructions at First Corinthians the Fifth Chapter, and they stray into conflict with Jesus’ words to the Pharisees as found at Matthew 15:6-9, which say, ‘So, [you are really saying] that [you] shouldn’t honor [your] parents at all. And when you do this, you are nullifying the Word of God with your traditions. You hypocrites! How well Isaiah prophesied about you when he said, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me! It’s a waste for them to keep worshiping Me, because they preach the teachings of men as commandments.’

Reptiles and Birds

The Greek word that we have translated as 'slithering animals' herein, is herpeton, which is where the English word reptile comes from, as does herpetology – a study of reptiles. However, from the context, we (the translators) have concluded that the Bible wasn't using this word to refer to the specific animal variety, but to its characteristic of slithering or crawling on the ground. This fact is born out by the types of animals that the IsraElites were forbidden to eat (in the book of Leviticus), and listed among the herpeton are insects, weasels, and mice. So in most instances, we have rendered the word herpeton as slithering animal (or creature).

We have taken a similar liberty with the Greek word peteina, which is usually translated birds, but it literally means winged creatures, because bats are listed among them in Leviticus.

So, whereas modern science may have grouped all animals into types, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, insects, fish, etc, the Bible groups them into flying creatures, wild animals, cattle, slithering things, and things that live in (or come from) the water. This difference doesn't appear to be the result of a lack of recognition (on the part of Bible writers) of basic animal types, but rather, it stems from the ways they are grouped to describe all possible animal species.

Resurrection

It has often been said that the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (Old Testament) don't really speak of the hope of a resurrection of the dead. However, the Hebrew word, which might be rendered as resurrection, is simply never translated that way in most other Bibles. But in the Greek Septuagint version of the OT, the word for resurrection (anastasia) appears several times.

For example: we find it first used in the song that HanNah sang to Jehovah after she had offered her young son SamuEl to serve at God's Sacred Tent (in First Samuel 2:8). This is particularly interesting, for, although most would consider her words just a record of an unimportant song, the woman spoke a truly inspired and important prophecy, which applied back then and is still being fulfilled in our day. Yet, resurrections had apparently never been seen on earth before her time. For more information, see the linked document, The Resurrection.

Resurrection of the Righteous

The English word resurrection comes from the Greek word, anastasia (that's right, the female name Anastasia means resurrection), which could also be translated as, 'stand again.'

At Luke 14:14, Jesus spoke of 'the resurrection of the righteous.' What was he referring to here? Well, Paul spoke of the same thing at Acts 24:15, where he said, 'I have this hope in God … that there is going to be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.'

And at John 5:28, 29, Jesus said, 'Don't be surprised at this, because the hour is coming when everyone in the tombs will hear his voice and come out; those who did good things to a resurrection of life and those who practiced what was really bad, to a resurrection of judgment.'

So from the above, it appears as though there is a hope of a resurrection of all, except those whom the Bible refers to as having been condemned to 'the garbage dump' or 'the lake of fire.'

For more information, refer to the document, The Resurrection.

Revelation 20:5

In other Bibles, Revelation 20:5 reads, 'The rest of the dead don't come to life until the end of the thousand years. This is the first resurrection.'

Though the familiar description of the resurrection has been quoted for years and used as a basis for many religious doctrines, the words shown in bold above aren't found in the Bible's oldest manuscript of the Revelation, the Codex Sinaiticus. Due to this and their obvious parenthetical nature, we have decided that they were a later, spurious addition, and we have chosen not to include them.

Revelation and Truth

How did JoShua learn of God's decisions? The text at Numbers 27:21 tells us, 'Then he must stand alongside EliEzer the Priest, and whenever they come before Jehovah to ask for the judgments of the Revelation, they must do whatever he says.'

The Greek word that we have translated as Revelation is delon. And while other Bibles have translated it with the Hebrew word urim, or urim and thumim, the Greek word from the Septuagint just means revelation.

Delon is a conjugation of the word delosin, which is found at Exodus 28:26, where God told Moses (when He was describing the High Priest's official clothes), 'You are to put the Revelation and the Truth (gr. ten delosin kai ten aletheian) on the Expression of Judgment, and Aaron will wear it on his chest when he enters the Holy Place before Jehovah.'

Unfortunately, this description is only found in the Greek Septuagint, where exactly what the Revelation and the Truth is, isn't identified. However, tradition has it that this item, which was referred to in the Hebrew text as the Urim and Thumim, was used in some way to indicate God's decisions. And according to the wording, JoShua was to stand next to the High Priest who wore this item on his chest, to determine God's will.

Rhinoceros

The Greek word monokerotos (found at Numbers 23:22 and 24:8) has been translated as unicorn and as wild ox in other Bibles. However, we believe that our choice of rhinoceros has the same probability of being accurate as do the other options.

Notice that the Greek words mono (one) and kerotos (horn) literally means unicorn, a mythical beast that was thought of as a horse with a single horn between its eyes. And it is our opinion that the myth developed from the fanciful ideas of people during the Dark and Middle Ages .

However, other Bibles also translate the word as wild ox. Why? According to one reference (the World Book Dictionary), monokerotos is a 'two-horned animal, possibly a wild ox or aurochs,' and it was 'mistranslated from the Hebrew word re'em.'

And while that conclusion could be true, we would have to assume that this mistranslation was carried over to the Greek Septuagint texts, which we don't believe is likely. So, we have chosen a wild animal that meets the description of having one horn, the rhinoceros, which once roamed from Africa to the Orient.

Rich Man and Lazarus

This parable of Jesus has been quoted for centuries in attempts to prove the existence of a Hell Fire. However, was this what Jesus was explaining there?

Notice the context: At Luke 16:14-16 we read, 'Now, the Pharisees (who loved silver) were listening to these things and were looking at him with contempt. So he said to them, 'You are the ones who claim to be righteous in front of men, but God knows your hearts. Things that are considered important by men are disgusting in God's eyes.'

With the above words in mind, notice the next two points that Jesus makes:

First (at Luke 16:16-18) he condemned the Pharisees by saying that 'anyone who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery' – so much for righteousness, because divorce was common among them.

Then (at Luke 16:19-31) Jesus tells the story of a 'rich man' (like the Pharisees) and a 'beggar' (like the common people) who both 'died,' and of the outcome for each of them.

How were the Pharisees like the rich man? Well, not only were many of them materially rich, but they were also considered 'spiritually rich' by the common people. However, with the death of Jesus, this condition was to be changed, for they would no longer be viewed as the spiritual leaders of God's people.

Jesus also spoke of a 'poor man' class that he named Lazarus (a common Jewish name at the time). This man also 'died.'

Notice that Lazarus hadn't really done anything righteous; all Jesus tells us is that he was extremely poor. However, Jesus says that he was 'carried off into the favored (bosom) position of AbraHam (not heaven).'

Realize that this lowly, begging condition of Lazarus is similar to what the common people of IsraEl (such as Jesus' disciples) were in spiritually, prior to that time. But Jesus was to change all of that after his death, by elevating common people (spiritual beggars) to a favored position, when he offered them the opportunity to become kings in God's Kingdom.

So, the second point that Jesus made (and which the Pharisees doubtlessly, at least partially understood) is that; because they had failed to learn from the Law and the Prophets, their high position was being taken from them and given to common people.

So, this isn't a tale that describes the torture of Hell Fire, it was a verbal picture (or parable) that served as a warning to the Pharisees. For more information, see the linked document, Is There a Burning Hell?

Rulers of Persia and Greece

While men may only guess about things that happen in the heavens, a mighty messenger gave the Prophet DaniEl a remarkable insight as to what actually happens there, in DaniEl the Tenth Chapter. For, this is where the messenger (likely GabriEl) tells of how his coming to DaniEl was thwarted by 'the highest ruler over the Persians.'

Who was this highest ruler? Well, the only individual powerful enough to stand in the way of a messenger of God is another spirit person, and this one wasn't friendly. From the context, we can see that he took an unseen lead over the realm of the Medo-Persian empire. Where did he get such power? Remember that the great opposer of God, who is also known as Satan and the Devil, later offered 'all the kingdoms of the world' to Jesus as an enticement to serve him (see Matthew 4:8, 9); so he obviously has power over this world and has used the offer of power to other spirit sons of God, in order to bring them under his influence and ways.

Notice then, that God had thereafter allowed His mighty messenger to bring about a war between Persia and Greece, whereupon a new unseen 'highest ruler' would take dominance. So, we must assume that all great world powers have had their unseen, wicked spirit rulers.

Salt

At Matthew 5:13, it is recorded that Jesus said:
'You are the salt of the earth,
But if salt should lose all its strength,
In what will it then taste salty?
It will be strong in nothing at all,
And thrown outside to be walked on.'

What is the point of this parable? From the parallel account in Luke, we learn that Jesus was talking to his followers about the responsibilities that come with being his disciples. And his point was that anyone who chooses to become his disciple and then changes his mind, is as worthless as salt that has no taste.

When (if ever) does salt lose its taste? Well, what most of us think of when we speak of salt, is common table salt (sodium chloride). However, as any chemistry student knows, there are several different types of salt, most of which have no salty flavor. And often, when salt is found in or on the ground in desert areas, the salt that is collected is actually a combination of sodium chloride and other salts (such as borax).

Where mixed salts are used to flavor foods, high humidity can leach the sodium chloride from the mixture, leaving a tasteless salt that people have no use for, so 'it is thrown outside to be walked on.' And being 'thrown outside' is the fate of Christians who are called by God, but who later decide that they don't wish to pay the costs of being a disciple of Jesus.

Salvation

Although the term 'getting saved' is used throughout the Bible, we gain a real sense of the meaning of this term from Acts 16:29, 30, which tells of a Greek jailer (someone who was unfamiliar with Christianity and its terms) who asked Paul and Silas, 'Lords, what must I to do to get saved?' And they replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.'

The question that naturally come to mind here is, what the jailer thought that he and his family were going to be saved from. For, going back to the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (O.T.), the only mention of salvation appears to have been in connection with being saved through the destruction of IsraEl or Jerusalem. However, this man and his family didn't live anywhere near Jerusalem, so they weren't in danger of being destroyed when that city was conquered by the Romans in 70-C.E. Therefore, it doesn't seem likely that he was talking about a physical salvation from a coming destruction.

Among modern Christians, however, the term 'salvation' has come to mean 'being saved from damnation.' And something like that must have been what the man was referring to, since there was no indication that he and his family were in immanent danger from another source. Yet, the question and the answer he was given are still a bit philosophical, since we really don't know what was going through the man's mind when he asked it.

However, is simple 'belief in Jesus' all that is required for 'salvation from damnation?' In this case, there was a lot more that the jailer needed to understand, because, as a virtual pagan, there was a world of things for him to learn about monotheism, Christian conduct, the resurrection, and of God's Kingdom. So, much more than just belief in Jesus would actually have been required for them to be saved. This is why the account continues with the words, 'Then they told him and all those in his house about the Word of God.'

Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians today are actually in the the same condition as that jailer, before Paul and Silas 'told him and all those in his house about the Word of God.' For, many still don't understand Christian living (Jesus' instructions on morality and love, for example); so, notice what Jesus himself said at Matthew 7:22, 23, 'In that day, many will say to me, Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, and perform many great works in your name? Then I'll admit to them: I never knew you! Get away from me you lawbreakers!'

Therefore, it appears as though more than simple belief is required. For, to keep from being a 'lawbreaker' and in order to be 'known' by Jesus, a person must believe in him and in everything that he taught, including understanding his instructions on how to live a life as one of his followers.

And who will actually be saved? Jesus answered this question himself when he said what was recorded at Matthew 24:13, 'But he who endures to the end will be saved.' So, in order for that jailer and his family to continue in a 'saved' condition, they had to follow a faithful course to the end of their lives.

Thus, from the above, we must conclude that; while belief in Jesus is required for salvation, knowledge of how to live a Christian life is also required. And to continue in this saved condition, one must maintain a clean relationship with God until 'the end.' That is, until the end of their lives, or until the coming of Jesus.

Satan, Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub

It is appropriate that the heavenly name of the great Opposer and Slanderer of God is never given in the Bible. However, several terms (and one mistakenly) have been used to describe him. Here is a list of those descriptions:

· Satan: This is a Hebrew word meaning, opposer, resistor, and a wily person who does things just to serve his own interests. It was applied to the Evil One, because of his opposition to God. And so, to keep from misleading people into thinking of Satan as a name, it is translated as 'the Opposer' herein.

· Devil: This is the only Greek word (Diabolos) used in the Bible to describe the evil one. The first part of the word, dia, means through, and bolos means throw (it's where we get the English words ball and bowl). So, Devil means one who throws through, which amounts to being a slanderer (using the Greek colloquialism), so that's the way it's translated herein.

· Lucifer: Lucifer is commonly thought of as another name for the Biblical Opposer. However, this word doesn't appear as a name in most translations of the Bible. It does appear once in the King James Version, at Isaiah 14:12, in which the King of Babylon is referred to as Lucifer, Son of the Morning. However, the original Hebrew words were: Helel ben Shahar or, Day/star, son/of the/dawn. So, there is no direct link in the Bible between the entity known in Hebrew as Satan to Lucifer. Changing the description day star son of the dawn into a name (Lucifer) was done by Augustine, when he was translating the text in IsaiAh from the original Hebrew into Latin.

· BeelZebub: There are eight references in the Bible to this Hebrew noun, and it does refer to the Slanderer. However, once again, this is not a proper name. It appears to be a title. Beel (like Baal) means Lord, and Zebub appears to refer to flies (the insects). So, BeelZebub likely means Lord of Flies.

Is the Opposer (Slanderer or BeelZebub) a real person? All one has to do is look at the titles he was given above to realize that he is. To deny his existence negates the rest of the Bible. For example, when dealing with Adam's sin, why did God adhere so closely to a law, when other options were available to Him? Why didn't he just destroy rebellious Adam and create another man?

The fact is, He created men and His spirit sons (messengers or angels with the ability to choose whether to serve Him or not; so none are automatons. And as a man failed in the Paradise of Pleasure, we can assume (and as the Scriptures support) that there were failures (and rebels) in the heavens also. This is the reason why it became necessary to have a law that clearly outlined what rebellion against God constituted, and what the consequences for violating that law would be. It was obviously for the sake of the millions of millions of heavenly spirit (breath) creatures that the issue of rebellion here on the earth had to be resolved by legal means, and in a way that demonstrated the love and loyalty of God's first-born son, which resulted in the painful need for a 'ransom' (Jesus' death).

The idea (which some religions have promoted) that the Slanderer isn't real, but only a state of mind, creates some conundrums. For example:

· When Jesus was being tempted in the desert, was he simply struggling with the bad within himself rather than against a real, evil personality? If so, we would have to conclude that there was bad in Jesus.

· Is the battle in heaven that is spoken of at Revelation the Twelfth Chapter to be just figurative, and not a real war against the Opposer and his messengers? If so, then in what sense would 'the Opposer' and his 'messengers' lose the battle and be confined to the earth? Also, why would this entity, if just internal evil be 'angry' in knowing that he just has 'a short period of time left?'

· And lastly, when the Opposer entered God's presence and spoke to Him (as spoken of in Job the First Chapter), could we assume that this inherent evil was found in God? That isn't likely.

However, there is some question as to the use of the Greek word Diabolos found at 1 Chronicles 21:1 (in the Greek Septuagint), where 'a slanderer' had urged King David to take a census of Israel. Since Diabolos is a Greek word and First Chronicles was written in Hebrew, we would assume that Diabolos (Slanderer) was substituted for the Hebrew word Satan (Opposer) when the Bible was first translated into Greek. But the text seems to imply that a slanderer, not the Slanderer, had come to David. So, we don't really know if the text implies that the Evil One came to him personally, if it was just an evil spirit that came over or to him, or if some bad human had urged David to defy God and take a census of IsraEl.

Science and Inspiration

Especially in the book of Job do we find some amazingly accurate statements about our universe, which can be used to prove this portion of the Bible inspired and scientific. Note, for example, what is written at Job 26:7, 'He stretches the north wind out on nothing, and on nothing He has hung the earth.' And again, in verse 10, 'By His order the face of the sea is round, from where light reaches to the darkness.'

Why, the fact that the earth is round and hung on nothing wasn't really believed by most people until the time of Christopher Columbus, and the earth wasn't truly proven round to some people until the time of space travel.

And notice the statement at Job 39:38, 'Who poured out the powder that made the earth, and stuck it together like a block of stone?'

Science has just recently concluded that the earth, and much of the universe was formed by clouds of dust. So, is this inspiration or ancient wisdom? We simply don't know, for none of these words were dissertations on scientific revelations; they were poetic discussions of the powers of God.

Remember that; many forms of art (including songs and poetry) are said to be inspired. And if we look at the meaning of that word (inspired), we can see that it means 'breathed in,' or that it comes from God. Can this be so, and can all works that are said to be inspired actually have God's Breath as their source? We don't know for sure, but we do know that all men received their breath (spirit) from God (the Breath of Life), so perhaps we all have a small portion of His power, which goes untapped until we strive for greatness. And perhaps prophetic words are enhanced when one searches for them in the power of verse or song.

Notice, for example, what EliHu said, as recorded at Job 32:8: 'Yet, although there's a spirit in humans, the Breath of the Almighty does the teaching.' So, perhaps we all have some of God's Spirit or Breath, which would explain the power that an unrighteous man such as BalaAm had.

For more information, see the linked documents, 'The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History,' and 'The Powers of God's Holy Spirit.'

Scroll or Book of Life

The first place in the Bible that speaks of the Scroll of Life (in those words specifically) is found in one of the songs of King David (Psalm 69:28), where he wrote, 'From the Scroll of the Living may their names be erased, and among the righteous may their names not be written.' However, the first actual mention of such a scroll timewise, is found in Exodus 32:33, where God said to Moses, 'I'm going to erase [the names] of all those who have sinned against Me from My scroll.'

So, we must assume that as early as the early fifteenth Century B.C.E., God's faithful worshipers had some concept of a record that God keeps of people whom He counts as being 'the living.' And as God Himself pointed out, their names can also be erased from His scroll after they had been written there (so much for the concept of once-saved, always-saved).

What is this Scroll, how does a person get his or her name written in it, and what does this mean for them?

Although God surely needs no actual written record to remember His faithful ones, the phrase 'the Scroll of Life' is mentioned enough times in the Bible to assume that God does remember (or record) the names of those righteous whom He counts among 'the living,' as opposed to those whom He numbers among 'the dead.'

Who are 'the living?' They are likely the same as the ones of whom Jesus spoke at John 5:24, when he said, 'I tell you the truth; He who hears what I say and believes in the One that sent me, will have age-long life… he won't have to be judged, for he has crossed over from death to life!'

So, we must assume that some conscious act of faith by each individual causes him or her to cross over 'from death to life,' and that is likely the time when a person's name is written in the Scroll of Life. Then, as Jesus said, 'He won't have to be judged' thereafter, when he (or she) is resurrected.

What is this act of faith? Today, it would surely be the conscious act of choosing to be baptized. However, since baptism wasn't practiced during the time of David, it appears as though all IsraEl had their names written in that Scroll when they were born into that nation which was chosen by God; and their names remained there for as long as they were faithful. Notice how this concept fits into David's words about their names being erased.

Then at Revelation 20:11, 12, we read of several 'scrolls' being opened and of the 'dead' being judged by the things that are written in those scrolls. Who are these 'dead?' Well, remember that those whose names are written in the Scroll of Life will not be judged, so they aren't the dead. And that (following the order of the series of events described here), all the resurrections will already have taken place before these scrolls are opened (see Revelation 20:4-6); so these dead individuals aren't physically dead any longer, for they are seen to be standing. As the result, this must mean that; Although they are no longer literally dead, they are still counted as dead (or dying). And so they must be judged before their names can be written in the Scroll of Life.

So with this understanding, notice again the exact words of Revelation 20:12: 'Then I saw the dead – the great and the small – standing before the throne, and several scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, which was the Scroll of Life. And the dead were then judged by the things that were written in the scrolls, according to the things that they did.'

Therefore, we must assume that those who remain faithful worshipers of God have their names permanently sealed in God's Scroll of Life upon their deaths and are considered 'the living' by Him. Then, when they are resurrected, there is no need for them to be judged thereafter.

As for 'the dead' whom the Revelation says are 'judged by the things written in the scrolls;' this likely means that they too will be resurrected, but they will be judged by the things they do after the resurrection and during the thousand-year period that the Slanderer is bound and in the pit (See Revelation 20:2-6).

Scroll or Sickle?

There is quite a discrepancy between the rendering of words as found in the Hebrew and Greek texts of Zechariah Chapter Five. For, the Hebrew text tells us that Zechariah saw a flying scroll, but the Greek text calls it a δρέπανον πετόμενον, or flying sickle. Which is correct?

We'll trust the Greek text on this one (although the Hebrew text could also be right), because the thing that he saw was used to bring punishment upon the wicked. Notice that Verse Three tells us: 'This is the curse… the one that crosses the face of the earth. One side brings punishment of death to all thieves, and the other to all who would lie in a courtroom.' So, although a scroll could decree their punishment, a sickle could actually bring the punishment of death.

Seating in the Heavens

It has been argued that Paul's words at Ephesians 2:6, 7 are proof that all those to whom he was writing were going to heaven; for there he wrote, 'He lifted us up and seated us in the heavens in the Anointed Jesus, so that He could show to all those upon whom the ages are coming the tremendous richness of His loving care, by His kindness upon us through the Anointed Jesus.'

However, notice that Paul was speaking of something that had already happened to them, because he spoke of this being seated in the heavens in the past tense, as though it had already happened to them while they were still on the earth. So, what was Paul saying?

To get the sense of these verses, you must first read the previous two verses (4 and 5); for there he wrote, 'But, due to the love that He had for us, God (who is so rich in mercy) made us alive to the Anointed One while we were still dead in our failings. So, His loving care has saved you…'

As you can see; before they became Christians, these people had been considered dead in God's eyes because of their sins; but now God considers them as being alive to (and in) Jesus. So, when Jesus was raised to heaven, their life in Jesus the Anointed One was raised to heaven along with him. Therefore, Paul wasn't speaking of their literally going to heaven; he was saying that their hope (of future life) was then in the heavens with Jesus.

For more information, see the linked document, God's Promise of an Inheritance.

Seed

What is referred to in the Bible as 'the Sacred Mystery of the Seed,' is explained to us for the first time at Galatians 3:16, which says, 'Now, the promises were given to AbraHam and his seed. It doesn't say, to his seeds, as though there were many of them, but just one, to your seed, who is the Anointed One.'

Then the explanation of the identity of this 'seed,' is further expanded at Galatians 3:29, where we read, 'And if you are [part] of the Chosen One, you are really the seed of AbraHam and heirs of the promise.'

The initial prophecy concerning this 'seed' about which Paul was writing, is found at Genesis 3:14, 15, where God condemned the Evil One, whom the Revelation shows was the real voice behind the snake. Notice what this first prophecy in the Bible says, 'Because you did this, you [alone] are doomed to punishment over all the cattle and wild animals of the earth. You will travel on your chest and belly, and you will eat from the ground all the days of your life. I will create hatred between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will watch for your head and you will watch for his heel.'

From the above, we can see that the Evil One (as represented by the snake) would produce a 'seed,' and the woman would produce a 'seed.' However, the woman's seed would conquer the snake and its seed by 'watching' to crush its head. So, this promise to AbraHam that he would produce a 'seed,' was really a clue as to who the 'seed' of Genesis 3:15, 16 would prove to be. Then, at Galatians 3:16, 29, Paul reveals that this seed of the woman is Jesus and those who are 'one' with him… his 'chosen' disciples, who collectively make up the ruling portion of God's Kingdom.

Who is the 'woman' that would produce this seed? The Bible itself answers (at Galatians 4:26), 'But the JeruSalem above is free and she is our mother.'

So, God's heavenly seat of government (the 'JeruSalem above') is God's 'woman,' which would give birth to the rulers of God's Kingdom… Jesus and those who become 'one' with him.

The final unraveling of who 'the snake,' its 'seed,' the 'woman,' and 'her seed' are, can be found at Revelation 12:3-5. See that scripture and the linked notes for further information. Also, for more information, see the linked document, The 'Seed' – God's Kingdom.

Seismos

The Greek words seismos and seismoi are usually thought of as meaning earthquake and earthquakes, for the modern study of earthquakes is called seismology. Therefore, when Jesus was speaking about the signs of his being near, and he said one of the signs would be seismoi (Matthew 24:7), most have assumed that this referred just to a greater frequency of earthquakes.

However, the Greek word seismos appears to actually refer to a shaking or disturbance, which doesn't necessarily imply just earthquakes. For, Matthew used the word (at Matthew 8:24) to describe an agitated sea when Jesus was on a boat with his disciples. Then at 2 Kings 2:11, when the Prophet EliJah was taken into the sky in a flaming chariot, the word that was used to describe the storm that took him, was once again seismos. So, Jesus' use of the word at Matthew 24:7 implies more than just earthquakes. It could be speaking of any natural disasters, such as those brought by earthquakes, high winds, floods, or tsunamis.

It has also been recently brought to our attention that seismos could be translated as turmoil or unrest. So, could Jesus have implied even more than natural disasters in that single word? This is probably so.

Servants

For centuries, the proper translation of the Greek word diakonos has bothered people who wish to create levels of authority within the Christian Congregation. So, to add extra weight to this office, diakonos has been translated into many different titles (rather than just descriptions of a duty) in attempts to blur what it really means in English, just a servant. Words such as 'deacon' (from diakonos), minister, and even the redundancy 'ministerial servant' have been employed. However, what the qualified men who handled the work and odd jobs that were necessary in running the day-to-day affairs of a Christian gathering were called in the First Century, was just servants.

A later position of responsibility that was spoken of by Paul was the appointment of 'elders' or 'overseers' in the emerging Christian congregations. Elders likely had to be males, and their job was to shepherd and teach in the congregations. However, elders were also just servants – that is, servants with a small 's.' For, following Jesus' instructions found at Matthew 23:8-11, all Christians were to be considered as equals; so the taking of titles and the assigning of leaders was contrary to the instructions of Jesus. For, notice what Jesus actually said there: 'But not you! Don't [have people] call you rabbi, for you have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. So, don't address anyone on earth as Father, because there's just One who is your Father, the Heavenly One. Nor should you be called leaders, for you have but one Leader, the Anointed One. However, the greatest among you must be your servant. For, whoever promotes himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be promoted.'

The Scriptures also show that these servants in the congregation were then responsible to meet high standards of conduct and reputation. And although Paul didn't mention it specifically, they were expected to be able to make wise decisions and to show signs of having God's Breath. Notice that these were the qualifications for all who served in the Christian Congregation, since the first requirements to be considered as congregational servants (found at Acts 6:3) were: 'males (gr. andras) … among you who are filled with wisdom and the Breath [of God].'

For more information, see the linked document, Arrangement of the First Christian Churches.

Seven Congregations

After explaining that John's Revelation was a vision of 'the Lord's Day' (Revelation 1:10), the first portion of the book speaks of messages to seven congregations, which (because of the stated period) may represent all faithful congregations, lamp stands, or Christian religions in our time; for notice how all the problems of modern religions are represented by these chosen groups:

· One had fallen from the position it once had

· One was faithful but was infected by the teachings of the Nicolaitans, and some were following the teachings of BalaAm

· One was serving faithfully, but was influenced by a Jezebel

· One was spiritually dead

· One was plagued by the synagogue of the Opposer (possibly a Judaic form of Christianity)

· One was neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm.

So, it appears as though this prophecy is foretelling that the Opposer will infiltrate Christian religion to the core during the Lord's Day, while just a few among them will still be found faithful.

Seven Stars

As Revelation 1:20 says, 'The seven stars signify the messengers of the seven congregations.' See the linked document, Arrangement of the First Christian Churches.

Seventy Weeks

The remarkable prophecy about the seventy weeks that was given to DaniEl (at Daniel 9:24-27), is one that many faithful Jews looked to close to the start of the First Century C.E., in order to determine the time for the coming of the Messiah. And since it hadn't been fulfilled during the period of seventy literal weeks after word had been sent to rebuild the Temple in JeruSalem, they assumed that the prophecy spoke of a period of seventy weeks of years, or a period of four hundred and ninety years. Therefore, since the Anointed One and Leader was to come at the end of seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks (or 483 years), many Jews were looking for the arrival of an anointed king at the time when Jesus actually started his ministry.

When was word first sent to rebuild the Temple in JeruSalem? Most historians agree that it happened in the year 455-B.C.E. So, the Messiah was expected to come some four hundred and eighty-three years later, or in 29-C.E. (we add a year, because it is said that there was no zero year in our calendar), which was the year that Jesus apparently started his work of preaching and gathering his disciples.

As for the last 'week' of seven years; the prophecy showed that, 'during the middle of the seven days, the sacrifice and the drink offering will be lifted away.' So, something would happen then (early in 33-C.E.) that would bring the Old Sacred Agreement to an end… the death of Jesus.

What ended when the seventy weeks were finished? That period (late in 36-C.E.) appears to be the time when the New Sacred Agreement was no longer offered only to the Jews, but to the first Gentiles. Thereafter (after the seventy weeks of years), 'the city and the Holy Place (were destroyed) in a flood … of wars and exterminations,' and 'the disgusting thing that destroys (the armies of Rome) [came into] the Temple.'

Thereafter, JeruSalem lay desolate and its Temple (where a Moslem mosque now stands) has never been rebuilt.

Sexual Immorality

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.

For more information, see the linked document Christian Morality.

Sheep and Goats

At Matthew 25:31-33, it is recorded that Jesus said: 'When the Son of Man arrives in his glory along with all the messengers, he will sit down on his glorious throne, and all nations will be led before him. Then he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he'll put the sheep on his right, but the goats on his left.'

A common misconception about the separating of the sheep and the goats mentioned in these verses, is that it is speaking of Jesus separating the righteous from the unrighteous for what Revelation 16:16 refers to as the Battle of Armageddon. However, that doesn't appear to be the case here, for no battle is mentioned. And according to Revelation 16:13, 14, that great battle is fought against the kings and armies of this world, not within those of Jesus' flock (for more information, see the document, Armageddon – When?).

Rather, you may notice that these words of Jesus at Matthew 25 may be part of a quotation from the prophecy of EzekiEl 34:17, which says, 'And from among you, My sheep; says Jehovah the Lord, {Look!} I'll separate the sheep from the sheep, and the rams from the goats.'

Then the Prophecy in EzekiEl goes on to say (in verses 20-23): 'Because of this, says Jehovah the Lord, {Look!} I'll separate the strong from the weak. For, you pushed them away with your shoulders and sides, and the weak you gored with your horns… you squeezed them out and pushed them aside! So, I will rescue My sheep, and no more will they serve as [your] plunder, for I will judge between ram and ram. I will raise a shepherd for them, and he (David, My servant) will tend them… he'll care and be a shepherd for them; I Jehovah will be their God, and My servant David will rule in their midst… for I Jehovah have spoken.'

So, the EzekiEl prophecy clearly seems to be speaking of the time when Jesus (My servant David) does this separating work… and this appears to be the same thing that Jesus was talking about at Matthew 25:31-33. Therefore, if both prophecies are referring to the same thing, then, let's consider some of the other features of EzekiEl's prophecy.

At EzekiEl 34:13, we read, 'From the nations I'll lead them, and gather them from many regions, then bring them [back] to their land. And on IsraEl's mountains I'll graze them… in the valleys and homes of the land.'

So, despite the similarities of these two prophecies, there appears to be a significant difference between them. For, EzekiEl is speaking of the lost sheep of IsraEl, who in a modern fulfillment would likely be those who call themselves Christians (for more information, see the linked document JeruSalem and 'the IsraEl of God'). But in Matthew's text, it is the people of the nations who are the ones being spoken of just before this separating work happens; and that term (gr. tas ethne) is always used in reference to non-IsraElites. For there (at Matthew 25:31) we read, 'all nations will be led before him'… and this gives us the impression that peoples of the nations (those who are not Israel) are being separated as either sheep or goats.

However, there may be a corruption of the text in Matthew (a not-uncommon problem), which ties the nations a bit too closely to the sheep and the goats. For, notice that 'the nations' are also mentioned in the EzekiEl text, and a couple of missed words when quoting Jesus would imply the wrong thing. So, we will keep an open mind on the true meaning of this verse. But if Jesus was in fact quoting the prophecy of EzekiEl 34 here, then he probably didn't have reference to an Armageddon or pre-Armageddon judging of all the peoples of the world, as most think, but rather, he would have been talking about judging those whom he deemed to be 'his people,' before giving the righteous an inheritance in their homeland, a spiritual or physical 'IsraEl.'

Notice that in the continuing words of this unfulfilled prophecy (as found at EzekiEl 36:38), we are told, 'So all the cities that were desolation, will become filled with the sheep among men, and they will know that I am Jehovah.' It is these words that specifically speak of 'sheeplike people' living in 'cities,' which seem to indicate that those whom Jesus finds to be 'sheep' are not taken from among all mankind.

So, could 'the sheep' that Jesus spoke of be literal IsraElites? If the land that the prophecy says they will be returned to is literally in modern-day Palestine, this would be the logical assumption. However, then 'the New Sacred Agreement' that Jesus made with his faithful followers, which agreement was also offered to gentile converts after Pentecost 33-C.E., would be invalidated. Therefore, we would assume that those whom Jesus finds to be 'sheep' will be selected from among a much larger group of those who have concluded a Sacred Agreement with God, but who alone will be found worthy to 'inherit the Kingdom.'

Then, take another look at the reward for those who are found to be sheep, because Jesus said they will 'Inherit the Kingdom that has been prepared for [them] from the founding of the world.' (for more information about the possible meaning of these words, see the linked document 'God's Promise of an Inheritance' under the subheading A Contradiction?). And the outcome for those found to be 'goats' is to be 'cursed into the fire of the ages that was prepared for the Opposer and his messengers.'

So, does this mean that 'the goats' are eternally damned? Well look at what Jesus went on to say (in verse 46): 'Then these will go off into age-long punishment, but the righteous into age-long life.' We realize that this quotation reads quite differently from the words found in other Bible translations, but notice the word-for-word rendering of the Greek text: 'kai And apeleusontai will/go/away outoi these eis into kolasin punishment aiōniŏn ages oi de but dikaioi righteous eis into zoen life aiōniŏn ages.' So, a closer look at the actual words could imply a period of continued human life.

What is the basis of the judgment which determines who the 'sheep' are and who the 'goats' are? As Jesus said, it all depends on how they treat his 'brothers.' And just who are Jesus' brothers? He said (at Matthew 12:49): 'Whoever does all that my Father in heaven wishes is my brother, sister, and mother.' For more information, see the linked commentary, The Sheep and the Goats

Should Christians Agree on Everything?

At Exodus 23:2 we read these wise words: 'You must not join a mob to do bad things, nor should you agree with the majority when they are wrong.' In Greek this reads, 'Ouk esemeta pleinon epi kakia ou prostethese meta plethous ekklinon meta pleinon oste ekklinai krisin,' or, 'Not join the/majority on bad or go/along with the/majority's inclinations with many who are/inclined/toward judgment.' Agreed, the words are different, but the thought is the same.

Most religions do in fact teach that; among their leaders, the minority must agree with the majority, to show harmony… as in a form of Democracy. And to prove that this is the right thing to do, religious leaders like to quote Paul's words, as found at 1 Corinthians 1:10, which say, 'Now, through the name of our Lord Jesus the Chosen One, I want to encourage you brothers to all teach the same thing. There shouldn't be any divisions among you, but you must all learn to think the same way and share the same opinions.'

So, was Paul encouraging Christians to go along with the majority, even when they are wrong on doctrines and spiritual issues? Those who are in charge might like to tell us that this is so. But God's commandment at Exodus 23:2 says that this should never be done. So then, was God contradicting Paul? No, for notice the problem that Paul was discussing at 1 Corinthians 1:11-13: 'Now, those of the house of Chloe have told me that you do a lot of quarreling, my brothers. What I mean is that; some of you are saying, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas, or I follow the Anointed; so the Anointed One is divided. Why, Paul wasn't hung on a pole for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?'

As you can see, he was addressing a situation in the Corinthian congregation where the group was becoming divided into various sects or followings. And what Paul was saying, was that they should be trying to find harmony in the teachings of Jesus, not that they should follow the majority, right or wrong. There should be unity in TRUTH, not in following the crowd. Please see our linked document, What is Truth?.

Signal of Release

As we have pointed out, some favorite expressions have been changed in this Bible translation to provide you a better, more accurate description of things, places, and events. And we have had to change the wonderful, joyful term 'Jubilee Year,' to reflect the actual words as they appear in the Greek text of the Bible. At Leviticus 25:11, notice that the Greek words found there (which are usually translated as Jubilee of Release) are apheseos semassia, or release signal. So, no Jubilee is actually mentioned in the Greek text.

Also, notice that the 'freeing' that was to be done in this year (one out of every fifty), such as the releasing IsraElite slaves, was not exclusive to that year alone. For, later in the book of Deuteronomy we read (at Deuteronomy 15:12-14): 'And if your brother (a Hebrew man or woman) should be sold to you, he may serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you should set him free. And when you set him free, don't send him away empty-handed! You must give him provisions from your flock, your grain, and your wine… as Jehovah your God has blest you, that's how you must treat him.'

In addition, all debts were to be forgiven every seven years, for Deuteronomy 15:1-4 tells us, 'Every seven years you must cancel debts, and these are the rules: You must cancel any debts that your neighbor owes you personally, and you must not ask him to pay you back, because this is a cancellation [of debts] to Jehovah your God. You may ask strangers to pay whatever they owe you, but not your brothers… you must cancel their debts. That way, there won't be any poor people among you and Jehovah your God will surely bless you in the land that He's giving you as your inheritance.'

So, apparently the only difference between the seventh years and the Release Years, had to do with the return of inherited land.

Sin of Aaron's Sons

In Leviticus the Tenth Chapter, we read of something that was done by Aaron's sons Nadab and AbiUd, which caused them to be destroyed by God, and for some of their priestly relatives to be cut off from IsraEl by being driven away from the camp. So, surely this was a very serious matter. What had they done?

We can't be sure, simply because the Bible doesn't tell us any more. However, after that, there is no mention of the Priests being allowed to use the sacred incense for any purpose other than on the incense Altar, which was inside the Tent of Proofs. And any person that used it, or made any of it for other purposes, was to be destroyed. So, perhaps their sin involved misuse of the sacred incense.

Why had they done such a thing? The answer to this is implied by God's instructions that followed, 'You and your sons must not drink any wine or liquor before you enter the Tent of Proofs or before you approach the Altar, so you don't die.' So apparently, Aaron's two sons (and some of his relatives) had been drinking too much alcohol and got drunk, which led Nadab and AbiUd to do something foolish and disrespectful.

Notice also Moses' instructions to the remaining Priests… that they shouldn't bare their heads or rip their clothes over the deaths of these men. They weren't to show any signs of mourning for those who have been destroyed by Jehovah, or any support for those who were cut off from the camp. Rather, their actions were to show the rest of IsraEl that they were in full support of God's discipline.

Soldier in a War

Many Bible translators seem to have missed the point of Paul's words to Timothy, which are found at 1 Timothy 1:18. Here he mentioned a prophecy (or prediction) concerning Timothy. One translation (for example) says that he will 'wage the fine warfare,' while another says that he will 'fight the good fight;' and other Bibles read similarly. However, the Greek words, hina strateun en autais ten kalen strateian, seem to indicate a prediction that Timothy would be a soldier or warrior (strateun) in a good (kalen) war (strateian). And this appears to be the logical way to translate those words, because both letters to Timothy appear to follow the theme of a soldier in battle. For example; Paul refers to him as a 'fine soldier' at 2 Timothy 2:3, 4.

Sons of God

The Greek expression uioi tou Theou literally means sons of/the God. The term was originally only used when speaking of men or heavenly messengers who are God's direct creations, never as the progeny of men, who are referred to as uioi tou anthropois – the sons of men. However, the term was later applied to adopted sons of God in Hosea and in the writings of Paul. Therefore, 'the sons of God' referred to at Genesis 6:3 must be speaking of God's heavenly sons, since the only earthly son of God up to that time was Adam. Also notice that the women it speaks of there were not called 'the daughters of God,' but 'the daughters of men.'

This raises the question: Do God's heavenly messengers have sex organs that would be aroused by seeing beautiful women? No, for Jesus indicated (at Matthew 22:30) that sexual reproduction isn't a part of heavenly life. So, why would 'sons of God' want to come to earth and take 'all that they chose' to be their women? Apparently, the motivation was the same as the Slanderer's – lust for power. So they likely materialized human bodies (with sex organs) and fathered children that grew to be 'giants' and 'famous men' in their time.

Apparently, unrighteous men were still recounting the exploits of these hybrid giants in Moses' time, making them (as Moses wrote) 'famous' (see Genesis 6:4). The Greek Gods and fabled strong men, such as Hercules, come immediately to mind.

Sor or Tyre?

In the Septuagint, EzekiEl's prophesy (found in Chapters 26 and 27) concerning the city of Tyre, speaks of it as Sor, not Tyre. This is because Tyre was built on a rocky land, and Sor means rocks. As the result, for clarification, we have rendered Sor as both Tyre and as Rock, depending on its use in the text.

Soul

The Greek word psyche (as in psychology) has been translated many ways, including soul, life, etc. However, psyche actually means something that breathes. It is used in the Bible to describe both breathing animals and breathing humans. So by definition, a soul cannot leave the body, because a soul is what the living body (whether human or animal) is (see Genesis 2:7).

In ancient Greece, philosophers eventually added another meaning to psyche: The inner person (as opposed to the person that others see and come to know). And with time, the pagan religion of Greece started to teach that this inner person is its own entity and can never die (is immortal). Over the centuries, this pagan Greek doctrine thereafter crept into the Christian religions. Please see the Wikipedia definition Soul for more history of the word.

However, such Greek philosophical thought never influenced Jesus and his Apostles. So, they consistently used psyche to indicate a living person or animal. Therefore, the later teaching that the soul is immortal stands in direct conflict with Jesus' promise of a resurrection, because, if a person is immortal (can never die) he/she can never be resurrected (brought back to life).

In addition, the teaching of the immortality of the human soul is totally without support from the Bible. For the word immortal(ity) (Gr: athanasia or undying) is only mentioned in the Bible in two places, and it isn't used with or applied to the word soul in either case. Both of these scriptures show that immortality is only given by God as a reward for righteousness. And as EzekiEl 18:4 says, 'The person (gr. psyche or soul) that is sinning will die (gr. apothaneitai).'

Of course, there are places in the Bible where the word soul means more than just a living, fleshly body. For example, God is recorded to have spoken of 'My Soul' in several places. Obviously, God is much more than just a 'soul' as most people think of that term, and He surely wasn't talking about His having a human body. So we must conclude that what He was referring to is His life or His person.

Then there are Jesus' words found at Matthew 10:28, which read, 'Don't be afraid of those who kill the body but can't kill the person (psyche or soul). Rather, be afraid of him who can destroy both the person (soul) and the body in the garbage dump.' Here, Jesus is using the word psyche (soul) to refer to the value of life that remains with God until the resurrection. And he obviously isn't referring the soul as immortal in this instance, because he says God will destroy (gr. apolesai) the [unrighteous] soul or person.

Unfortunately, no single word can be used to translate psyche in every possible Bible application, so various terms are used herein, depending on the circumstances, but always in an attempt to harmonize with the meaning.

Space, Expanse, or Firmament?

The Greek word that we have translated as space several times in the First Chapter of Genesis and in the Psalms is stereoma. We are sure that many readers will recognize this as the root word for stereophonic and for stereo (3-D) photography. It means something that has depth, and is often used to describe something solid. This is why stereoma has often been translated as firmament in other Bibles. Firmament is an English word that was likely made up by early people to describe something they didn't understand, the depth of space. However, the earliest Bible writers used the right word to describe the sky and all that is above it.

Spanking

We have translated the words at Proverbs 13:24 as saying, 'He who doesn't care, won't spank [his son]; but he who loves, will carefully correct him.'

Now, we realize that the words which were actually said, were: 'ος φειδεται της βακτηριας μισει τον υιον αυτου ο δε αγαπων επιμελως παιδευει,' or, 'the/one sparing the rod dislikes the son his, but the loving/one carefully corrects.' Why have we made this change?

Well, the word rod (or staff) in English implies a large, hard object that can be used to maim or cause injury, while the meaning of the text obviously implies something more like a switch or a stick that can be used for a spanking. Yet, even this mild action is found to be offensive among many modern peoples, and some would choose to have Solomon say, 'He who doesn't correct his son doesn't care for his son,' but that's not what Solomon said. Yes, careful correction is also what Solomon spoke of, but the text shows that he was speaking of well-thought-out discipline, which may require a spanking.

That such corporal punishment is meant can be found by reading a similar verse, Proverbs 23:13, which says, 'You should not avoid correcting a child, for if you spank him (hit him with a rod or staff) he surely won't die.'

Spiritism

The Greek word that we have translated as, involvement in the occult, at Galatians 5:20, is pharmakia. This word has been translated many ways over the years, to fit particular religious 'hot buttons.' Some have applied it to forbid spiritism and others have applied it to forbid the use of illicit drugs (due to the 'pharmacy' connection). However, the word refers specifically to the use of 'magic potions' that are supplied by mystics, such as witches and the like. And some connection to modern-day (prescribed and patent) medicines as sold in drug stores could be implied. However, the difference is that modern medicines aren't claimed to have 'magical' or 'occult' powers.

The particular Greek/English interlinear Bible that we used when preparing this version, translated pharmakia as druggery. However, the nuance that druggery implies in American English simply isn't correct. It suggests the misuse (abuse) of mind-altering drugs… and that isn't the primary meaning of pharmakia. While mind-altering drugs would likely have played a role in ancient potions, the corrupt act mentioned here clearly refers to any involvement in occult practices and contact with the demons.

Spirits in Prison

At 1 Peter 3:19 we read about 'spirits' (literally, breaths) who were put into 'prison' for the bad acts they committed during the time of Noah. Genesis 6:1-4 speaks of them as 'sons of God' (or 'angels'), and it tells of their coming to earth and marrying 'the daughters of men' (see the above link and the linked Notes in the scripture). Then 2 Peter 2:4 says that they were put into 'Tartarus.'

Peter's use of the word Tartarus here, has long been a cause of concern to thoughtful Bible students. In other Bibles, this Greek word has wrongfully been translated as Hell and Hell Fire. However, the term refers specifically to the place where gods (not humans) were sent. And as the result of past misunderstandings of the meaning of this word, this is where the idea came from that the Slanderer and his demons are in Hell watching over its flames and the torture of human souls.

The question that has so concerned many Bible students is: Why did Peter use this pagan term that came from Greek Mythology to describe the condition of unfaithful messengers of God? The appearance here is that the Bible had its roots in Greek myths. However, the opposite is true.

Anyone who takes the time to carefully consider Greek Mythology will notice close (but sometimes opposite) parallels to Bible stories told in Genesis Chapters Two through Six. Stories such as Hercules and the Golden Apples, Medusa, immoral Gods who came to earth, etc., seem to closely resemble the stories of Adam and the forbidden fruit, the snake in the Paradise, and the sons of God who came to earth and lived as humans. So, it isn't surprising that they also had a name for the place where these sons of God (the gods) were sent after the downpour. And since this correct idea was common at the time, Peter just used their word to convey what he was talking about to his readers.

Since these '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.

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.' In other words, Tartarus appears not to be a fixed place, but rather to a dark condition of earthly imprisonment where they live in association with things both animate and inanimate.

Spiritual Jews

During Jesus' three-and-a-half year preaching campaign (C.E. 29-33), he had specifically instructed his disciples not to preach to anyone other than the people living in Palestine. The reason for this, was to allow 'the Sons of the Kingdom' (the Jews) first choice to be rulers (kings) of God's Kingdom. However, about three-and-a-half years after they rejected and murdered His Son, God started selecting members of the ruling portion of that Kingdom from among 'people of the nations' (gr. te ethne).

Of course, for Jesus' IsraElite disciples, it was hard to understand that there would be a change in the ethnic backgrounds of the Kingdom ruling group. So, despite repeated clues (such as what Jesus said at Acts 1:8 about their preaching 'to the ends of the earth'), it came as a shock to them when the first 'gentiles' were converted and received God's Holy Breath, which indicated His adoption of them as 'spiritual sons.'

This misunderstanding of the meaning of God's Kingdom continued to plague Jewish Christians until the destruction of JeruSalem and its Temple in 70-C.E. So Paul, throughout his letters to the congregations, continued to warn of Jewish 'Christians' who were trying to teach adherence to the Old Law and circumcision.

It was difficult for these Jews to understand that God's promises were no longer centered on the nation of IsraEl (with its Law, Temple, and Levitical Priesthood), and on earthly JeruSalem in particular, as the center of that rulership. And this is still misunderstood by many who claim to be Christians today, because they believe that Jews are still 'God's Chosen People,' and that the Bible's prophecies center around what is happening and will happen around earthly JeruSalem. They don't remember Jesus' words at Luke 13:35, 'Look! Your house has been taken from you!'

For more information, see the linked document, JeruSalem and the IsraEl of God.

Spiritually Impoverished

While most people think that what are called 'the Beatitudes' (Jesus' opening words in the Sermon on the Mount) are quite simple and straight forward, some of the things he said there are very complicated and difficult to translate accurately. A good example is the words found at Matthew 5:3, which we most recently translated as 'The spiritually impoverished are blest, because the Kingdom of the Heavens belongs to them.'

In the Greek text this reads, 'Makarioi oi ptochoi to pneumati, hoti auton e Basilea ton ouranon,' or, 'Blest the poor/ones to/the breath that of/them is the Kingdom of/the heavens.' And in Aramaic it reads, 'Tuwâyhon Lmiskéné Brukh. D-dheelhonee mâlkutha dâshmây-ya,' or, 'Blest are they; the people poor in the breath of life. For theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.'

Also, note how Luke quoted him saying these same words at Luke 6:20: '[You who] are poor are blest, For the Kingdom of God is yours.'

The first translating problem that arises here, is with the word that is translated as breath or spirit (pneumati in Greek). For, both the Greek and Aramaic words used there just mean breath, wind, or unseen force… which is what the Latin word spirit also means. And notice that in the Aramaic text it is referred to as the 'breath (spirit) of life,' which seems to be speaking of the life force that God once breathed into Adam. So, much greater things may be implied here than most suspect.

Yet, regardless of the meanings of the words, the question we must next ask is: Why would those who are poor as to the 'spirit' or 'breath' be given the Kingdom of the heavens? Wouldn't such a great reward require a great depth of spirituality?

Well, while most Bibles render the words 'ptochoi to pneumati' as 'poor in spirit,' one Bible translates it as 'conscious of their spiritual need,' which seems to make some sense to those who think Jesus was speaking of a requirement for life in heaven. However, these words just aren't in the original text. And we once translated it as 'those who beg for [God's] Breath,' implying that they are poor and begging for more of His Spirit. And this also makes some sense, since the word ptochoi could refer to a beggar or supplicant. However, we no longer think that is what Jesus meant.

After much discussion among our contributors and advisors, we have concluded that our latest rendering (that the 'spiritually impoverished' would receive the 'Kingdom of heaven') is most likely correct. But if this conclusion is accurate, then, what did Jesus mean?

Well, while most people think of Jesus' famous sermon as just good words to live by (that's why they call them Beatitudes, which means Happinesses), he apparently didn't say them for that reason. Rather, if you read the next verse, for example, you'll notice that he was actually foretelling a change in opportunities. For it says there, 'The sad are blest because they will be comforted.'

Now, Jesus wasn't implying that all sad people would be blest, nor was he saying that all those who are spiritually impoverished would be blest. Rather, he was telling the common people who listened to him that their lives could be changed if they listened to his words and became his followers. And if they did that, their spiritually impoverished condition would be changed to a life of total spirituality via the Kingdom of God, and later, that the sad would receive comfort for their sadness.

So, it doesn't appear as though Jesus was speaking of different types of people and the different rewards they would receive at Matthew 5:1-10, as some have taught. Rather, it seems that Jesus was opening opportunities for people to have a part in that Kingdom, and all ten of these verses were an admonishment to the common people to seek the Kingdom of the Heavens, because (as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us), things were about to change. This didn't necessarily mean that they had the hope of going to heaven, but that they would receive the benefits of the heavenly Kingdom, and an inheritance of land on the earth (Matthew 5:5).

Star of Raiphan

We have often wondered about the origin of the star of David that holds such a prominent place in the nation of IsraEl, for it seems unusual that a nation that was to have no images would select a star as its symbol. But when we came across the words of Amos 5:26 while translating that book from the Septuagint, something became very clear.

Now, the origination of the star of David is said to have come from the prophecy found at Numbers 24:17, which says, 'A star must rise from Jacob, and a man must spring from IsraEl. He will crush the leaders of Moab and plunder all the sons of Seth.' And since it was thought that this prophecy was fulfilled in King David, the star of David was apparently born.

However, notice the mention of another star that was worshiped by IsraEl at Amos 5:26, where we read, 'But then you chose the tent of Molech, and the star of Raiphan as your god, and images of them you made for yourselves.'

So, there seems to have been a star of a false god that was worshiped and worn as a sign (possibly around the neck) by apostate IsraElites.

Yet, it could be argued that the Bible never mentioned anything like the star of Raiphan, for the Hebrew texts actually reads (NW), 'And will actually carry Sukkuth your king, and Kaiwan, your images, the star of your god, whom you made for yourselves.'

So, the meaning of this text is quite unclear. Which rendering is right?

Notice that it was the Greek text of Amos, which Stephen quoted just before he was killed. For he said at Acts 7:43: 'Rather, you took the images that you made for worship to the tent of Moloch and to the star of the god Rephan.'

So, although the spelling is a bit different, Stephen obviously spoke of the star of Rephan (or Raiphan).

What was this star? According to A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, 'Other spellings found in manuscripts (of Acts) are Repha, Rempha, and Rephphan. The Greek Old Testament spells the name Raiphan. All of these are variations of the Egyptian name Repa for the god Saturn.'

So, a conclusion might be reached that the star of David actually came from a worship of the star god Saturn, since there is no Bible record of the star being used as a symbol of either David or IsraEl… and since God specifically banned the use of such images in His Law.

Stumble or Trap?

The Greek word scandalon means the trip lever of a trap. And while it is often translated as stumble, the meaning has more to do with stumbling into a trap.

Subjection

We have translated the verse at 1 Timothy 2:12 as reading, 'For, I don't allow women to teach or to act independently from men, but to [listen] quietly.' In Greek this reads, 'Didaskein de gynaiki ouk epitrepo oude authentein andros all einai en hesuchia,' or, 'To teach but women not I/allow or to/act/independently from/men, but to/be in quiet.'

It can be successfully argued that this and the surrounding verses were actually talking about the proper conduct of wives toward their husbands in Christian meetings, not the conduct of all Christian women, since the Greek word gynaiki can also be translated as wives, and the word andros can be translated as husbands. So the verse could be translated as, 'For, I don't allow wives to teach or to act independently from [their] husbands, but to [listen] quietly.'

Swearing

At Leviticus 5:1, we read, 'And if a person sins by witnessing, seeing, or knowing of someone who has sworn an oath [of vengeance] against another, and doesn't report it, he is responsible for his sin.'

Unfortunately, many Bibles translate the word used here, horkismou, as just swearing. And in American English, that generally means using a profanity. However, horkismou refers to swearing an oath (in vengeance), not to the use of profanities. So, although this verse is often used by religious groups to condemn the use of profanities, that isn't implied here.

Synagogue

In the Septuagint, we find the word synagogue (gr. synagoges) mentioned several times while the IsraElites were in the desert. Just what type of building was this?

Well, it wasn't a building at all. Actually, synagogue means a gathering, and the entire nation of IsraEl was usually referred to as a synagogue. It wasn't until many years later, after they had entered the Promised Land, and possibly after their return from exile in Babylon, that they built buildings for worship (other than the Temple). And after that, they started referring to the buildings as synagogues. And while synagogues are mentioned several times in the Christian Era Scriptures, the only mention of one as a Christian meeting place can be found at James 2:2. In every other instance, it appears to refer to Judaic houses of worship.

This referring to a building as a gathering is similar to what happened in Christendom. For, in older Bibles, Christian gatherings (gr. ekklesias) were called churches. But before long, members started referring to the buildings as churches. For more information see the linked document, Congregation, Synagogue, or Called Ones.

Tarshish; Spain or Carthage?

When looking up the name of the land called Tarshish, we found that one noted reference says: 'Most scholars associate Tarshish with Spain, based on ancient references to a place or region in Spain called Tartessus by Greek and Roman writers… ' And this could be true. However, the Jewish translators of the 3rd Century B.C.E. say that the place spoken of in Isaiah 23 (specifically) wasn't Spain (as other Bibles indicate), but Carthage, a major ancient city along the Mediterranean Sea in the Bay of Tunis, about 100 miles SW of Sicily. And this appears to be more in line with the words of the prophecy; for Isaiah 23:1 then says, 'Shriek O boats of Carthage, for [Tyre] has perished.'

Since people from Tyre originally populated Carthage, it is logical that they would be the ones to shriek its destruction.

Ten 'Lost' Tribes of IsraEl

Over the centuries, many things have been written about what may have happened to the ten tribes of IsraEl that were carried away as captives by the King of Assyria. Some religious groups once speculated that they became the natives of Great Britain, while another religion teaches that they became the American Indians. Of course, both of these theories have been proven untrue by archeology and genetic research, but such teachings still continue.

Whatever happened to the ten 'lost' tribes? The Bible tells us clearly, for at 2 Kings 17:6 we read, 'Then the king of Assyria captured Samaria and moved all the people of IsraEl into Assyria – to Alae-Abor, along the Gozan River, and into the mountains of the Medes.' Notice that this is into the land around Persia and modern-day Iraq. And there is a river in NW Iran named the Qezel Owzan, which is thought to be the Gozan.

What happened to them after that? Notice that the whole account at 1 Chronicles 5:26 says, 'So the God of IsraEl caused the spirit of Pul, the king of Assyria (who was also known as Tiglath-Pileser) to become enraged with them, and he sent fifty-thousand men and they relocated [the tribes of] Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of ManasSeh. He moved them to Chalak, Mabor, and along the Gozan River, where they still are today.'

So, since it is believed that the Chronicles were written by Ezra after Judah's repatriation from Babylon (c. 560-B.C.E), it can be clearly seen that the peoples of the ten tribes were still living around Persia at that time, and they were likely disseminated among the local population, since they no longer worshiped (or had a Sacred Agreement with) Jehovah. In fact, recent genetic research indicates a strong link between them and the Kurds of Northern Iran.

Tent

The statement found at Leviticus 26:11 ('I will pitch My tent among you') may sound unusual to most people. For, why would God refer to Himself as living in a tent?

The Greek word that we have translated as tent is skene (pronounced skaynay). This word is used throughout the Bible and may also be translated as booth and as tabernacle. But really, none of these words (tent, booth, or tabernacle) is an accurate description of what skene means in the English language. It implies a temporary-type dwelling that can be made of cloths, skins, or sticks and branches. For example, God's Sacred Tent in the desert was made of cloth and covered with skins, while the tents that the IsraElites were to live in during what has become known as 'the Festival of Booths,' was made of sticks and branches.

The Greek word oikos (pronounce oy-koss), on the other hand, refers to a permanent dwelling, and it is usually translated as house. For example; When the IsraElites were wandering in the desert, the Sacred Tent of Jehovah was to be temporary, but Solomon later built His Temple, which was often referred to as a House, since it was a permanent structure. However, house in this case doesn't mean home, because God never really lived there. And that may be the reason why He refers to His coming to 'tent' with mankind (as at Revelation 21:3). The term likely refers to His temporary presence or representation, not to His coming to the earth to live among us.

Tent of Proofs

We are sure that many will object to our calling God's place of worship in the desert a 'tent' rather than a 'tabernacle.' However, tabernacle is just an obsolete word, the true meaning of which most people misunderstand. So for clarification, we have opted to use the modern word, tent. Because, it was for a fact, a portable building made of cloth.

Actually, this tent is often referred to in Greek as the skenes tou marturion, or, Tent (or Temporary Dwelling) of Testimony (or Proofs). And the reason why they called it that, was because it housed the kiboton martyrion (Box [of] Witness or Chest of Proofs), which is also referred to in other Bibles as the Ark of the Covenant. So, we have more closely translated it as the Tent of Proofs wherever these Greek words are found.

Terah's Age When Abram Was Born (Contributed)

Many have assumed that because Genesis 11:26 states, 'Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran,' that Abram (also known as Abraham; cf. Genesis 17:5) was Terah's firstborn, and that he was born when Terah was 70. The truth is, however, Abraham was not born for another 60 years. When Stephen was delivering his masterful sermon recorded in Acts 7, he stated that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine 'after the death of his father [Terah—EL]' (7:4). Yet if Terah was 205 years old when he died (Genesis 11:32), and Abraham departed Haran when he was 75 (Genesis 12:4), then Terah was 130, not 70, when Abraham was born.

In light of this information, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb have aided us in better understanding Genesis 11:26 by paraphrasing it as follows: 'And Terah lived seventy years and begat the first of his three sons, the most important of whom (not because of age but because of the Messianic line) was Abram' (1961, p. 480).

Lest you think this is an isolated incident (where the son mentioned was not the firstborn son), consider another example. Genesis 5:32 states: 'And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.' Like the situation with Terah begetting Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, here we read that at age 500, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Was Shem the firstborn? Were the three sons of Noah triplets? Or was Shem mentioned first because of his Messianic connection? In all likelihood, the evidence seems to indicate that Shem was not the firstborn, but was born two years later.

Consider the following passages:
'Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters were on the earth' (Genesis 7:6).
'And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry' (Genesis 8:13).
'Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood' (Genesis 11:10).

These verses seem to suggest that Shem was not born when Noah was 500, but rather, when Noah was 502. A comparison of Genesis 11:10 with 10:22 may suggest that Shem’s son, Arphaxad, was not the firstborn son in his family. Likely, Shem, Arphaxad, and others are mentioned first for the same reason Abraham is... because they are Messianic ancestors, and not because they were the firstborn sons of their fathers. Interestingly, numerous other Messianic ancestors, such as Seth, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez, were not firstborn sons.

Was Moses being dishonest when he recorded these genealogies? Absolutely not. Just as Genesis 5:32 does not teach that Noah was 500 when Shem was born, Genesis 11:26 does not teach that Abraham was born when Terah was 70. This verse basically means that Terah began having children at age 70, not that all three children were born at that age.

The Dead

Revelation 20:12 speaks of the 'dead' 'standing before the throne' and 'being judged.' Since they are able to stand for judgment, in what sense are they dead?

Note that at Matthew 9:60, Jesus said, 'Let the dead bury their dead.' And at Romans 8:10, Paul speaks of the body being 'dead' because of sin. Then at 1 Corinthians 15:22 he explains that, 'Because of Adam, all men are dying.'

So the conclusion we must reach is that all men are considered as dead and dying before God, due to inherited (and their own) sins. Thus, the scriptures in Revelation Twenty appear to be speaking of people who are no longer physically dead (for they will have already been resurrected), that will stand before God and be judged either to age-long life, or to the permanent destruction of the 'lake of fire.'

However, from the promises of Jesus, it does appear as though people can be considered no longer dead even before the resurrection. For, notice what is recorded that he said, at John 5:24: 'I tell you the truth; He who hears what I say and believes in the One that sent me, will have age-long life… he won't come into the judgment, for he has crossed over out of the death and into the life!'

And John wrote again at 1 John 3:14 'Because we love our brothers, we know that we've crossed over from death to life. However, those who don't love stay dead.'

So, it appears as though a person is no longer considered to be 'dead' by God, when his/her name is written in 'the book of life.' This doesn't mean that they won't die, but that they are considered as 'alive' in God's eyes, and they will not be counted among the dead who are raised in the resurrection (for more information, see the linked document, The Resurrection).

This appears to be the meaning of Jesus' words at Matthew 22:32, which say, 'Haven't you read what God told you about the resurrection of the dead, [when he said], I am the God of AbraHam, the God of IsaAc, and the God of Jacob? He isn't the God of the dead, but of the living!'

Also, this appears to be the meaning of his words as found at John 6:54-56, where he said, 'For, if you chew my flesh and drink my blood, you will have life within yourselves, and then I'll resurrect you on the Last Day, because my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink. Those who chew on my flesh and drink my blood will stay in me and I [will stay] in them.'

The Word

The Greek word logos is often rightly translated as word. However, logos implies an even greater meaning than that: The expression of a thought. So, when John called Jesus 'the Word,' he was really saying that Jesus is the complete expression of God's thoughts.

People have often wondered why John used the unusual wording in John 1:1 to start this book, which was his literary masterpiece. Yet, if you closely examine the exact wording (especially in Greek), you'll see that he was obviously explaining Genesis 1:1-3. For, notice how that scripture reads, 'In the beginning, The God created the skies and the lands. But the land was unsightly and unfinished, darkness covered its abysses, and God's Breath moved over its waters. Then God spoke (gr. eipen), saying, May there be light, and light came to be.'

As you can see; God spoke, and the things came into existence by means of some unnamed person or force.

Now, follow John's opening words (at John 1:1-4) and notice how they dovetail with and explain Genesis 1:1-3: 'In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with The God (gr. Ho Theos) and the Word was a powerful one (gr. theon). This one was with The God in the beginning, and through him it all came to be… life came to be, and this life was the light of all men.'

As you can see, the account in Genesis says that God spoke things into existence, and John is explaining what God said (what the 'Word' was). In other words, God 'spoke' and the 'Word' (Jesus in his pre-human existence) did the work.

So, if John 1:1 appears to support the idea of a trinity to some, this is unintentional. John was simply trying to impress on his readers that; Although Jesus isn't mentioned in Genesis 1:1, he was there with God and was himself a powerful god who actually did the work, when God 'spoke' the heavens and earth into existence.

Then, are we to conclude from John's writing here that Jesus' heavenly name is ton Logos (the Word or Expression of a thought)? No! Recognize that John was just employing an inspired play on words to draw attention to the phrasing of Genesis 1:1. Jesus' pre-human name could likely have been MichaEl, which means: Who is Like God (not a question but a statement). And John called him 'the Word' in order to point out Jesus' most ancient high position as a co-worker with God, who created whatever things God spoke.

Does this mean that Jesus existed before the creation of our universe? Yes, that is what is implied. For more information, see the linked document, Does the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?

This was the Scroll #1

The words, 'this was the scroll' (at Genesis 2:4) implies that the previous words were pre-recorded literature. When was it written? Its dialect indicates that it was written near to Moses' time. For, it appears as though Moses transcribed it into his dialect from documents that were written much earlier (such as during the time of Noah's son Shem). However, there is some indication that this first part of the Book of Genesis was originally written poetically to be sung, so the account may have been passed down through the ages in a song.

For more information, see the linked document, The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History

This was the Scroll #2

The words, 'this was the scroll' (at Genesis 5:1), implies that this was another piece of pre-recorded literature (separate from what was written in the First Chapter of Genesis). However, the references to post-flood nations (Assyrians and Ethiopia) indicate that it was written after the Downpour, and the dialect it is written in dates it to near the time of Moses. For, it appears as though Moses transcribed it into his dialect from documents that were written much earlier (such as during the time of Noah's son Shem).

Thousand Years or Thousands of Years?

There appears to be some question as to the meaning of the Greek text at 2 Peter 3:8, as well as several verses of Revelation 20. For, while most modern Greek text sources seem to agree on the words of these verses, the wording in Tischendorf's text should be considered. For, there it uses the Greek words chilioi etos (pronounced kee-lee-o-ee etos). Chilioi etos is the plural form of chilia eta, which means, thousand years. And although the words appear in their singular forms in most modern texts, such sources as Vine's seem to acknowledge that the plural form is how it may have once appeared in those verses.

What difference does all of this make? Well, recognize that the singular form (thousand years) is the preference of almost all Bible translators, so it may be correct. However, if the plural form (thousands of years) is correct, then certain common Bible teachings may be in error. For example: Is a thousand years as one day to God, or are thousands of years as one day to Him? And, will Jesus reign for a thousand years or for thousands of years? We will leave others to debate such things; we're just bringing it to your attention.

Three Kings

There is more myth than fact to most people's ideas of just who these men were – and how many there were – that brought gifts to Jesus and his family after his birth. As common myth has it (and as all the Christmas songs say), there were ⁽¹⁾three ⁽²⁾kings that brought gifts to Jesus while he was ⁽³⁾in the feed trough (manger) in BethLehem… probably wrong on all three counts. Let's take a close look at all three beliefs:

1. Go back and re-read Matthew 2:1-12 and you will see that the account doesn't say how many Priests there were. All we do know is that they brought three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

2. Matthew didn't write that they were 'kings' or 'astrologers' (as some Bibles say). The account simply says (in Greek) that they were magoi. Magoi doesn't mean king; it means a 'Priest of Babylon.' Actually, it's the word that we get the English word 'magician' from, so there may be some extended meaning to the term, but that is just speculation. However, others have argued for the use of the word Zoroastrian to translate magoi.

3. Then go back and reread Matthew 2:11. It clearly says that they went to the house (gr. oikian), not the stable. So Jesus wasn't lying in the manger when they arrived. However, the rest of the account does indicate that this house was in BethLehem (where Joseph had gone to register), so these things obviously happened shortly after Jesus' birth.

Time of Difficulty

The Greek word thlipsis (pronounced: thel/eep/sees) is used several times in the Bible, but it is difficult to find an equivalent word in common American English to translate it. It implies a painful, difficult time, and it was used to describe a woman's childbirth labor. Tribulation and travail are nice old English words that describe the meaning fairly accurately, but they aren't the types of words you would read in a newspaper today, so we have tried to use more common words to translate it, depending on the circumstances.

Notice how Jesus applied thlipsis when he was describing the events leading up to the destruction of JeruSalem (at Matthew 24:21), 'Then there will come a difficult time such hasn't happened since the world's beginning until now, nor should ever happen again.'

Actually, Jesus appears to have been quoting a prophecy in the book of DaniEl here, as he had just done in verse fifteen. But this time, he is quoting the words found at DaniEl 12:1, which read (in the common Bible of his time, LXX), 'And in that hour, the Highest Messenger MichaEl (he who watches over the sons of your people) will arise, and then a time of difficulty will begin such as has never happened before and will never happen again. [And thereafter], [God] will raise all those whose [names] were written in the scroll.'

So, both scriptures are obviously speaking of this same period.

Will there be a future and greater fulfillment of this 'time of difficulty?' Many other prophecies indicate that there will. And if so, what signs should Christians look for? Well, notice that in ancient JeruSalem, it was to happen immediately after the sign described at Matthew 24:15, 16 was seen; 'When you see the disgusting destroyer standing in the Holy Place, then those in Judea should run to the mountains.'

In the First Century, the 'disgusting destroyer' was found to be 'standing in the Holy Place' when the armies of Rome first camped around JeruSalem. For, that's what Christians understood to be 'the sign,' and history tells us that they thereafter fled JeruSalem and hid in the mountains. Then, the 'difficult time' started for JeruSalem, as the Roman armies returned and built a fence of pointed stakes around the city, which caused the people to starve; and many of the survivors were later slaughtered by the tens of thousands.

So, what parallels will there be when the 'difficult time' that many Bible students expect still to come (in a greater fulfillment) finally arrives? Well, notice that what happened to ancient JeruSalem was the (God-inspired) action of a great worldly army against an unfaithful religious people. Revelation the Eighteenth Chapter speaks of a similar event when describing a symbolic woman called 'The Great Babylon.' There she is spoken of as being destroyed by worldly armies. So, the indication is that the symbolic destruction of JeruSalem and the destruction of The Great Babylon both picture a coming war upon unfaithful 'Christian' and possibly Jewish religions by worldly governments, and that is to be preceded by an exceedingly difficult time for those who remain in them.

Is this 'difficult time' the same thing as 'the Battle of Armageddon?' No, for that battle appears to come against the armies that attack the unfaithful sometime after the great time of difficulty, and after they destroy symbolic JeruSalem.

It would, of course, be presumptuous for us to try to set out the order in which all these things will happen. However, it is later in Jesus' account (at Matthew 24:29, 30) that we read, 'Then the sun will grow dark, the moon won't put out light, the stars will fall from the skies, and the powers of the Heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with great power and glory.'

And finally, Revelation the Seventh Chapter speaks of a huge crowd of people who apparently survive this 'great time of difficulty.' Notice that it says (in verses 9, 10) 'And after all that, I saw {Look!} a crowd so large that no one could count them. They came from all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and languages; and they were standing within sight of the throne and within sight of the Lamb. They were all wearing white robes, they carried palm branches in their hands, and they were shouting, We owe our salvation to our God who is sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb!'

Then verse 14 goes on to tell us, 'These are the ones that have come out of the great time of difficulty (gr. thlipsis).'

So, according to these verses, this faithful group escapes the 'great time of difficulty' by cleaning up their lives and accepting the salvation of God and Jesus. Then the Battle of Armageddon against the kings of the earth and their armies begins.

For more detailed information, see the linked commentary, The Great Tribulation.

TO the East or FROM the East?

At Genesis 11:2, our translation reads, 'Then as they migrated from the east, they found a flat area of land in Shinar, and they started living there.' However, other Bibles read:
(New International Version) 'As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there."
(New Living Translation) 'As the people migrated to the east, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there.'
So, did men migrate east or west from Mt. Ararat?

In Greek the words are, 'apo anatolon,' or, 'from the/east.' However, the extant Hebrew texts read 'miq-qe-dem be-na-se-am,' or, 'east journeyed.' We believe the Greek text to be correct in this case, because Mt. Ararat is in fact north and east of the land of Shinar.

Tree of Life

The book of Genesis speaks of a Tree of Life that God had put in the middle of the Paradise of Delights (Garden of Eden), at Genesis 2:9. And one of the reasons why God expelled Adam and his wife from the Paradise was, according to Genesis 3:22, to keep them from eating the fruit of the tree and continuing to live. So, was this a real tree?

Well, since the account speaks of the possibility of their eating its fruit, we must assume that it was a real tree, for the Bible simply doesn't tell us any more. But if there was such a tree, this raises the question: Was Adam truly created perfect, having the ability to live forever, as some have said?

Surely Adam wasn't imperfect in the beginning; however, the fact that God had created a Tree of Life indicates that he needed to prove his faithfulness to God in order to continue living.

So, apparently man was only designed to live less than 1,000 years (as Adam did). And after proving himself faithful, Adam would have been allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.

Yet, this conclusion raises more questions. For example:

• Does this mean that man was created mortal and corruptible (see 1 Corinthians 15:50-54)?
• Does this mean that Adam had to partake of the Tree of Life continually to remain alive and to free him from the corruption of the aging process?
• Will there be Trees of Life on the earth in the future?
• And if so, must man continue to eat from these trees in order to live, or can faithful mankind truly become undying and incorruptible without being taken to heaven?

Understand that the following thoughts are just suggestions based on our continuing study of the Bible; and with more study, these conclusions may change. However, it appears as though man was created mortal (capable of death), for why else would he need the Tree of Life? But all mention of the Tree (or Trees) of Life in the Bible seems to indicate that partaking of it (or them) is just a one-time requirement (see Genesis 3:22 and Revelation 2:7). And if our conclusions about the meaning of the words at 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 are correct (see the linked document God's Promise of an Inheritance), the faithful will be raised without any need for the Tree of Life, because they will have already proven to be righteous, so they will be resurrected both undying and incorruptible.

As for the future; the Bible does speak of there being a Tree (singular) of Life, for Jesus promised (at Revelation 2:7), 'I'll allow the one who conquers to eat from the Tree of Life that is in the Paradise of God.' And at Revelation 22:1, 22, we read: 'Then he showed me the River of the Water of Life… it was crystal clear and flowing from the Throne of God and the Lamb down the middle of its street (from here to there). [And there was] the Tree of Life, which bears twelve [crops of] fruit, putting out fruit monthly; and the Trees' leaves are used for the healing of the ethnics.'

Notice that this verse reads quite differently than in most other Bibles, for it is more closely translated using the proper tenses. Whereas other Bible translators have left the impression that there are many trees being discussed here, and they are growing all along the River of the Water of Life, the text indicates that there may be just one Tree of Life. For, verse 22 reads in Greek, 'en meso tes plateias autes kai tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen xylon zoes poioun karpous autou kai ta phylla tou xylou eis therapeian ethnon,' or, 'in the/middle of/the street its and of river, from/here and from/there, tree of/life bearing fruit twelve by month each, yielding the fruit of/it and the leaves of/the tree for healing of/the nations.'

So, it appears as though those who have not previously been in a covenant relationship with God (the 'ethnics') will be allowed to partake of the tree's life-giving fruit, once they have proven themselves faithful.

Two Witnesses

Who the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3, 4 are (or will be) is open to religious debate, which we won't enter here, for that requires foolish speculation. However, we do know that these witnesses are described as, 'The two olive trees and the two lampstands that have been standing on the earth in front of the Lord.'

What testimony will be required of these two witnesses? We don't know; but in the case of ancient IsraEl, Moses and Aaron stood as witnesses of God before the PharaOh of Egypt, to tell him to release His people, as they brought great signs upon the land. And we find similar signs spoken of at Revelation 11:6, where it says of the two witnesses: 'They're also authorized to turn water into blood and to bring every sort of plague to the earth whenever they wish.'

And after the time of Moses, there were two more witnesses (Joshua and Caleb) who entered the promised land and could testify to:
· What God had done by delivering His people from Egypt and through the Red sea
· Their receiving the Law from God
· The people's agreeing to be party to His Sacred Agreement.

So, whoever the two witnesses in the prophecy will prove to be; they will be able to testify to some great act by God. Otherwise, there would be no need for witnesses.

We also read about two olive trees that stand on either side of a lampstand in Zechariah 4:2. And they are identified (in verse 14) as 'the two sons of the blessings who stand beside the Lord of the earth.' So, there appears to be some parallel significance here to the prophecy of Revelation 11.

What is the great act that these two witnesses will testify to? All we have is what the following verses tell us:
Revelation 11:3 says they will 'prophesy for one-thousand two-hundred and sixty days wearing sackcloth.'
Then verses 3-6 say, 'If any of their enemies wish to harm them, fire will come from their mouths and consume them. So, if anyone wants to persecute them, that's how they're going to die, because they've been authorized to close up the sky so no rain will fall during the period of their prophesying. They're also authorized to turn water into blood and to bring every sort of plague to the earth whenever they wish.
Verses 7 and 8 continue, 'And when they've finished their witnessing, the wild animal that comes out of the pit will fight against them, conquer them, and kill them. Then their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which [God's] Breath refers to as Sodom and Egypt. It's where their Lord was hung on a pole.'
And verses 11-13 tell us, 'However, after the three and a half days, God sent His breath of life into them and they stood up on their feet, and this frightened those who saw them. Then [the two witnesses] heard a loud voice from heaven say to them, Come on up here. And their enemies saw them go into the sky in a cloud. A tremendous shaking followed this and a tenth of the city [of Sodom and Egypt] toppled. This shaking killed seven-thousand people and frightened all the rest, so they gave glory to the God of heaven.'

There were also two other witnesses that the Bible speaks of, Moses and Elijah, who were with Jesus in the transfiguration. This is an interesting matchup, because, the death of neither one was witnessed by man (though both died). Does this have any significance?

In addition, there were three witnesses who came along with Jesus at the time that he appeared in glory with the two witnesses; Peter, John, and James. And what did they see? At Matthew 16:28, Jesus said: 'I tell you the truth; Some of you who are standing here won't taste death until you see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.'

Perhaps these are some clues as to who the two witnesses are, or will prove to be.

Undeserved Kindness or Caring?

The Greek word caris is where we derive the English words care and caring. Old English Bible translations have rendered caris as grace. But the nuance that grace implies (smooth and flowing) totally distorts the meaning of this term in contemporary American English.

Most Bible dictionaries prefer to see caris translated as undeserved kindness. However, this phrase, which may or may not make some minor technical difference in the meaning, adds wordiness, which distracts from the ease of reading. So you will find it translated as care, loving care, caring, or kindness herein, depending on the setting.

Unforgivable Sin?

At Matthew 12:32, Jesus said, 'If someone speaks against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven; but if someone speaks against [God's] Holy Breath, he won't be forgiven… no, not in this age or in the one to come.'

What type of sin is this?

If you look at the surrounding context of the verse, you'll see that the local religious leaders had just accused Jesus of using BeelZebub's power to do his wonderful deeds of healing the sick and lame, and throwing out demons. However, despite the fact that they had been witnesses of powers that could only come from God's Breath, they were attributing these miracles to the Slanderer. And that was in fact, blaspheming the Breath of God. Therefore, Jesus was telling them that if they didn't repent, they would be found guilty of a sin that would never be forgiven.

Vision of DaniEl Chapter Eight

In the Eighth Chapter of DaniEl, the account reverts to something that DaniEl saw when BelShazzar, the king of Babylon, was in power: the two-horned ram. This is explained to him as representing the empire of the Medes and Persians. And the second (larger) of the two horns, is obviously the kingdom of the Persians, which became dominant.

Also, as the prophecy explains, the male goat that destroys the kingdom of Persia is the Greeks (gr. Hellenes, or People of the Sun), and its large horn is Alexander the Great, who dies young, and thereafter his empire is divided among his four generals (the four horns). Then from this same animal, another, greater horn arises, which is the Greek-influenced Empire of Rome, probably starting with the actions and attitudes of Julius Caesar.

Thereafter, the rest of this prophecy has to do with the coming of Jesus (the commander-in chief) and his mistreatment and death, then the destruction of JeruSalem (the last days). Notice that we have deviated from the words of most common Septuagint translations in verse eleven, and used what another version of the Septuagint has to say, since it more closely reflects the Bible that Jesus appears to have been quoting from in Matthew 24.

As for the two thousand, three hundred evenings and mornings that are spoken of there and what they signify; this seems to refer to how long the Temple and JeruSalem will lie desolate after their destruction. What is the significance of this?

Some have suggested that the period is speaking of just 1,150 days, since each day has a morning and an evening (so, half as many days). And they count 1,150 years (using the Bible rule 'a day for a year') from the Temple's first destruction; and that brings them to 544-C.E., which they claim is when the last vestiges of true Christianity were wiped out.

However, other sources say that it is a prophecy about literal days, which amounts to a period of six-and-a-third years. And they claim that this period saw its fulfillment in modern times, which roughly leads up to and through of World War II. But neither theory is likely true, since DaniEl's vision appears to be specifically speaking of the period that started in 70-C.E. with the destruction of JeruSalem and its Temple. So, if we can assume this to be a period of 2,300 years (not days) that started with JeruSalem's destruction in 70-C.E., it will end in the year 2370-C.E. And it seems to signify the time when a new earthly Temple (either literal or spiritual) will be rebuilt.

Was Moses Alone on the Mountain With Jehovah?

If you were to ask the majority of Christians or Jews this question, most would likely answer, Yes. But that isn't what the Bible tells us. It shows that; When Moses ascended the Mount Sinai and stayed there for forty days to receive the commandments, Joshua was there also. However, he wasn't in the presence of God, as Moses was. For, notice what we read at Exodus 24:13: 'So, [the next day] Moses got up and took his assistant Joshua to climb the mountain of God with him.' Then, as Moses was descending the mountain with the stone tablets, Joshua was still there, because Exodus 32:17 tells us, 'And when Joshua heard the voices of people shouting, he said to Moses, That's the sound of a war in the camp.'

So, Joshua played a greater role at that time than most people believe (before he led the people into the Promised Land).

Whale or Large Fish?

It is amazing how Bible scholars have labored over the answer to the question of just what type of animal it was that swallowed Jonah. For, although it would seem logical that Jonah would have been able to survive inside (perhaps in the lungs) of an air-breathing whale, it is thought that the word used in this account refers to a cold-blooded fish; so some have concluded that he was in the belly of a large shark or jewfish.

The Greek word that the Septuagint uses for this animal is ketos (pronounced kay-toss), which simply means a creature that lives in the water. The problem with modern scientifically-trained men, is that they view all things by what they were taught in their schools; and everyone knows that whales and dolphins aren't fish, they are mammals… thus the dilemma.

However in ancient languages, animal types weren't classified as they are today. And although we may have adopted some of their ancient words to categorize them, almost all animals were simply grouped into five different divisions; clean animals, wild animals (game), things that fly, things that creep or crawl, and things that live in the water.

So, there was no word for mammal in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Therefore, arguing over whether the Bible says that a whale or a shark swallowed Jonah, is simply ignorant nit picking. We don't know whether whales live in the Mediterranean Sea; but notice that, after he was swallowed, Jonah mentions being in a place where he was surrounded by water, and that the water was sloshing. This doesn't appear to describe the conditions inside the belly of a fish.

When Men are In Charge of the Earth

At Genesis 1:28, God gave men the following commission: '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, the first humans (Adam and Eve) apparently relinquished this privilege when they sinned and submitted to the Slanderer, effectively handing this God-given commission over to him. For, notice what the Slanderer later said to Jesus (as recorded at Luke 4:6), 'I will give you power over all of these [worldly governments] and the glory of them, because they have been given to me and I can give them to whomever I wish.'

So, for about six thousand years, men lost their commission to rule over the earth and its creatures. However, after the Slanderer and his messengers lose the war in heaven, and Jesus and his 'chosen ones' become kings over the earth, the power that the Slanderer has over this earth will no longer be his, for it then falls back into the hands of faithful men. Notice how Paul spoke of this, when he wrote (at Hebrews 2:8): 'So, when [God] puts everything under [Jesus' feet], He doesn't leave anything that [men] aren't in charge of. However, we don't see everything obeying us yet.'

Now, as Paul wrote, 'We don't see everything obeying us yet.' Nor do we see this world in general responding to Jesus' righteous rule. In fact, conditions in the world appear to be deteriorating, as they reflect the power of the Slanderer and his messengers in the last throws of evil acts before their destruction.

Thereafter, we can scarcely imagine what powers will be returned to man, when the full commission that God gave to us over this earth and its creatures is restored. With no opposition, and with each man and woman endowed with a full measure of the power of God's Breath, the blessings to this earth and its creatures are virtually limitless.

Which Was the PharaOh of the Exodus?

This subject of which PharaOh Moses was dealing with when he (through God's power) brought the ten plagues upon Egypt, has been debated among Bible scholars and archeologists for centuries; however, due to a general lack of trust in the accuracy of the Bible accounts, most have assumed that it was a PharaOh who lived much later than the Bible account suggests (Ramesses 1). But Bible our chronology indicates that the exodus from Egypt happened between 1480 and 1567-B.C.E., so we suspect that whoever the PharaOh was, he lived and ruled around that time.

What Egyptian hieroglyphics tell us, is that a people known as the Hyksos (from the land of CanaAn) invaded Egypt during the period when the Hebrews were living there, and that they dominated Egypt for about ninety years. Then, sometime around 1550-B.C.E., PharaOh Kamose conquered them.

Now, if such people (the Hyksos) did in fact conquer Egypt, we would expect to read about them in the detailed Bible accounts in Exodus, for that was also the same period during which the Israelites were living there… and we don't. However, if you consider what happened through the eyes and propaganda of the Egyptians, you can see that the Hyksos were unquestionably the IsraElites. After all, they lived in the land during that period, and according to the Bible, Joseph did become the effective ruler of all Egypt. But thereafter, the Egyptians became frightened of them, for we read at Exodus 1:9, 10, 'Look! The children of IsraEl have [grown tremendously] and they are now more powerful than we are! So, let's be smooth in the way we deal with them, because, if they continue to grow and then we find ourselves at war, they could side with our enemies. And after they beat us in war, they will leave our land.'

So, you can see how (with a little governmental propaganda to justify their actions against the Hebrews and a total defeat of their PharaOh and his army) the story that the Egyptians tell, is about their being dominated by the Hyksos, and how they fought a war to liberate themselves. Yet, the Egyptian history of where these people came from, what part of Egypt they lived in, and many more details, prove that the Hyksos (shepherds – see Genesis 46:29 - 47:4) were the IsraElites. Also, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus identified them as the Jews (not technically correct, but close enough).

Then, why do archeologists claim that the Hyksos weren't the IsraElites? Because, such a conclusion would take this Bible story (and its chronology) from the realm of myth or a minor event, and elevate it to something major that is well documented in history. And so, archeologists prefer to accept the Egyptian description of what happened. For more information, please see the link, 'Egypt: Tempest & Exodus: The Biblical Exodus Inscribed on an Ancient Egyptian Stele.'

Kamose is said to have died in 1550-B.C.E., which places his reign almost forty years prior to what others have concluded to be the earliest possible Exodus date. So, most preclude him as a possible candidate. However, he is the king that is credited with driving the Hyksos out of Egypt, and we like Kamose as the king with whom Moses dealt in the exodus, because he died early and mysteriously, as did his first-born son (in the last plague upon Egypt). Certainly, the history of the kings (PharaOhs) that preceded him don't present nearly as convincing an argument, nor do the dates line up as well with Bible chronology. Also, his mummy is in a poorly-preserved state (because of water damage?), and it was interred without a pyramid or a sarcophagus (hastily).

There are several ifs whereby Bible chronology can be more closely aligned with the dates for the reign of Kamose as provided by Egyptologists. They are:

· If the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon did in fact occur in 607-B.C.E. as some claim

· If we can trust the prophetic dating in EzekiEl of the existence of the unfaithful Kingdom of Israel from its inception to the destruction of Jerusalem as being 390 years

· If we can accept 38 years as being the period between the death of Solomon and the laying of the Temple foundation

· If we can accept the Hebrew text's description of the period between the laying of the Temple foundation and the Exodus as being 480 years

· If that 480 years started from Israel's entry into the Promised Land, not their exodus from Egypt.

607+390=997 997+38=1035 1035+480=1515 1515+40=1555 (B.C.E.)

It is interesting that using this date as a starting point and following Bible chronology back to the death of JoSeph, brings us into the reign of PharaOh SenusRet II, and the creation of a waterway in Egypt called (in English), Bay of Joseph. For more information, see the subheading The Existence and Reign of JoSeph in the Linked Document, 'The Bible's Internal Proof of It's Authentic History.'

Could these figures be wrong? Yes, but not by much. Consider, for example, the fact that radiocarbon dating for the destruction of Jericho (the time of the entry of IsraEl into the Promised Land) shows that it could have happened sometime between 1590 or 1527 B.C.E. (see the article, Carbon 14 Dating at Jericho). Therefore, 1527+40 years (wandering in the desert) = 1567-B.C.E., date of the Exodus

However, if Solomon received some of his gold for the Temple from PharaOh Amenemnisu of the 21st Dynasty of ancient Egypt (see the link, Parvaim or PharaOh Aim?) and if we can trust the Egyptian archaeological dating, then Solomon built the Temple somewhere between 1051 and 1047 B.C.E. And that sets the exodus as happening between 1527 and 1531-B.C.E., without the need of some of the above assumptions. We are sure that even Egyptologists would be delighted to know that their dates could be off by just twenty to twenty-five years.

So, according to the Bible, archeology, Egyptology, and radio-carbon dating, this choice of dates for the exodus (between 1527 and 1567-B.C.E.) indicates that our chronology must be close to being right.

It's important to recognize that the popular dating of reigns by Egyptologists is often (by their own admission), in question. Also other kings would have to be considered as being the one of the Exodus if any of the above suggested conclusions prove untrue. Ahmose I is a strong contender. His reign is said to be from 1570–1546, or 1560–1537, or 1551–1527 by various sources. Then, following him there were: Amenhotep I (whose reign is said to be from 1546-1526, or 1526-1506, or 1525-1504) and Thutmose I (who is usually given a reign from 1506-1493 or 1526-1513). See the link Pharaohs Timeline.

By the way, just a little side point: The Egyptians never really called their kings PharaOhs, they just called them kings. Use of the term PharaOh as a title for their kings actually comes from ancient Hebrew and Greek writings. However, it is in fact an Egyptian term, meaning Great House (Phara Oh). And foreign peoples likely started using the title to refer to Egyptian kings, because they received salutations from The Great House (think White House), which they thought of as coming from the kings of Egypt.

Who are 'the Other Sheep?'

At John 10:16, it is recorded that Jesus said: 'I also have other sheep that aren't in this pen, and I must also lead them and they will listen to my voice, and they will [all] become one flock under one shepherd.'

From the words of the above scripture, some have concluded that; When Jesus spoke of two different groups of sheep becoming one flock, he meant that one group (whose destiny is heavenly life) would join with the other group (whose destiny is life on earth) to become one flock or congregation. Was this the meaning of Jesus' words here?

No, this doesn't appear to be so, for you must consider the context and setting of Jesus' words in order to reach a proper conclusion. And in this case, notice who Jesus was speaking to at the time: He wasn't speaking to his disciples, but (going back to John 9:40) you'll see that his discussion of the sheep started with a question that was asked by the Pharisees ('But when some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this, they asked, We aren't blind also, are we?').

Now, Jesus obviously didn't mean that the Pharisees were in this pen that was destined for heavenly life. So, it is clear that the true meaning of his illustration was that the first pen represented those among whom the Pharisees were also included. Who was this? For a more detailed consideration, see the linked document, Who Are 'The Other Sheep' of John 10:16?

Who Was Ochozath?

This person (Ochozath) isn't listed in the Hebrew text, but his name is found in the Septuagint version's description of AbraHam's oath to King AbiMelech (at Genesis 21:22, 32). This unusual extra detail is another of several that gives these translators the opinion that the Greek text may in fact be more accurate that the current Hebrew texts.

Of particular interest is Ochozath's actual relationship with AbiMelech. The Greek word that is used to describe him is nymphagogos, which means 'bride bringer,' and it refers to a close friend who would procure a bride or brides for the king (in this case).

Who Wrote Hebrews?

As with almost every other Bible book, critics are quick to question the authorship of Hebrews. For, while the writing of this epistle (letter) has traditionally been attributed to Paul, they claim that the writing style isn't consistent with other writings attributed to Paul. And it's a fact that this letter and its style is quite different from his other letters, for Hebrews doesn't start with the opening greetings, which are traditional to the rest of his epistles. So, did Paul write this book or not?

If you simply look at the closing greetings and salutations, you can see that the letter could only have been written by Paul. For, the stated location of the writing, Italy (see 13:24), and mention of the safety of Paul's trustworthy traveling companion, Timothy (13:23), proves that the writer had to be Paul, 'the Apostle to the nations,' who had been taken to Rome and likely lived in that area until his death as a martyr.

So, why is the writing style different? For two reasons:

· It was a strong letter (and probably his last) that was written to the congregation of Christian 'pillars' in JeruSalem (the home of most of the other Apostles), where the congregation had grown spiritually weak (see 5:11-14).

· Circumstances – Due to his extremely poor eye sight (see the Note Who Wrote the Epistles?), Paul clearly had to use his traveling companions (men such as Luke, BarNabas, Titus, Sosthenes, Timothy, and others) to actually do the writing, and they were allowed considerable latitude in the word choices and phrasing.

But, regardless of who it was that actually wrote Hebrews (under Paul's direction), Hebrews stands out as his most masterful work.

Who Wrote the Book of Judges?

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 IsraEl back then.'

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; at least portions of the book were written sometime after IsraEl's conquest by the Assyrians, and possibly as late 6th Century B.C.E. So, how do we resolve those differences?

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 18:30. And since this comment is found both in the Hebrew and Greek texts, we know that it had to have been made sometime before the 3rd Century B.C.E.

Why Were IsraEl's Leaders Afraid of Dying?

The question that was asked by the leaders of IsraEl (at Numbers 17:12, 13) is often misunderstood. They asked, 'Now, are we going to be cut off, destroyed, and consumed? Why, everyone who touches the Tent of Jehovah dies, so are we now going to be totally destroyed?'

Since this question was asked just after their walking sticks had been placed before the Chest of Proofs and Aaron's walking stick was chosen by God, some have concluded that they considered themselves worthy of death for touching the sticks. However, this doesn't appear to be the case, because; what the Law forbade was their touching the Sacred Tent.

It is easy, when reading the Bible, to forget that Chapter breaks were added long after the words were actually written. So, things that are spoken of in one Chapter may be closely related to things that are mentioned in later Chapters. And this is what appears to be the case here. For Numbers 16:42 tells us, 'Then a mob gathered against Moses and Aaron, and they foolishly ran into the Tent of Proofs.'

So, although a plague came upon the camp as the result of their actions, these leaders must have recognized their guilt and worthiness of death, especially since they had been complaining about Aaron (specifically) and Jehovah had just shown them that He had chosen Aaron as His special servant.

Wild Animals of DaniEl Seven

DaniEl Chapter Seven once again gives us a vision of those who would rule the world before the coming of God's Kingdom, and it clarifies and enlarges on the descriptions of these kingdoms and what they would accomplish. The reason why all the great world powers since the time of DaniEl aren't included, is made clear in the words of DaniEl 7:18, where we read, 'They will [each] take to themselves the kingdom of the holy ones of the Most High, and they will control it though the ages, and into the ages of ages.'

So, each of the following world powers that dominated IsraEl (Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome) are what is pictured by the wild animals:

· The one that was pictured by the female lion with wings, but lost her wings and was given the feet and heart of a man, was the empire of Babylon, whose ruler NebuChadnezzar was humbled by God.

· The one that was pictured by the bear was the empire of the Medes and Persians, and the three ribs in its mouth likely pictures their conquests of Babylon, Asia Minor, and Egypt.

· The third wild animal that looked like a leopard and had four wings and four heads, pictured the fast-moving empire of the Greek king Alexander the Great, followed by the power of his four generals who divided the kingdom after his death.

· The fourth wild animal that was so large and unusual was obviously Rome, which was a new form of government that crushed and devoured the then known world. Its ten horns likely picture the many governments that sprang from it, including Great Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and others, but the little horn that grew and pushed out three of the other horns likely pictures the empire of Great Britain (including its former colonies) that pushed other major powers (such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands) out of their prominent colonial positions.

As for the eyes of a man that are in the little horn; this clearly indicates a democratic type of rulership; but the prophecy shows that its authority over 'laws and seasons' will end after a time, times, and a half a time, or 1,260 days (or years) (see Revelation 12:6, 14).

Wild Animals of Revelation

The 'wild animals' of Revelation appear to picture human governments in 'the Lord's Day.' As proof of this, notice what Revelation 17:10-12 says: 'And there are seven kings. Five have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is (Rome), and the other (England and the United States?) hasn't arrived yet. But when he gets here, he will only be allowed to stay for a little while. However, the wild animal that was but isn't, is an eighth king that comes from the seven, and it goes off into destruction.'

So, there are three different government types mentioned in the Revelation. They include:

1. The seven-headed ten-horned wild animal than comes 'out of the sea' (Revelation 13:1) – The 7 heads and 10 horns (due to the complete numbers of 7 and 10) appear to represent a composite of all worldly governments that are under the control of the Slanderer and his messengers.

2. The two-horned wild animal that comes 'out of the earth' (Revelation 13:7 – also identified as 'the False Prophet' at Revelation 16:13) – appears to be the last world power, and the two horns indicate that it is a combination of two countries (Great Britain and the United States?)

3. The 'image' of the wild animal is described as, 'the wild animal that was but isn't, is an eighth king that comes from the seven' (Revelation 17:8.) – appears to be what used to be the League of Nations (when it 'was') that went out of existence during WWII (when it 'wasn't'), then it was revived as the United Nations. Notice that the Bible describes this wild animal as 'an eighth king,' and that it's end comes at Armageddon.

So, what is 'the mark of the wild animal' that condemns those who have it? It doesn't appear to be a literal mark, but rather, it seems to refer to the support that people gives to these 'animalistic' worldly governments (patriotism?).

For more information, see the linked document, The Mark of the Beast.

Woman and Her Seed

One of the marvels of John's writings is that he ties the Bible's first prophecies and words into the Bible's last written books (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation). For example, the words that are written in Revelation the Twelfth Chapter about the 'woman' and her 'seed,' and the 'dragon' and his 'seed,' shows the thrilling conclusion to a Bible 'mystery (gr. mysterion),' which was anticipated for some 4,000 years prior to John's writing. In fact, at Romans 16:25 it is referred to as, 'the revelation of the mystery that has been kept quietly for the ages.'

The prophecy that the Revelation is explaining, is the first one found in the Bible. For, at Genesis 3:15, God said to the Snake (the Slanderer), 'I'll create hatred between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will watch for your head, and you will watch for his heel.'

Then, here in the Revelation, the four characters of Genesis 3:15 are identified. They are:

· The 'snake' (or dragon), who is the Slanderer

· The Slanderer's 'seed,' who are (in part) the Slanderer's messengers

· The 'woman' who gives birth to the seed, and appears to be God's faithful heavenly organization (the 'JeruSalem Above')

· The 'woman's seed' (which was 'born' when the Slanderer was thrown out of heaven), is God's entire Kingdom arrangement – Jesus and his 'chosen ones.'

For more information, see the linked document, The 'Seed' – God's Kingdom.

Women Not Allowed to Speak?

The words that start in the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:33 and run through verse 35 may well be spurious additions to the Bible, for they say: 'And as [is true] in all the congregations of Holy Ones; the women should remain silent in the congregation. They shouldn't be allowed to speak out. Rather (as the Law says), they should be submissive. And if they wish to know something, let them ask their husbands [when they get] home, for it's disgraceful for a woman to speak out in a congregation.'

The reasons why we question the authenticity of these words are because:

1. There is no such injunction in the Law of Moses. And it would simply be out of character for Paul, who went to such lengths to tell Christians that they were not under the Law, to quote the Law as something that they should obey, and then cite the Law as saying something that it doesn't say.

2. In the most ancient texts of this book, the words are not added in the same location, giving the impression that they were written as a later note.

3. The injunction flies in the face of God's use of women in outstanding and prominent positions, such as judges of IsraEl and as Prophets.

However, the words at Colossians 3:18 ('Wives; Always obey your husbands, since this is proper [for those who are] in the Lord') are in line with other scriptures, and appear to be authentic.

Won't Love Their Families

The Greek word that Paul used at 2 Timothy 3:3, which we have translated as, 'They won't love their families,' is astorge (pronounced ah/stor/gay). And this is one of only two places where you will find this term in the Scriptures. The prefix a, when starting a Greek word, often means without (a can also be used to add weight to the rest of the word), and storge means natural or family love.

How well Paul's words serve as a prophecy our times, when incest and other forms of child abuse have become so rampant.

Worshiping God in Spirit and Truth

What did Jesus mean when he told the Samaritan woman at the well (at John 4:24): 'For God is spirit, so those who worship Him must worship him in spirit and truth?'

To understand the meaning of what he was saying, it's best to look at the context. For, you will see that she had just said to him (in verse 20): 'Our ancestors worshiped here on this mountain, but you people say that JeruSalem is where people must worship.'

And Jesus then told her (verse 21), 'Believe me, woman; The time is coming when you won't worship the Father on this mountain or in JeruSalem!'

So what he was saying, was that the old form of worshiping God in designated places (such as at the Temple in JeruSalem) would soon end. And this was the setting for his words that followed (in verses 23, 24), where he said: 'The time is coming (and it's now), when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth… because the Father is searching for people like this to worship Him. For God is spirit, so those who worship Him must worship him in spirit and truth.'

Notice that in Greek, verse 24 reads: 'πνευμα ο θεος και τους προσκυνουντας αυτον εν πνευματι και αληθεια δει προσκυνειν,' or, 'breath is/the God and those worshiping him in breath and truth need him/worship.'

So, what did Jesus mean when he spoke of worshiping God in spirit (πνευμα pneuma – as in pneumonia)?

To arrive at the best meaning in this case, you have to think like ancient peoples who didn't have the benefit of our modern scientific discoveries; for to them, pneuma referred to the movement of air (as in wind or breath), which was a mysterious unseen power. And when Jesus spoke of God as being pneuma, he was simply saying that He is an unseen force. Then (in John 4), he went on to argue that since God is an unseen force, such tangible things as temples were no longer necessary, so God would thereafter be worshiped in unseen ways, without the need of tangible aids.

But, what about truth (as in spirit and truth)? Perhaps the best definition of what Jesus was saying can be found in his own words. For Jesus said (as recorded at John 17:17), 'Your Word is the truth.' And Paul wrote at Ephesians 6:17, 18, 'Also, accept the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, God's word.'

So from those scriptures, we see that truth is found in God's word (the Bible), and that it is the sword of God's Breath (or Spirit). And the conclusion that could be logically reached, is that Jesus was telling us that the present arrangement for worshiping God must be based on our personal relationship with Him and on an intense study of the Bible.

For more information, see the linked document What Is Truth?

Zeal

At Psalm 37:8 we read, 'Stop being angry and abandon your rage. Don't allow zeal to make you act wicked' (yes, we know, the word should be wickedly, but this is poetic license). However, those words could also be translated as, 'Do not allow jealously to cause you to act wickedly,' because the Greek word zelos can either be translated as zealous or as jealous, depending on the circumstances, for both words mean the same thing. Yet, the two words imply different things in English.

Zeal is usually thought of as something good… something that all Christians should have, as in zeal for God and righteousness. And jealously is thought of as something bad… as wanting something that belongs to someone else. Yet, God may be spoken of as being jealous over His Name and His position as God, so jealously isn't always a bad thing. And we can have zeal for things that are ours and we are proud of (which is not bad), and be jealous for things that belong to others (which is bad). So, the same Greek word (zelos) may be correctly translated as zeal in one place, and as jealously in another, depending on the context.

Then, is it proper for a man to be jealous of his wife, or for a wife to be jealous of her husband? No, we should never be jealous of each other, but rather, for each other. We shouldn't want what the other has, but we should have a burning zeal for each other. So, if one has good reason to worry about losing the love of the other, that is zeal. However, if such concern is baseless, that is wicked suspicion, not jealously.

Home Page