1,260 Days

You’ll find three similar periods mentioned in the Revelation, because 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, for there we read:

• Daniel 7:24, ‘And the ten horns are ten kings that will arise, and after them, another will arise that will overwhelm the previous kings and humble three of them. He will speak great words and mislead the Holy Ones of the Most High, and he will be allowed to change 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 period of completion. 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. Then it appears as though the second half of that period was realized in the year 66-C.E., when the Romans first attacked Jerusalem and then left (allowing Christians to flee the city,) until its final destruction in 70-C.E.

Of course, Daniel seemed to be speaking of our time, when the last great world empire would ‘change times and laws’ for 3-1/2 years. And the Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, so those words must also be fulfilled in our day.

Will we try to tell you what all of this means? No, we will 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.

2 Chronicles 36:21 (Contributed)

It seems 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,’ which is not found in the Hebrew text here.

Why is this small detail important? I find on that some people are trying to twist the Bible in order to find a compromise between it and secular chronology, but the secular chronology is far from being 100% true. They are trying to convince us that the land was actually desolated for 49/50 years and not for 70 years, yet this is in contradiction to the Bible. For Daniel 9:2 reads: ‘I DaniEl came to understand the number of the years from the words that Jehovah had given to the Prophet JeremJah, for there he prophesied that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years.’

The word ‘desolate’ in the phrase ‘Jerusalem would lie desolate,’ is translated from the Hebrew word horvot (plural), which means ‘in ruins.’ So Jerusalem was in a total state of ruin for seventy years.

Accepting a Repentant Sinner

Here in Second Corinthians, we read how the first recorded case of official congregational discipline of a member who was guilty of serious wrongdoing worked out. This had to do with a man in the congregation at Corinth, Greece who had taken his father’s wife as his own. As the result, Paul (at 1 Corinthians 5:11) told them to judge the matter and to remove the sinner from the congregation.

Now, in Second Corinthians we read a follow-up letter that was likely written just a few months later, which indicates there were some positive results. So Paul gave these recommendations (Second Corinthians 2:6): ‘The punishment that the majority of you gave this man was enough. Now, kindly forgive and comfort him so that he won’t somehow be swallowed by his deep sadness.’

Notice that:

· The punishment (gr. epitimia – on/value) that was given (and which was approved by Paul) only lasted a few months

· This action apparently wasn’t supported by the whole congregation – ‘the majority (gr. pleionon – more ones) of you reached’ – but no action was recommended against those who didn’t agree with the measures

· Paul was especially concerned about the individual and wanted him to be forgiven, comforted, and shown love.

The fact is, imperfect men tend to be harsh and unloving when dealing with others who they consider to have ‘broken the rules.’ However, Paul really believed in the type of love that he wrote about at 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (in his previous letter). So he recommended no further restrictions and he didn’t warn against any expressions of joy when the man was welcomed back into the congregation. Yet, the offense was particularly grievous and notorious.

No further mention is made of this matter thereafter by Paul. 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 over continued 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 certain humans 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 received His Breath and it adopted you as sons. And it is by this Breath that we call out, ‘Abba Father!’ So 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 must have some sort of visible manifestation. What might that be?

Since the ‘gifts of the Breath’ were prophesied to end, perhaps this manifestation could be seen in the form of extraordinary love. This was prophesied at 1 Corinthians 13: 8-11, which says, ‘However, the [gift of] prophesying will be done away with, the [gift of] speaking in [foreign] languages will stop, and the [gift of miraculous] knowledge will be done away with. Because, now we only have partial knowledge and we only prophesy partially. But when the perfect thing arrives, the partial thing will be done away with. When I was a baby, I used to talk like a baby, think like a baby, and reason like a baby. But, now that I’ve become a man, I’m finished with the things of babies.’

Of course, manifestations of God’s breath could also take the form of special abilities. As Ephesians 4:11 says, ‘Then he gave [the gifts]: Some are Apostles, some are prophets, some are messengers of the good news, and some are shepherds and teachers.’

So, adoption imparts the value of a spiritual life to the individual. 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.’ And suffering a violent death or being greatly persecuted for their faith was true of the Apostles, and many (if not all) the rest of the adopted sons from the First Century through the middle ages.

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 are all sons of God, because of your faith in the Anointed One, Jesus. All who were baptized into the Anointed One have put on the Anointed One.’

So, it appears as though ‘becoming one’ with Jesus occurs to all when they are baptised. 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 they are selected by God, their actual adoption comes upon the death of their fleshly bodies. Paul points this out at Romans 8:23, 24, ‘Even we who have the first fruit of [God’s] Breath; yes, we also groan inside ourselves while we anticipate being adopted as sons when the ransom payment frees our bodies. This is the hope that saves us.’

Age

The Greek word aionos is what the English word eon is derived from. It means an indefinite period. However, there is no exact English word to translate it. The best equivalents are age(s) or era(s). Please note that where the plural form of the word (ages) is used, it refers to a long time, at least multiple generations. However, where the singular form is used (age or era), this appears to mean a much shorter period, such as a lifetime, generation, or era. And where the term ages of ages is used (such as at Ephesians 3:21), which is usually said in reference to 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 Hebrew Scriptures. 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, ‘What will be the signs when you are near and this age will come to its conclusion?’

You can see that the word aionos obviously doesn’t mean forever, everlasting, or eternal in this case, nor did it mean world or system of things. It simply meant the age or the time before the end would come. And for them, that meant the age when the Temple at Jerusalem would be destroyed, because that’s what Jesus had just told them.

The word aionos (which we have translated as age here) is also translated as world (KJ) and as system of things (NW) in other Bibles. However, if the Apostles had meant any of those words, they would have used the Greek word cosmos, not aionos, for world or system of things.

The ancient Hebrews viewed everything (and rightly so) as having a beginning and an end. For that reason, you will only find three places in the Bible where words are used that imply no end and none that imply no beginning. An interesting possible insight on the reason for this can be found at Hebrews 1:10-12, which says:

‘Long ago, O Lord, You laid the foundation of the earth and Your hands made the heavens. They will destroy themselves, but You will remain. They will grow old just like clothes do. Then, as [You would do to] a robe, You will wrap them up and repair them like clothes. Yes, You are the One, and Your years will never run out.’

The problem with most Bible translations is that when they encounter the word aionos in all its different tenses, they interpret it according to accepted doctrine, not according to the way that Jesus and his disciples used it. So the common renderings forever, eternal, and everlasting are used even when the word is in its singular form (aioni, aiona, aionos, aionion, aionian, aionios, aioniou), and this totally distorts the meaning of the text.

Take for example, the scripture at John 5:24, where Jesus said, ‘I tell you the truth; the one who hears what I say and believes in the One that sent me will have life in this age. He won’t have to be judged, but has crossed over from death to life.’

Most Bibles translate Jesus as saying that those who believe in the One who sent him will have everlasting life (or the equivalent). However, the words that Jesus used there were, zoe aionos (life age – singular), not zoe aionion (life ages – plural).

Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of these words with his next statement, ‘He won’t have to be judged, but has crossed over from death to life.’

So, what Jesus was saying here, wasn’t that they would have everlasting life, but that they would (in their current life) be considered among the living, not among the dead (see Revelation 20:12). This doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t live forever; it’s just that Jesus wasn’t really saying that.

From consideration of the evidence found in the bulk of Jesus’ words about life, the conclusion might be logically reached that he never taught the hope of ‘life eternal,’ ‘everlasting life,’ or ‘immortality,’ in those specific words. However, the concept is still there. What he taught was that (unlike those whom God considers to be ‘dead’) living people will receive ‘life in the age,’ meaning, they will be considered worthy of life by God during their lifetimes.

Two words imply infinity in the Bible. One is the Greek word athanasia (undying), which is only found in two places, 1 Corinthians15:53, where it mentions resurrected ones as clothing themselves with immortality, and at 1 Timothy 6:16, where Paul speaks of Jesus as having received it. The other Greek word, aidios, which is found at Romans 1:20 and at Jude 6, is used to describe God’s Power and Might as eternal.

For more information, select the linked documents, The Hereafter and Does the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?

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. There is no record in the Bible of anyone ending prayers with amen, although it was likely said. And the fact that others who were present said amen at the end of prayers to show that they agree, is indicated by Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 14:6.

In addition, amen isn’t said in the Bible just at the end of a Prayer. Paul used the word frequently in his writings to affirm that what he was writing was, or would be, true. And that’s the literal meaning of amen as it is rendered here, ‘may it be.’

So, should Christians end their prayers with the word amen, or with the phrase, may it be? It really makes no difference. In fact, neither really has to be said for God to hear the prayer, or for Him to understand that it is concluded.

The problem with saying amen is that most people really don’t know what it means today. They think of it as just a word that you end prayers with. However, saying amen (or may it be) at the conclusion of a prayer indicates that the one praying assumes the things that were asked are as good as done – and he or she should also believe that.

In several places we have left the word amen unchanged, for example, at Revelation 3:14, where Jesus was referred to symbolically as ‘the Amen,’ or, he who ‘causes things to be’ (under the direction of God).

Ancient Time

The ancient Hebrews (as well as the early Christians) would have been shocked by the types of words we use today, especially when it comes to words that imply infinity. They viewed everything (and rightly so) as having a beginning and an end. For that reason, you don’t find many words in their writings that imply no beginning or end, although such words were available in Greek.

The word used at Revelation 3:14 and translated as ‘the earliest creation’ herein is arche (ar-kay). If you take a look at some of the words that are derived from arche in modern English, you get an idea of the true broad range of meanings of this ancient word, and none of theses meanings implies infinity. Examples include:

· Arch or arc: A high rounded peak

· Archangel: The highest angel

· Archbishop: The highest bishop

· Archeology: A study of ancient things or beginnings

· Archaic: Something that is old.

All these applications are similar to the many ways that the term is used in the Bible. So the opening words of both Genesis and the book of John, ‘En arche,’ mean ‘In an ancient time,’ or a time that had a beginning. And at Revelation 3:14, Jesus is referred to as ‘the earliest creation of God’ (gr. ‘he arche tes ktiseos tou Theou’ – or – ‘the ancient of the creation of the God’) which implies an early (not eternal) time.

Animal Sacrifices

Many religious teachers have tried to draw a line between Jehovah, who they refer to as the vengeful, warring ‘God of the Old Testament,’ and the ‘God of the New Testament,’ as represented by the loving, kind actions and words of Jesus. However, if you pay close attention to the details, you will 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 animal) suffering and death.

Notice that the first animal sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is the one offered by Adam’s second son Abel. And although he and his brother Cain both offered sacrifices, Abel’s was the one that God found to be satisfactory. Was this because God liked Abel better than He liked Cain? That doesn’t appear to be the case. Apparently, Abel’s sacrifice was more pleasing to God because he offered a living thing, which better represented the sacrifice that God Himself would make when He offered His son’s life for mankind.

Of interest though, are God’s kind instructions about how such sacrifices were to be offered. For example, to show that they were being offered to God, some type of Altar had to be constructed. What kind? Notice that God said (at Exodus 20:24) ‘You must make an Altar to Me from the dirt…’ So nothing fancy or expensive was required. Then notice what He said after that (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, the Altar was short and quite small, and made of wood and brass… because it was to be portable. So, the fires were kept small, and only animal fat and small organs, plus bread and wine, and tiny amounts of animal blood were offered there.

Then a ‘clean’ and ‘perfect’ animal was to be slaughtered, and the rest of its flesh was usually to be roasted or boiled nearby – except where it was a ‘whole burnt offering.’ ‘Clean’ of course, meant that it was to be an edible animal, such as a calf, sheep, pigeon, or dove. And what was to happen to the meat? It was to be eaten by those who offered it, and by the priests. In other words, this was just a community barbeque 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:

1. Because Christ has almost totally lost its meaning to most Bible readers today, and most have come to believe that ‘Christ’ was part of Jesus’ name. It wasn’t.

2. Because Christ is word that was made up by early Bible translators and is only used in that form when they think that the Bible was speaking of Jesus. In other places it is correctly translated as anointed.

If you look at the above verse in Greek, you’ll see that it reads, ‘Ho de bebaion hemas syn hymin eis Christon kai chrisas hemas Theos,’ or, ‘The of stabilizing us with you into Anointed and anointing us God.’

You will notice here that Christon (Christ or Anointed) and chrisas (anointed) are both derived from the same root word, which by the way, is Greek for olive oil. Why olive oil? Because, that substance was traditionally poured over the heads of those who God chose to be kings over 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 David and Solomon were Christs, for you can’t have it both ways.

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 over the earth’ (Revelation 5:10).

Also, notice what can be learned from a proper understanding of the Greek words by looking at Matthew 24:24. For 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.

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 had been ‘chosen’ to this office by God. And in Leviticus, when we read of the ‘anointed’ Priest, the reference seems to be to the one who had been chosen for the special office of what later became known as the High Priest, which gives credence to our translating Christos as Anointed One, rather than Christ, in the Christian Era Scripture (NT) portion of this Bible. 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 of ‘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.’

Antichrists

The answer to this question is so simple, although there has been much speculation about this in the past. As John said here (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 denial of Jesus amounted to an unforgivable sin against God’s Holy Breath, because it was God’s Breath that testified to just who Jesus was. So this was a very serious matter. In fact, it was so serious that John told Christians not to even talk to such people – to treat them as though they were dead – because, what they were saying truly condemned them.

Apostasy and Apostates

The Greek word apostasis (in its various conjugated forms) is used several times in the Ancient Scriptures of Israel (OT), and we find it used at 2 Chronicles 28:19, where we’ve rendered it as ‘turned away,’ because that’s what the term really means. It refers to a turning away from a righteous God-fearing way of life. For the Greek word (which we pronounce as apostasy in English) literally means ‘turn away from (apo)’ a ‘standing or state (stasis).’ So, it doesn’t refer to a disagreement over the way some doctrine is viewed.

Almost all Bible references to apostasy are speaking of a turning away from the way of Israelite life that is outlined in the Law. However, in the book of Job, the word apostate refers to being unfaithful to God, since Job lived before the Law.

There are just two places where this term (apostasy) is used in the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), at Acts 21:21 and at 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

At Acts 21:21 we find the only instance in the Bible where ‘Christians’ called another Christian (in this case, the Apostle Paul) an apostate. In view of what Jesus said at Matthew 5:22 and what was said about Jesus at Jude 9, calling anyone such a thing would be a very serious violation of Christian principles.

What led up to this outrageous accusation of apostasy against Paul? Since the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem and worship was still being conducted there, many Christian converts, while associating at Christian meetings, were also continuing in their traditional form of worship. And although there was nothing wrong with doing this, they were too closely tied to the Law of Moses (something that God had rejected) and a traditional Jewish way of life. This is why they became so opposed to Paul and his righteous ministry.

Notice that Paul was accused of ‘an apostasy against Moses.’ In other words, they were complaining that Paul had ‘turned back’ from living a life of following the Law of Moses… which he had, because that was no longer required of Christians.

However, as a part of being ‘everything to all people,’ Paul didn’t object or correct them; he meekly went to the Temple to perform meaningless acts that were still legal for Christians, so he wouldn’t set a trap for those with weak consciences. Unfortunately, this led to his being mobbed, arrested, and eventually sent to Rome to appear before Caesar.

The only other places in the Christian-Era Scriptures (NT) where the Greek word for apostasy is found, is where Jesus spoke of the Pharisees as giving their wives a ‘certificate of dismissal’ to divorce them (see Mark 10:4). The words which are translated certificate of dismissal, are biblion apostasiu, which literally mean ‘the little book of apostasy (or sending away).’

Ark or Chest?

What is an ark? Why, everyone knows of Noah’s ark… and of ‘the Ark of the Sacred Agreement… don’t they? Yes, most people do. But, just what is an ark? That is an ancient English word, the meaning of which has been long lost in history. It is translated from the Greek word kiboton (kee/boat/on). So, most people simply don’t grasp what it’s talking about today, and any concept that they might have of what it looked like may come from pictures in children’s storybooks that show a big 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 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; it had a roof, at least one window, and a door. It wasn’t 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.

Baal, Beel, and Bel

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 usually refer to the god of a people. However; although many think of Baal or Beel as 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 just referred to their god as just Baal (or Beel), they were referring to their particular lord or god of that city or land. Also, where a person’s name includes one of these terms (such as BelShazzar), it usually means that they were named after a local god (in this case, Shazzar).

Of course, having the title Baal or Beel in a name doesn’t necessarily imply that a person is a worshiper of a pagan god, for several faithful worshipers of Jehovah also had that title as part of their names. For example, the faithful Judge Gideon came to be known as JeroBaal (meaning ‘May Baal Defend Himself’) because of his action in cutting down an altar to Baal. Also, one of King Saul’s grandsons (through faithful JoNathan) was named MeriBaal (meaning ‘Opposer of Baal’); one of King David’s faithful warriors was named BaalJah (meaning ‘Lord Jehovah’); and David named one of his sons BaalJada (meaning ‘Lord Knows’).

By the way, Baal is pronounced Bah-ahl and Beel is pronounced beh-el, not Bayel or Beel.

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 this word has been translated as bless, blest, and blessing in other Bibles. So why rock the boat? Because these translators have simply found too many errors in many commonly accepted renderings. And here, for example, if eulogetos is properly translated as blessing each time (which carries the English nuance, ‘causing good things to happen’), then, how can humans ‘bless God?’ We do know that we can praise God, however.

Eulogetos is the word that we derive the English word eulogy from… that is, the kind words that are said of the deceased at a funeral. Such words are never said as a blessing (it’s a bit late for that); they are said in praise of the deceased individual. However, there are definitely places where eulogetos can’t be translated as praise or praising.

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. See the Notes in Matthew under the topic, ‘Blest or Happy?’

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 shocked many Christians, for it mentions a writing that is not considered to be part of the Bible canon, the Book of Enoch, which is considered to be an uninspired secular work. Yet, if it truly was written by Enoch, an early man of faith who was so loved that he was ‘transferred’ by God, then why would we consider it uninspired? And if it was a fake, then why would Jude have quoted from it?

If you read the Book of Enoch through (a copy can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe107.htm), you’ll see that it appears as though Jude’s otherwise unique description of the condition of the fallen messengers of God (as described in verse 6) is based on the information found in this book.

Although ancient copies of the Book of Enoch were thought to have been lost, more modern copies have been found in Ethiopia and in some Slavic countries, which have been translated into English (for more information, see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Jerusalem’s return from captivity in Babylon (c. 537-B.C.E.) that the Scribe Ezra didn’t include it among the Sacred Writings.

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 also indicate the forgery of these verses. Of course, that word could also be part of the 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. Also, the words (if those we have were written before the First Century) seem incredibly in line with the Bible books that were written thereafter.

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 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.

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. As was the case where Jesus and his Apostles were walking through wheat field and picking and eating grains along the way, so this was true of the ‘bread’ that Jesse gave his youngest son David to carry to his brothers in battle, which consisted of both roasted grain and loaves (1 Samuel 17:17).

So, the apparent meaning of Solomon’s words, are as we rendered them, ‘Scatter your [seeds] on the surface of the water, and after some time you will find them.’ And while the meaning may still not be apparent to many, realize that seeds which are scattered over dry ground are usually eaten by birds, so the practice was to do the planting after a hard rain or after irrigation. And the seeds were scattered on the top of the water to cause them to germinate and quickly root.

Of course, Solomon wasn’t really giving advice on planting, his words were in the form of a parable or illustration, and they implied that being liberal with the things one has would result in receiving liberally from others.

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.

The most common use of the word pneuma in the Bible is to imply an unseen force (such as breath or wind). And the problem with translating it as spirit or ghost is that many people have started believing that the unseen force that is called [God’s] Holy Breath herein, is another God-like person and part of a Divine ‘Trinity.’ This can’t be true, because the only scripture that can be used to support this theory (that is, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Breath are supposed to be ‘one’) is found at Matthew 28:19, which simply says that baptism should be done ‘in the name of’ (or, in recognition of) these three. All other scriptures that are used to prove the Trinity theory fail to mention the Holy Breath as part of that group. And the King James wording of 1 John 5:7 (which was used for years to attempt to prove the Trinity) is spurious (something that was added to the Bible). In fact, the reference to the Holy Breath at Matthew 28:19 may also be spurious, and if so, then there are no actual Bible references that mention God’s Holy Breath along with the Father and the Son.

So to prevent confusion, the Greek word pneuma is usually translated as breath here. The only exceptions would be 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, where the word implies a person's tendency (or spirit).

Another important use of the word pneuma is in the phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’ This phrase means more than just breathing, it refers to the entire mechanics of life itself. It’s the unseen force of life for all creature… 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 in this case, not to a person or to an unseen force. He was talking about that which comes from God and caused him to breathe… the Breath of Life.

It is interesting that at Genesis 6:4 God says, ‘I won’t allow them to keep My Breath (which allows them to flesh) throughout the [rest of] the age.’ In Greek that reads, ‘Ou me katameine to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutoiseis ton aiona, dia ai einai autous sarka.’

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 Adam. So it appears as though what He 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.

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 Bible critics have claimed the Gospel accounts weren’t written for more than a century after Jesus’ death, internal proofs, such as Matthew’s use of this city name, show that this Gospel account had to be written prior to the middle of the First Century.

Modern archeologists have found that the name of this city, which is located at the northern tip of ‘the Promised Land,’ was changed by the Romans about 50-C.E. from Caesarea Philippi, to Bañas (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.

Cain’s Wife

One of the most commonly asked Bible questions is; Where did Cain get his wife? Yet the answer is very 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 these two words (called and chosen) and their implications for the people involved. For, notice what Jesus said as recorded at Matthew 22:14, ‘Many are the called but few are the chosen (gr. polloi eisin gar cletoi, oligoi de eclectoi).’ And this verse could be possibly even be translated as ‘Many are the nominated but few are the elected.’

These words of Jesus seem to put an end to the notion that everyone who is called by God was foreordained to that position before his/her specific birth. Rather, what was determined is that there would be people in general (not specific individuals) who would be chosen. 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. There we are told, ‘Then they’ll 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’ to serve with Jesus.

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.’

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). Do as you can see, he was called but not chosen. Now, if we were to assume that this banquet is held in heaven, and since he was already there at the feast, we must ask: was he then kicked out of heaven… and if so, we would also have to ask, then why was he taken there to begin with?

Now, we do know that there are those who are taken to heaven to rule with Jesus, but they are likely the bride at the wedding feast, not the guests (see Revelation 17:7-9). For, notice what Paul said of himself at Philippians 3:11, ‘… so I can somehow be found worthy of the upward resurrection from the dead.’

What was Paul talking about here? It appears as though, when speaking of ‘the upward 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 am running toward the goal, the prize of the upward (gr. ano – upward or higher) calling from God through the Anointed One 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 suffering and death of mankind. Does this ‘suffering’ require a dying a martyr’s death? That seems to be the gist of the prophecy at Revelation 6:9-11, which says, ‘When he opened the fifth seal, I saw the lives of those who had been slaughtered because of the Word of God and because of the testimony that they gave, underneath the altar ... Then they were each given a white robe and they were told to take it easy just a little while longer, until the full number of their fellow slaves and brothers was filled (who were going to be killed, as they were).’

But, in the case of Jesus’ words found Matthew 22:14, (‘Many are called but few are chosen’), we would have to conclude that God calls many people from among mankind to become His faithful slaves and to thereafter attend the wedding banquet of the Lamb (whether in heaven or earth is not stated), but not all who are called are found worthy.

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. 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 may have noticed that we have started putting some of the letters in Bible names in capital letters. For example, we’ve started spelling such names as Jonathan as JoNathan, Isaiah as IsaiJah, and Eliezer as EliEzer. Why? Well, partly to help with the correct pronunciations of the names, and partly to show some translating consistency.

We all know that the common English pronunciation of Jonathan (for example), is Jon-uh-thun. But did you know that the first part of the name (Io in Greek, Ieho in Hebrew) refers to the name Jehovah, and the second part of the Name (Nathan) means Gift? So the name was originally pronounced Ye-hoh-nuh-thahn.

In the case of names that end with an iah, as in Isaiah, the last part of the name often includes the name of God. Isaiah, for example, means Salvation [of] Jehovah, and it was originally pronounced Ee-sai-Yah. So, why have we substituted a capital ‘J’ for the letters ‘ie’ in both of the above cases? Well, we recognize that there is an inconsistency here, because there was no letter ‘J’ in Hebrew or Greek alphabets. However, we have the choice of changing all names that start with ‘J’ (such as Jesus, John, Jonah, Joshua, Jeremiah, etc.) to start with the letters ‘Ie’, or for consistency, we can change all the ‘Ies’ into ‘Js’, which is what we have done.

Does this mean then that we are setting out a new rule for name spelling? Absolutely not, for centuries ago a Bible translator first established this rule when he spelled the name Eliou (Greek spelling, pronounced ay-lee-ou) and wrote it as EliJah, because this name is regarded as meaning ‘My God is Jehovah.’

Also notice that where a name ends with an iah, as in Jeremiah (Jehovah exalts), we have often spelled it iJah, because the i would typically be pronounced as a long e followed by a Y in Hebrew, and writing it without the i (as in JeremJah) misses this nuance. So we have rendered it JeremiJah, which is similar to the way it is often pronounced by modern-day Hebrew-speaking Jews, YeremiYah.

Another important word in names that we usually capitalize is ‘El’ (from the Hebrew Elohe, or God). So EliEzer (which people commonly pronounce Ee-lee-ay-zer and means God [has] Helped) should actually be pronounced Ehlee-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 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 letters ‘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 Greek-speaking Jews.

Chebar River

Just where was the Prophet Ezekiel when he received his many visions and words from God? He says that he was along the Chebar (pronounced kee-bar) River, in the land of Babylon, and many assume that he was living in Babylon along its Grand Canal (which could well 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. And although the kings of Babylon did deport and resettle 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 or dealing with him directly, which you would expect if they lived nearby.

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 Chebar, the Khabour, and many Bible scholars now accept this as the site of that relocation, and as the place where Ezekiel did his writing.